‘Flowers In The Attic’: Lifetime Reignites Creepy Sibling Romance

Sat, January 18, 2014 10:00pm EDT by 66 Comments
Flowers In The Attic
Courtesy of Lifetime

Leave a Reply

To comment, please fill in the fields below, enter your comment and select the Comment button.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

View Comment

ellesig

Posted at 3:23 PM on July 24, 2014  

Several things struck me as wrong in this movie. The biggest thing that spoilt it for me was Foxworth Hall. It just wasn’t grand enough and the attic just wasn’t dusty and dark enough. It was supposed to be huge but very musty and the children slowly decorated it with paper flowers to make their own garden. This was just lost in this movie. Also the room that they were kept in wasnt right. I desperately wanted to see the staircase in the closet leading up to the attic but it just wasn’t there. The twins were not scared enough of it either.The children themselves didnt look right. They were all supposed to have white blonde hair and be doll like. They weren’t. The children also didnt change appearance enough throughout this movie. It didnt really show that the twins didnt grow and they all got pale and sickly. The grandmother didnt wear a grey taffeta dress and Cathys hair wasn’t long and silky. These things may not seem important but if you have read the book you will know that they are very important! It didnt focus on Cathys dancing enough and neither on Chris’ medical knowledge. The twins were not nearly whiny enough and Cory was particulary cast badly in my opinion. The grandmother was spot on (Bar her clothes!). Heather Graham was not right for this part, she was far too wooden and the swan bed – Wrong wrong wrong!!!

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

blue

Posted at 6:02 PM on May 22, 2014  

i think the twins in the original flowers in the attic looked more cuter than in the remake. carey is more feisty and whiny than in this one & corey talks alittle less.heather graham as the mother didn’t really pull off her acting chops. i mean shes good at lying to the children and playing in denial well esp when she sees her children in the attic and when cathy gets angry b/c their grandfather dosen’t want to see them and how she acted like that didn’t happen with the gifts she gives them and everything is peachy keen-shes good at that but not as good as the original mother in the first. i belive that the grandmother in this one would show emotion to the children but b/c of her daughters sin. she can’t so instead of taking the childrens poster she ran before showing any tear.

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

blue

Posted at 5:46 PM on May 22, 2014  

i like both flowers in the attic. i like this one too b/c they show alittle into how far cathy and christopher went with kissing and sleeping to/g and showing in this version how they overstep their boundaries as brother and sister to lovers is than in the original. the women from the exeorcist did great as the grandmother, she is more mean and scary and would really beat the children if their mother didn’t step in before she changed. this is my fav remake.can’t wait to see petals in the wind.with its shocking juicy drama i so love.just wish that the brother and sister stayed the same in the sequel. i like the girl who is playing the older cathy i think they did good with that. i just think that the girl from madmen should be on this one and they could make her look older.

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Amber

Posted at 12:50 PM on May 2, 2014  

It was terrible especially the acting with the obvious exception of Ellen Burnstyn who provided somewhat of a distraction from the other very dull and boring actors. I agree with many other comments regarding the fact that “Cathy” was not a stunning temptress with “porcelain skin” like a “china doll”. How can viewers be captivated and interested in a disturbing sexual relationship if the actors aren’t super attractive?! Cathy is supposed to be a ballerina with a PERFECT beatiful body, long legs etc… As well, none of these characters appeared to be true blondes. A BIG mistake! Their roots were showing and Cathy had brown eyes! Not to mention her eyebrows look like giant caterpillars and don’t match her obvious and bad dye job! Its clear they all had some help in the hair colour department too… As well…. The little girl was NOT thin and couldn’t act at all. This was made more obvious when she fell to ground in many scenes…she was just too large for the part! I found myself losing interest repeatedly throughout the entire movie. I’m sure it’s not that hard to find true blonde attractive actors that can REALLY act and know the art. Who is hiring these people and why? It compromises the artistic value of the film / story / book and makes for a bad name for film done in Canada , once again! Get new capable people to hire good actors!!!

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Mim

Posted at 9:19 PM on February 21, 2014  

It was an okay adaptation. The best performance went to Ellen Burnstyn. But overall the acting was a bit dull and flat. And, the actress playing Cathy looked a bit plain to me; not like the stunning seductress described in the book.

