Seeds of Yesterday (2015)

I haven't reviewed the other three movies and almost didn't review this one, simply because there is no way to correctly deduce the expected outcome of a V.C. Andrews adaption. This is for two reasons: one being that the books are practically a genre unto themselves; and two because there have been no serious efforts made to properly adapt them into visual media that can fully encompass the batcrap crazy rabbit hole that is the writing of V.C. Andrews.I say this with full respect to V.C. Andrews - she is by far, the most unlikely but gifted writer of her generation. Her books were meant to be notional, dramatic, and horrifying. V.C. Andrews books were marketed as horror books before they became franchised as family dramas. People say V.C. Andrews books are trash - I say they've sold millions copies so judge away, as Flowers in the Attic still enthralls every generation after it's initial publication.Back to the review. Being that the Dollanganger Saga are all produced by Lifetime, it was a safe guess that they would get the evening news treatment. There is simply no way to accurately adapt one of V.C. Andrews' books without making it into a week-long miniseries. V.C. was a writer extremely and emotionally invested in her books to the point of self-imposed isolation and grieving after one of the characters died. For that, it's almost an insult that Lifetime would slap together a script so they could take advantage a series of books so notorious that Hollywood should have theoretically bought the filming rights decades ago.But because they didn't, fans of the books will have to take what they can get. In this case, a separate movie for each book; the plot condensed and organized so that the viewer can follow along without having to think too much; with some titillating scenes sprinkled with 50 Shades of Grey mimicry.That about sums up Seeds of Yesterday, as well as all the other movies. Yeah, I know, no book adaption will ever be the same as the book itself, but Seeds of Yesterday really deviated from the book (as if deviance even exists in the world of V.C. Andrews). The movie is well made, and the acting is competent for the most part. It's no secret that Jason Maslow stole the show, and has great chemistry with Sammi Hanratty. However, in the book Cindy and Bart hate each other, and Cindy only provoked Bart because she hated him. Well, he did try to kill her as a child so is it really logical that Cindy would grow up and want to have sex with Bart? Not really. Not unless you fetishize dangerous and self-destructive behavior. In the book, I was never given a reason to believe that there was sexual tension between Cindy and Bart. Bart was too obsessed with getting the upper hand on Jory and Cindy displayed behavior that I can only describe as Borderline Personality Disorder. I also say that with respect, as your mother dying at an extremely young age and having a psychotic older brother that rejects you your whole life and even tries to kill you WILL, without a doubt, give you issues. For those who have never read the books, you are probably wondering why incest didn't occur between Bart and Cindy in the books as the movie makes it look like a great idea considering Bart is both insane and his mother is married to her brother. I suspect that at the point of Seeds of Yesterday, V.C. Andrews got tired of writing about forbidden love vis-a-vis brother and sister; decided it played out enough with Cathy and Chris and so threw in the towel and called it a day. And that's okay! There's two entire books devoted to forbidden incest, did we really need another installment? Personally, I don't think so.Then there's the absence of Joel Foxworth, who was supposed come back from the grave after being found and nursed back to health by monks in the Italian Alps where he would then live for the next fifty or so years (give or take a decade). Seeds of Yesterday, movie version, is bereft of the batty old man shuffling about Foxworth Hall making snide, undercutting remarks and sabotaging Bart's happiness which almost makes one want to feel sorry for him. Joel Foxworth humanizes Bart in such a way that the movie lacks, and so it's a loss to the movie series.In conclusion, I am giving this movie a 7 out of 10; mostly because of the shameless butchering of the plot and what feels like a thinly transparent attempt to appeal to 50 Shades of Grey fans.

I thought even without Corinne's religious brother, Joel making a sudden appearance like he did in the book, the ending of the Dollanganger series was satisfactory. James Maslow made an excellent Bart Foxworth (Dollanganger was a funny name Cathy, Chris, Carrie and Cory's father found in the genealogy). Foxworth was the real last name of this family. James was creepy, attractive, and rather scary as the ultra-religious Bart who thinks his family is mired in sin and will all suffer from hell's torment. The other characters were great and I thought the newborn twins who were Deirdre and Darren Marquet (older brother Jory's children) were adorable! Sammy Hanratty as slutty younger adopted Cindy was great and she and James Maslow had a love/hate sexual relationship. The last scene with Cathy going up to the attic of the mansion and yellow flowers appearing was a fitting closure to this series!

