Petals on the Wind (2014) User Reviews (36)

Lacks flow but still watchable for a TV movie

[SnoopyStyle · 6/10 · 14 June 2014]

It's 1970 ten years after the attic. The siblings Cathy (Rose McIver), Christopher (Wyatt Nash), and Carrie Dollanganger (Bailey Buntain) escaped to a better life with Dr. Paul Sheffield. Corrine (Heather Graham) has married Bart Winslow (Dylan Bruce) who still doesn't know the existence of her children. Olivia Foxworth (Ellen Burstyn) is bedridden and is at the mercy of Corrine. Cathy and Christopher are still attracted to each other. Cathy is dancing ballet and runs to possessive abusive fellow dancer Julian Marquet (Will Kemp). Christopher has sweet Sarah Reeves (Whitney Hoy), the daughter of his mentor. Meanwhile Carrie is getting picked on at the private school and desperately wants parental guidance. Cathy has a son with Julian but he's killed in a car crash. Minister Alex Conroy (Ross Philips) proposes to Carrie but she has great doubts about herself. Carrie invites Corrine to her wedding but she rejects her. Carrie can't take it any more and eats a rat poison donut just like her twin brother. That's the bullet points for the first half.

As with most novel adaptation, it is difficult to boil everything down and come up with a flowing story. This TV movie feels abrupt and jarring. It hits on the bullet points and has very little connective tissue to tie everything together. The actors are very capable led by Rose McIver. She carries most of this well. Wyatt Nash is not as compelling and comes off as wooden. Heather Graham has a lessened role and Ellen Burstyn has even less to do. Burstyn is reduced to a few scenes in bed with heavy makeup. As a TV movie, it's reasonable but not that great.

Young, Restless and Related

[wes-connors · 5/10 · 23 July 2014]

In the January "Lifetime" TV Movie "Flowers in the Attic" (2014), three blonde siblings finally escaped from their attic prison in a Virginia mansion. They had been held there by fanatical grandmother Ellen Burstyn (as Olivia), who considered them "the Devil's spawn." The kid's self-absorbed mother Heather Graham (as Corrine) lent her blessings to the abduction. For this "Petals on the Wind" sequel story, the older actresses reprise their roles. However, the "Dollanganger" children have grown into Rose McIver (as Cathy), Wyatt Nash (as Christopher) and Bailey Buntain (as Carrie). Luck changed for the kids as they were quickly adopted by a wealthy man; they spent ten happy years in his custody. As you may recall, incest ran rampant in the Dollanganger family. Being trapped together while coming of age, the eldest two siblings became sexually intimate...

We're not sure what happened during the missing ten years, but the goal was clearly for the children to lead a normal, non-incestuous life. This leads to a major weakness in the story. After "falling in love" during the first movie, "Cathy" and "Chris" live together for ten years. What happened then doesn't seem to match the ensuing story, which involves the very attractive sister and brother fighting off their sexual attraction. They simply pick up at the maturity level from a decade earlier, as if no living had occurred in ten years. After we see Ms. McIver and Mr. Nash try to settle down with other partners, the story moves on to cover McIver's attempt to get even with her mother – for the sinful neglect and imprisonment committed in the first movie. These are the two main story lines in this second in a series of adaptations of Virginia C. Andrews' popular novels...

Out of the Attic, the characters move too quickly from one situation to the next. We know little about the ten year gap and are crammed with current events. While the original performers are missed, McIver and Nash are well-cast. Likewise attractive, young Miss Buntain is referred to as a "freak" by school-girls for looking weird and carrying a doll. In fact, she looks like a beautiful "girl woman" under model-worthy make-up and wigs. We don't see much of Ms. Burstyn and Ms. Graham is two dimensional. Those who appreciate the male physique will be delighted with Nash and two additional shirt-shedding hunks – amorous Dylan Bruce (as Bart Winslow) and aggressive Will Kemp (as Julian Marquet). Director Karen Moncrieff and her crew handle it all in the "soap opera" style. Perhaps "Lifetime" should return to "Peyton Place" – or somewhere close.

***** Petals on the Wind (5/26/14) Karen Moncrieff ~ Rose McIver, Wyatt Nash, Heather Graham, Dylan Bruce

These Petals Are Windblown

[Noirdame79 · 5/10 · 24 May 2018]

I was very disappointed with Lifetime's adaptation of "Flowers In The Attic" (2014) but I decided to give the first sequel they produced a try, hoping that it would get better. The answer? Yes and no. While Ellen Burstyn once again walks away with the Best Acting honors (despite her role being significantly smaller than in the first movie), the acting in "Petals" was generally better than in "Flowers"; even Heather Graham improved somewhat. The real problems with this Lifetime presentation are the rushed directorial pace, cheap budget, and the weak way the story has been adapted from the book. If you haven't read the novel, you will probably enjoy the film for what it is; a soap opera-like time waster. If you've read the books in the series, as I have, you will see how far it deviates from the source material.