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

paige

Posted at 5:15 PM on February 7, 2014  

The movie is 100% different than the book. You can’t fully understand the relationships properly if you haven’t read it. The movie left out a lot of the moments that made things change between them. Also, the movie did not make it a big fact that Cathy was a ballerina and how she became so in love with the dance. They will have a hard time doing Petals in the Wind without having shown how important ballet was to her in the attic.

I think that they did an alright job at the movie considering the amount of time that they had BUT they left out too many important parts.

As a HUGE VC Andrews fan, I think that it would have been more suited as a mini-series.

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Lynda

Posted at 5:28 PM on January 26, 2014  

Horrible horrible ending. I can’t believe I stayed awake this late for these wonderful actresses. I guess I never read the books in my youth. I kept waiting on someone to show up and rescue these children. Can’t believe Ellen and Heather agreed to star in this movie. Let alone that sweet little girl from “mad men”. Where was her agent or mom? Very unsettling. The acting was good. The storyline was horrible. Who poisons their children while the grandmother watches? That is one sick person that wrote this story.

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Suzanne

Posted at 9:50 PM on January 27, 2014  

Actually Flowers in the Attic was based on a true story that was told to V C Andrews when she was a child. You should read the books, it makes a huge difference in understanding what was going on, and yes you are right the movie was horrible.

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

OttoChick

Posted at 12:19 AM on January 26, 2014  

I agree with other commenters, in that the original movie characters looked more like their book descriptions (Cathy couldn’t have had super long hair at least? It’s shoulder length, barely styled, so when the grandmother forces her to cut it it’s like…well…why not?) and Foxworth Hall had much more presence. I thought the original mother and Cathy did better acting jobs, and the twins…you barely connected with them here. Where was Carrie’s bull-mouth and stubborn personality, and Cory’s sweetness? At least the movie tried to show that, the way he was courteous to the evil butler, even just before he dies, and in Carrie’s defiant scenes and grief. In this one they barely exist. I also thought the kids looked way too healthy when they walked out, and the incest came off as creepier when you don’t get the depth of the relationship between each other and how they truly parented the twins…here they just seem horny. I thought the grandmother was pretty great, though, I loved the parts where she laughs at them. Plus, I think Burstyn was just offering the version that the books present, if anyone read up to Garden of Shadows. The Grandmother did have buried feelings for them…and she DID give the plant in the book. That said, I don’t think either actress plays her as intimidating and oppressive as I imagined her when I read the book. Also, the lack of the green dress = SACRILEGE

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Anu jan

Posted at 6:12 AM on January 21, 2014  

Awwwwwwwwwwwwwesome Film and store……….. :)

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

TayT

Posted at 1:39 AM on January 21, 2014  

It was bad and parts were skipped like in the original one when the kids showed up at the wedding & when the mother died, they also could’ve had the cast look similar like Cory (the little boy) could’ve had curly hair like in the original, it was just horrible this one was only a hour the original was a little longer, I waited long for it to come out watching the previews everyday to be disappointed!

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Jade Ravenite

Posted at 7:56 AM on January 21, 2014  

Actually, this movie stayed closer to the books and the original movie was wrong.

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Waddya Waddya

Posted at 11:43 AM on January 22, 2014  

In the book the kids never saw their mom get married. In fact, the series continues and Corrine plays a role in the rest of the books. This version was pretty much identical to the book.

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Mel Rose

Posted at 9:50 PM on January 20, 2014  

I did not like it as much as the original. I love Heather Graham but not for this role Victoria Tennant was made for the part of the mom and Louse Fletcher was great as the mean grandmother. She has done some great movies over the years and I have enjoyed her a lot. I did not like the ending at all… I like the sitting on the edge of the seat kind of ending and them just walking out the door was very boring. The show in itself was ok I just thought the original was much better. Lastly yes the newer version is more like the book.

