Flowers in the Attic (2014)

I recommend everyone to read the book first and then you would understand why the movie is not too good... Many scenes are simplified and lack of great details that could be shown..also some of the parts are slightly changed, but it makes a big difference. When I was watching the movie it was ok, but it just did not have that something...I think that the movie could be longer to reflect the story more and the acting could be improved as well.

I first read the novel when i was in my early teens, and I've loved everything about the whole series ever since. The 1987 film always disappointed me, in casting and execution. I was pleased to see that the cast was much more how I imagined the characters as I read. However, the movie was awfully executed. The characters at times felt so scripted (when Chris confronted Cathy after kissing Bart, I cringed), and the whole thing felt rushed. At the point in the movie where I thought it had been a few weeks in the attic, Cathy hit us with two years. Small details were left out too. The swan bed was nothing as described, the doll house had 4 rooms even though it was supposed to be based on the grandmothers childhood mansion, the tar in Cathy's hair was supposed to come out, but leaving the hair weak, which I always thought was symbolic. The starvation period always felt like a huge crux of the book to me, but it was all but completely left out. Cathy's tantrums were overlooked, and she did ballet once. Was Chris even a doctor-to-be in the movie? I feel like an accurate and good quality film that stuck to the books would have to be two or three movies long. The book was divided into two parts, the movie should do the same, rather than skipping half of the plot and leaving major themes unexplored.

I read these books when and as they were released so it's definitely been a while. I loved the books and became a fan of most of V.C. Andrews books. I was so excited when I heard they were making the original movie but so disappointed when I saw it. Here again I was so EXCITED hoping that this time they would really capture the emotions that I felt reading the books. I won't go as far as saying it was a waste of my afternoon and I will watch Petals on the Wind just for the nostalgia but my expectations have been tempered quite a bit. I did enjoy Ellen Burstyn/Grandmother (always plays evil with eerie accuracy) ,Kiernan Shipka/Cathy, and Mason Dye/Christopher but other than that it was certainly nothing special. I read a review that said Heather Graham/Corrine seem bored and vacant. I actually didn't think she was anything more than a robotic distraction. The movie would have been better with her written out of it.

My wife who read the book many years ago was looking forward to this film adaptation. She informs me that the film was faithful to the book.As for me I probably not the target audience for this Lifetime Original Movie. Its mainly targeted at a female audience and despite the star casting of Ellen Burstyn, it has made for TV written all over it and the largely interior sets very much displays its low budget if glossy origins.The film is about a group of four children locked in an attic in the care of their stern and wicked grandmother while their glamorous mother (Heather Graham) tries to reconcile with her father and inherit his money. Over time the two older siblings embark on an incestuous relationship and discover that there mother has abandoned them and worse they are superfluous to her new life and they plan to escape.The film is plain, old fashioned, even a tad hammy. Burstyn imbues her character with some emotions and care towards her grandchildren but in the main she is a harridan. Graham starts of as the caring mother but over time she has entered her own glamorous world and you get the feeling she cares less about her kids.The younger children play their parts well, the older children did not convince. They did not look like kids locked up in an attic, malnourished, living in a troubled existence.