Flowers in the Attic (2014) Reviews

• Blond on Blonde

  wes-connors2014-01-28

  An idealized, idyllic and seemingly wealthy 1950s family of six is suddenly hit with great tragedy. Stripped of their material goods, the family must move into an isolated Gothic mansion. In Virginia, "Foxworth Hall" matriarch Ellen Burstyn (as Olivia) gives them a frosty welcome. She insists the "four beautiful children with blonde hair and porcelain skin" must live in the attic, because their ailing grandfather disapproves of their existence. Conniving mother Heather Graham (as Corrine Foxworth-Dollanganger) hopes to inherit her father's estate, but must keep her children a secret until the old man dies. Increasingly neglected in the attic, the eldest children struggle to care for the younger twins as skeletons fall out of the mansion's closets... Ending with awkward abruptness, this is the first in a series of "Lifetime" TV movies based on Virginia C. Andrews' popular stories. A previous feature film cut subplots involving incest from the story, but this version includes the incestuous feelings. The "taboo" subject was an important part of the original novel, but it doesn't translate well. When we first see two of the characters in question, they have clearly experienced the "body changing" developments latter referred to in the script. They talk about school and appear at a well-attended party (unlike the novel). Since sexual interest has begun, their attraction is more difficult to accept. In most school settings, the top physical condition of these two would not go unnoticed by most classmates... Attractively proportioned co-stars Kiernan Shipka (as Cathy) and Mason Dye (as Christopher) handle the leading roles better than expected. Still, when he gives her a cool "punk" hairstyle, we wonder who cuts and shaves Mr. Dye's always neatly trimmed hair. The young stars and director Deborah Chow excel in reaction shots. In the supporting roles, Ms. Graham and Ms. Burstyn are engaging. Graham's character is cast to the wind, unfortunately; to really impress, she needed a couple more scenes. Possibly at her own insistence, Burstyn's character is more fully realized; this actress brings something extra to the role and is more intuitive about the medium. The six producers had to be happy with art/set direction and Miroslaw Baszak's photography. ****** Flowers in the Attic (1/18/14) Deborah Chow ~ Kiernan Shipka, Mason Dye, Ellen Burstyn, Heather Graham

  More

• Good...But Could've Been Great

  dentlakesha2014-01-19

  My very first introduction to V.C. Andrews came when I was about 10 years old. My mother, usually very protective and conservative when it came to movies, actually let me watch a movie called "Flowers in the Attic." It was kind of an "I-think-you-can-handle-it; it'll-be-our-secret" moment. :-) I really liked it, and even though as an adult I think it's actually pretty tame, that movie retains, for me, an element of the taboo and outrageous. A few years after that I read the book and realized how sanitized it actually was. I was so excited to learn that there was going to be a 2014 remake of "FItA." However, I was a little nervous to learn that Lifetime was going to be the venue. After reading the book, I thought that the only TV station that could do it justice would be HBO, Showtime or Starz. So nonetheless, I excitedly awaited the premier of this on Lifetime, so much so that I waited until midnight to catch the replay (I was spending MLK weekend in a cabin with some girlfriends and a few guys that I couldn't convince to tune in for the 8pm showing!). After viewing it, I decided that it was neither better nor no worse than the 80s film. First of all, the Lifetime film was much closer to the novel, even down to small details like the picture of Hell in the room. Unlike the 80s film, in which the story took place in the present time (the 80s), the remake takes place in the correct time period, the 50s. This film succeeds in some places and fails in others. The good: Again, very close to the novel. The film is also beautifully shot with gorgeous 50s period costumes and dark, Gothic eerie-ness. Ellen Berstyn as "The Grandmother," Olivia, was good. What's funny is she actually portrayed a three-dimensional character, as opposed to Louise Fletcher's 80s portrayal, which was more one-dimensional, but, to me, MUCH more evil and fun to hate. BUT when Ellen's Grandmother got nasty, she got NASTY very well! When a grown woman threatens a little kid and makes a fist, that's pretty disturbing! The actor who portrayed Chris was also good, or at least better than the one who portrayed the character in the original. The neutral: The lead actress who played Cathy (Kiernan Shipka) portrayed her completely differently than the one that played her in the 80s film (Kristy Swanson). Instead of a sweet, quiet and occasionally angry girl, we get a very 21-st century, kind but sarcastic hard @$$. This could be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on your taste and/or how you interpreted the book. The bad: Heather Graham is a gorgeous, sexy and talented actress. However, I can't help but feel that most of her talent must lie in comedy. She looked beautiful in the costumes, but I didn't care for her acting in this at all. And, well, this movie was kind of boring. Despite the producers actually showing some of the more tawdry details of the novels, I still felt that Lifetime held back. To me this was the opportunity to capture the craziness of the novel, and it just failed. I did enjoy this, but it wasn't any better than the original film, unfortunately. It was just a slightly different version.