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Kesha Pri

Posted at 8:06 PM on January 20, 2014  

I’m a fan of the whole series I’ve read the book Over and Over I wish they had at least brought the original Corrine back as the mother no Offense the woman who played the grandmother and the mother both did not catch my attention in the movie I did like that the writers opened up the characters of chris and cathy more and gave us readers an insight on Bart. The guy who played Chris did a great job The way the ending was they left it open for a part to If so wipe the cast except the guy who played Chris bring back Victoria tennent as Corrine bring back the man who played bart and as for cathy somebody who catches the audience she did good but not all that Overall the movie was ok not a wow thing at all this is my opinion an also why the remake number one will always be the one!

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Kyra Hartzog

Posted at 12:38 PM on January 20, 2014  

The movie was ok i guess. It was more true to the book, but so much was left out. They will never do this story any justice unless it becomes a mini series or big screen movie. They did miss the mark with how beautiful the children actually were, except Chris. It is just way too much complexity to be told in two hours. Yes, the incest is uncomfortable, but you will only really understand.

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Kyra Hartzog

Posted at 12:41 PM on January 20, 2014  

You will understand it better if you read the book.

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Emma D'young

Posted at 8:54 AM on January 20, 2014  

I thought I’d be really unhappy with this remake but I wasn’t. They got many things right that the first movie didn’t. A lot of progress but they still didn’t ‘nail’ it.

I agree with everyone else – it should have been a 2 part mini-series if they couldn’t make it a feature film. Whoever wrote the screenplay has no idea how to portray complex relationships.

At the heart of it this story is about relationships, it is a very painful, heart-rending and ultimately shameful romance borne out of endless tragedy and abuse.

The film was desperately lacking a Chris/ Cathy montage showing him watching her dancing, them reading together, confiding in each other and parenting those twins together – you know – BONDING.

The way the movie went with the incest was creepy as hell – these two siblings who aren’t even that close suddenly being cool with full sex? Gross.

Chris was plenty good looking enough and I liked Graham as the mother too but Shipka is absolutely nowhere near beautiful enough to play Catherine.

Any actress who attempts to play such a complex role as Catherine Dollanganger needs to have the depth and maturity to carry that whole story.

Cathy was very poorly cast. Such a shame.

Oh – and that swan bed LOL. Hilarious. Hahahahahahaha – Oh, wait – joke’s on us. Hmm.

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

leapkate

Posted at 7:07 PM on January 20, 2014  

Everything you just said was exactly my reaction! Cathy was a horrible miscast, and I said the same thing about needing a montage scene that would better show Cathy & Chris drawing together not JUST because of lust, but because of love….And they softened the grandmother up way too much, she played it like she was resisting loving these children, which was a letdown.

Unlike other reviewers, though, I thought Heather Graham nailed it as Corinne.

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

sangdelamort

Posted at 3:21 AM on January 20, 2014  

Honestly this is tell hours of me yelling at the show pointing out the flaws from the get go to the ending I won’t get back… I was begging when Chris walked into his mom’s room the fabled well detailed swan bed would be right and it wasn’t…even Corrins dress at the Christmas party was wrong! Omg even the incest was told wrong!

With all this and the stiff bad acting they want to jump ten years on petal on the wind… have they read the books! I did with my mom and if you jump ten years your in the book of there be thorns for goodness sake! How are they going to explain the fact that Dr Paul took them in days after they left and years later married Cathy.. so many ppl would be dead at the end of ten years you’d have to do four hours of flash backs to explain what you miss!

Shame on lifetime fir the dishonor they have done to a wonderful book and one of the best writers in our time!

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Ashley Arthus

Posted at 12:11 AM on January 20, 2014  

Horrible horrible horrible thats all I can say! ! I spent two weeks posting on my timeline to tell everyone to watch this movie and was cussed out by people like me who’ve read the book and seen the original and those who hadn’t. Someone told me I ruined there night…..what a waste of a remake.

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Pamela

Posted at 3:26 AM on January 20, 2014  

I agree.

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

CorDale Dunlap Snell

Posted at 4:42 PM on May 26, 2014  

I thought it was horrible too. Lousie Fletcher should have been the grandmother and the incest scene did not have to be that intense. Hated the mother from the start and hated the ending.

