UNLIMITED STREAMING
WITH PRIME VIDEO
TRY 30-DAY TRIAL
Home > Drama >

Flowers in the Attic

Flowers in the Attic (2014)

January. 18,2014
|
6
|
PG-13
| Drama Thriller Mystery TV Movie

After the sudden death of their father, four children face cruel treatment from their ruthless grandmother.

...

Watch Trailer

Cast

Similar titles

Reviews

Alicia
2014/01/18

I love this movie so much

More
SpuffyWeb
2014/01/19

Sadly Over-hyped

More
Pluskylang
2014/01/20

Great Film overall

More
Rio Hayward
2014/01/21

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

More
Noirdame79
2014/01/22

. . . . . and when will they ever learn?That was what was going through my mind as I watched this attempt by Lifetime. Some have raved about it because it included more of the incestuous relationship between the two oldest siblings (toned down though it was for television) but that alone does NOT make it a better film. With one exception, the acting was atrocious. Heather Graham has given some decent performances over the years, but this was not one of them. She seemed to be sleepwalking through the entire movie. Kiernan Shipka was monotonous and irritating as Cathy (her voice-over included); Mason Dye was stiff, and there was no chemistry between Christopher and Cathy. Cory (Maxwell Kovach) and Carrie (Ava Telek) were pretty much non-entities in this version. Ellen Burstyn, fine actress that she is, gives a good performance but she was completely miscast as the grandmother. Not menacing, dominant or intimidating and far too sympathetic. It's hard to imagine the older kids being scared of her; the twins, maybe. CGI took the place of the family mansion, Foxworth Hall (doesn't anyone scout for locations anymore?), and the sets, frankly, looked like sets. The music was also nothing special. Worse, the movie feels extremely rushed; while it is mentioned that Cathy, Chris, Cory and Carrie were locked away for three years, no attempt was made to make them look sunlight-deprived or lacking for food. The bond between the two older siblings was downplayed, and their role as parenting the twins barely shown, making their closeness and growing romantic feelings for each other come out of nowhere. Cathy's love for dance is hardly mentioned, and they were not really locked away as they were in the book or the 1987 version. Corinne is such a blank slate and it's never explained why she left her kids there for so long. The attic seemed to have lost much of its significance as well.While the 1987 film is flawed, V.C. Andrews did have script approval and the intent of the director (who also penned the screenplay) was to be as close to the book as possible. Unfortunately, a negative reaction at test screening caused the studio to severely cut the film and add an ending that fans of the novel rightly despised. Even with those changes, it is still superior to the TV adaptation in terms of acting, chemistry, location, atmosphere and music. Louise Fletcher was terrifying as the grandmother, and Ellen Burstyn just wasn't, despite giving the best performance in the Lifetime presentation. The 1987 movie has a very haunting feeling that will stay with you after it is over (helped by Christopher Young's amazing score). Let's hope that the original director's cut will see the light of day and will hopefully obliterate this vapid, hollow Lifetime tripe from memory.

More
sophie
2014/01/23

I was very impressed with this film. I came across this film by accident as I was just checking the order of the next book after starting to re read the series again and thanks to google suggestions it came up so I had to google it further. Being a big fan of the books for many years and having read them several times, I was slightly concerned the film would not live up to the books and without fail there was parts that I though should have been added or that could have been portrayed better but none the less I was still impressed with the film. A few years ago I watched the other adaptation of the book and was very disappointed as it was shocking and did not do the book any justice. But in this version I felt the actors played the parts well and I felt just as addicted to this film as I do the books and would happily watch it again.

More
glennprice-86605
2014/01/24

If you watch the original, and compare both films, you will notice the 2nd film seems to have a cheaper budget, its rushed, acting is poor, and the film ambiance is not there.. its seems as though its rushed. the original has you feeling its real, a better story and more detail.. the new one is badly written, a lot of original story is missing, and the sets look like set, rather than the feeling you get from the original...the closeness to detail is missing which makes a story, the connection between bro and sister does not feel right, and if they are going to make a set, make it so its close to the original..when you watch both, i feel you will agree with me that the first film is much better.

More
Armand
2014/01/25

a decent adaptation. interesting performance of the lead actors. an OK Gothic atmosphere. but something missing. not very clear, few characters as sketches or stamps, an old recipes with new ingredients, Ellen Burstyn as pillar of story in precise role who explores many from her character sides, the film is almost an introduction to series. and it is not a bad fact. but the impression to discover a sketch, the feeling the story has not real roots, the incest theme presented in superficial manner, all does a fragile construction. sure, it is a good film. decent adaptation, remarkable young actors. but it could be better. that represents a certitude.

More