  More

• A truly faithful adaptation..

  Falconeer2014-01-19

  For those fans worried about the makers of this TV production not being faithful to the source material; this version is really wonderful. Featuring a beautiful, blond cast of talented actors, "Flowers in the Attic" makes the beloved Gothic novel come to life. With nice 1950's period detail, we follow the Dollanganger family to the sprawling Virginia mansion known as Foxworth Hall, a place filled with secrets and cruel deceptions. Four children will be hidden in an upstairs room by a selfish mother, determined to "win back her father's love," and thus inherit the vast Foxworth fortune. But you all know the story; this book series is such a big part of the childhood memories of so many people. This new adaptation has it all; beautiful sets, top rate actors turning in frighteningly believable performances, and an intelligent script that shows absolute respect to the novel from 1979. It is obvious that everyone involved actually cared about what they were doing, which is rare for television movies, that so often look rushed and sloppily thrown together, just to meet a deadline. In other words, this movie has a heart. Veteran actress Ellen Buryston surprisingly lends the Grandmother a bit of a human side here, which in turn makes Corrine even more of an evil character. Not to say that the Grandmother isn't still terrifying; Buryston just gives her more depth. Heather Graham, usually known more for her beauty than her acting abilities, gives a surprisingly good performance as Corrine Foxworth; sweet, charming, selfish, and cruel; all at the same time. And later in the story, when she shows her true colors, it is quite frightening. She plays a great bitch. Cathy and Chris likewise were perfectly cast by two very talented young people. Cathy especially is multi-layered here, and she allows us to sympathize with her, without her acting too sweet, or innocent; here she is a "real person," a girl that we can relate to. I can say that every major plot point of the novel was covered in this movie, except for one that I can remember; the passages in the novel where Chris lets Cory drink his blood, after the Grandmother has cut off their food supply, is sadly absent; sad because that is one of the most powerful images from the book, and shows just how much Chris loved his siblings. But every minute of it's short running time was used to maximum effect. At under 2 hours, we still get the feeling that the children are in that upstairs room for 2 years. And I have to say that this production has a gorgeous look to it as well. It must be mentioned too, that the controversial theme of incest is dealt with, and handled very tastefully; it is still shocking, but it never feels exploitative. I'm happy to say that this is a total success all around. If you are a fan of the novels, and haven't seen this movie version, i recommend that you give it a watch; I can't imagine anyone being disappointed with this one.

  More

• Where Have All The Flowers Gone?

  Noirdame792017-09-20

  . . . . . 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

• Generic, glossy, and bland

  Leofwine_draca2017-01-08

  FLOWERS IN THE ATTIC is an ill-advised reworking of the classic Virginia Andrews novel about a grandmother keeping her grand kids locked up in the attic and the trouble which ensues. The film was already made, memorably, back in 1987, so why the producers felt the need to do another generic version I have no idea. And I wish they hadn't: everything about this version of FLOWERS IN THE ATTIC screams play-it-safe predictability. The more shocking aspects of the novel are merely hinted at and what we get inside is a slick and glossy production with zero power. The only interesting performer here is the reliable Ellen Burstyn, tackling a horrid character with bravado, but the rest are terrible, particularly the young actors who are completely devoid of charisma. A sequel, PETALS ON THE WIND, followed.

  More