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Livg

Posted at 11:21 PM on January 19, 2014  

The first movie had the atmosphere this one was lacking on so many levels. For one the incesst could have played out better and rape scene should have stayed in it is this scene that defines the theme of the book. Also heather was too dull and lifeless and too young. The first Corrien was better. The grandmother should have been more of a cruel religious nut job.the twins to me seems like extra their suffering wasnt conviening should have done the weeks of stravation

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Livg

Posted at 11:33 PM on January 19, 2014  

o yea the blood feeding scene was missing. Wasnt sure of the era I think the makeup and dressing was poor it was the 50s. The children didnt look like they were straving the first film did a better job. Also the ending was crap. Why when making a books into films they dont stay true to the source seriousily you want to make money then do it right. Also the pace of the movie was too fast it should have being a two part mini series like red rose. My rating 4 out of 10. Always plz the fans u will never go wrong

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Autumn

Posted at 11:14 PM on January 19, 2014  

This remake was horrible! I applaud Lifetime for sticking more true to the book in this one, but the actors were so flat, dull and monotone. They did not breathe life into the characters or story and Heather Graham…no, just no. The 1987 version had more life and you genuinely felt for the characters and Louise Fletcher was the best grandmother in my opinion. Lifetime should have left well enough alone. Also, Cathy was supposed to be shockingly beautiful and I just didn’t see that here. Sorry…

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Chantelle

Posted at 11:13 PM on January 19, 2014  

I lovéd it as à teen it was like a sick idea for a movie but the movie kept me wanting to see more there need to be a second part the actors was amazing omg best movie ever. They only had each other so I understand how they only could trust each other and love them too and the sick grandmother and mom was so nasty

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Flowerssucked

Posted at 10:53 PM on January 19, 2014  

This was so horrible. Heather Graham is the worst actress ever. I think the original movie was much better even if it wasn’t as true to the story. This movie wasn’t nearly as creepy feeling as the original and I did not feel invested in the characters. Lame.

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

anonymous

Posted at 10:40 PM on January 19, 2014  

discussing?? I think it’s discussing when a person does know how to spell DISGUSTING! Anyone who ever read the books knows what the story is about, so why is everyone acting so appalled?

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Dangerous Lee

Posted at 10:18 PM on January 19, 2014  

Reblogged this on Dangerous Lee News & Entertainment Network and commented:
The incest made watching #FITA very creepy.

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Stacey

Posted at 9:43 PM on January 19, 2014  

Bad acting, poor choice of actors, lacked any emotion. That about sums it up. The first one was much darker, although this version is closer to the book. I just don’t think they’ll ever capture the horror of the first one. And NO ONE will ever replace Louise Fletcher as the grandmother – pure evil and so scary. I hate to say it but Ellen Burnstyn was laughable and totally unbelievable.

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Anonymous

Posted at 10:26 PM on January 19, 2014  

I’ve never seen the original movie, but I agree with you on every point. Furthermore, how is it that this come to be on television: a niece screwing her uncle and then marring him, and then breeding to spawn inbreed children? And then there the romance between the sister and brother.

This movie is discussing, offensive, and just simply nasty.
I was gross out to the point where I had to bail on this movie forty minuets from the finish line.

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Suzanne

Posted at 3:01 AM on January 20, 2014  

To Anonymous who posted at 10:26 pm on January 19:
If you had ever read the book, you would know that the incest was a huge part of the story. I don’t understand how you can agree with a review if you have no reference.
Also, if you had ever read the book, you would not find it disgusting, the incest (at least between Cathy and Chris) was something that came about in a most understandable way. Not that I’m justifying incest, but I don’t know many pubescent teens locked together who wouldn’t experiment to some degree.
As for the movie itself, It is poorly made. Many of the more important details were left out, the actors don’t fit the characters, and some of the most important details were changed. I will be the first to admit that it is difficult to cram all that from the book into the movie, but some things were so big they should not have been changed. If they had made the movie properly they would have had 4 more books to go on to, like the Harry Potter, Twilight, Hunger Games, Lord of the Rings, and other series.
The part that really irritated me was the green velvet and chiffon gown Corrine was supposed to wear to the Christmas ball… They made it gold… It was such an integral part of the second book as well and they changed it!
I think Ellen Burstyn did an alright job with the Grandmother, and showed some of the emotional turmoil Olivia really went through, but the pace of the movie ruined her performance.

 
Share this comment at Share with Twitter