The fourth (and, presumably, final) "Lifetime" TV-movie in the "Flowers in the Attic" (2014) series continues to focus on the children who took the spotlight in "If There Be Thorns" (2015). Blonde mom Rachael Carpani and doctor dad Jason Lewis and (as Cathy and Christopher "Chris" Dollanganger) return as the incestuous parents; they provide good-looking continuity and have more involvement in the storyline. However, they take a back seat to the story's newest entry in the crowded "shirtless hunk" character sweepstakes, handsome James Maslow (as Bartholomew "Bart" Foxworth). Here, he has restored the original Foxworth mansion, which burned to the ground in "Petals on the Wind" (2014). No slouch in the shirtless department, Anthony Konechny (as Jory Marquet) assumes the role as Mr. Maslow's brother...The family gathers at the mansion to sort out inheritances and have uncontrolled sex with each other..."Seeds of Yesterday" ups the arousing female quotient, which had dipped in the previous movie; however, there are no nipples. The new nymphomaniac in the mansion is sexually-charged Sammi Hanratty (as Cynthia "Cindy" Sheffield). The little blonde girl adopted in the previous story reveals her real worth, herein. Of course, she was meant to grow up and have sex with anyone willing, which she states is her insatiable "appetite." Also needing, as she says, "a man inside me," is ballet dancer Leah Gibson (as Melodie). Lead actor Maslow attracts every woman in the cast, even getting his mom on her knees for a suggestive scene. In between the sex, the story is lost and confused. Original author Virginia C. Andrews' characters seem only used to show various family members live simply to copulate with each other.**** Seeds of Yesterday (4/12/15) Shawn Ku ~ James Maslow, Anthony Konechny, Sammi Hanratty, Rachael Carpani

I am a long time fan of this book series and of V.C. Andrews. I have read and re-read the books dozens of times so needless to say, I know the Dollenganger/Foxworth story quite well. I watched this movie on Lifetime last night and while I enjoyed it for the most part, I did not enjoy the massive deviation from the original book story. For starters, anyone who has read these books knows that Foxworth Hall is the king of homes, the biggest and most elaborate structure in all of Virginia. In the beginning of the film, when Chris and Cathy pull up to Foxworth Hall, Cathy remarks how Bart had built an exact replica as the original. The home they use for the film seriously lacks the majesty that is Foxworth Hall. In fact, it looks no different than your average home in an upscale neighborhood, hardly befitting someone like Malcolm Foxworth. The Foxworth Hall from the books was imposing and frightening, standing alone on a high hill like a king over his subjects. One big problem I had with this movie was the complete omission of Joel Foxworth, Corrine's long-though dead brother. As those of you who have read the books know, Joel was a main character in Seeds of Yesterday and was also a significantly bad influence over Bart. I suppose if the filmmakers did not intend to make "Garden of Shadows" into a movie, I can understand the omission of Joel but it took a lot away from the story. The characters of Chris and Cathy lacked any real passion or intensity. In the books, Cathy was stronger, more fiery and more of a fighter. The Cathy in this movie was a passive pushover. Cathy and Chris' relationship is always defined as intense and very sexual. That did not come across in this movie at all. Bart and his adopted sister Cindy having sex and then later getting married? Definitely not from the book. Jory Marquet is descended from the Russian Ballet and was always described in the books as having jet black hair and blue eyes, very intense. The Jory from the movie did not fit the book character at all. Jory was much more fiery and passionate, in the movie, he was turned into a pathetic character who didn't stand up for himself at all. All in all, this was a good movie but I believe the books are always better than the films. This was no exception to that rule. I would recommend seeing the movie but I would also recommend reading the books first so that you have a more accurate understanding of the characters. The "Flowers in the Attic" series is best understood if you read from beginning to end. Otherwise, it won't make any sense to you.