Of course, there's no such thing as a completely faithful adaptation; time constraints and plot are often altered to make things move quickly or to create more drama. However, not only is the timeline off (reducing Paul Sheffield and his relationship to Cathy, Chris and Carrie to a backstory) but so many things have been added that simply did not happen in the book. Cathy's relationship with Julian (Will Kemp) as well as his mother and other ballet dancers in the company she joins is either watered down or left out completely. We don't understand why she becomes involved with Julian here, or why she puts up with his abusive behavior. Carrie's death is pushed ahead (when in fact, she pre-deceased Paul in the book) and there is very little character development as to the trials she faced at school or trying to live a normal life after being deprived of sunlight and food to the point where her growth was stunted.

A love interest was invented for Christopher, a young woman named Sarah (Whitney Hoy), who serves no purpose other than to lead to Cathy and Chris being "discovered" as to their forbidden love and desire for one another, and for them to move to another state where no one knows them. In the book, Cathy spends most of it not only consumed with revenge (which does play a part here) but also fighting her love for Chris (who tells her he will never love anyone but her) by becoming involved with Paul, Julian, and later her mother's husband, Bart Winslow (Dylan Bruce). The latter two men do have roles here, but the complex nature of their relationships to Cathy are not explored, no doubt due to the 90-minute running time. Which begs the question: why not make these adaptations of V.C. Andrews' book into a two-part miniseries for each installment? Maybe Lifetime just didn't have the budget, but these films could have been so much better.

The climax again, feels very rushed; atmosphere is also lacking. The confrontation between Cathy and Corrine contained none of the power that it had in the novel. I have to say, however, that Rose McIver and Wyatt Nash give better performances than Kiernan Shipka and Mason Dye, and it was nice to see Carrie (Bailey De Young) get more screen time and she did well with the little that she was given.

It's okay for what it is, just don't expect it to reflect the book.

Good acting, poor development and rushed.

[horrorfanaticgirl · 26 May 2014]

SPOILERS! There's little to say about the actors and actresses. I thought they all did a great job and were believable. Julian was marvelous and was exactly everything I imagined him to be from the book.

Why this fails is the lack of storyline. We are basically given scenes from the book but no story to tie them together. They left out the Dr. Sheffield storyline, thankfully as it grossed me out in the book and really served no purpose to the story of Cathy and Chris. Most of the plots are still there but because the story is rushed, there's no backing for us to even care. If I had watched this and never read any of the books, I would have been confused. For instance, Carrie's doll. It's shown as being important to her but doesn't really give an answer as why other than her mother gave it to her. The real reason was because the doll was apart of a set from the dollhouse, the other doll had belonged to Cory. It's the only thing left of Cory's existence and that is why it is so important to her.

There are too many gaps and story left out to make this good. It's the acting that held it by a thread. This would have made an awesome mini-series, to tell more of the story and dig deeper into each character. I would have loved to see Julian and Cathy's relationship in it's entirety. Carrie's sadness and loneliness, Chris' complex (and disgusting) love for Cathy.

Lifetime has green lighted other books from Andrews, I certainly hope they get it right with those.

'Petals' is a storm.

[cnycitylady · 7/10 · 29 May 2014]

Petals on the Wind is the second installment of Lifetime's V.C. Andrews Flowers in the Attic series. It picks up ten years after the kids escape from the dreaded Foxworth manor, and you see that they have grown into the Dresden Dolls that they were always meant to be, but they still cannot escape all that the attic turned them into or the storm that is brewing because of it.

The story is slightly altered and rearranged from the original narrative but the essence of the story, struggle and characters are all there in full. Cathy (Rose McIver) and Chris (Wyatt Nash) are grown with the careers they've always wanted, but are still trying to overcome their attraction to each other. They know it's wrong and you (the viewer) know it's wrong but we're all rooting for love to win out. The movie really pulls you in and you laugh and pout as the ensuing tale unravels. Ellen Burstyn once again shows the sympathetic side to the evil old woman and McIver does a fine job showing the resentment and passion that Cathy could not hide. (Nash was a bit unfeeling as Christopher, but he looked the part spectacularly)

This movie was not as well written or acted as the first installment but at this point you don't really care because you are already invested in what happens to these unfortunate kids. The twists, manipulations and corruptions throughout it are funny, shocking, sad and inevitable all at once. It's a fine sequel that does justice to the continuing tale. 7/10

Unlike Flowers in the Attic, Petals on the Wind is Nothing Like the Book

[kelly-jay91 · 3/10 · 24 April 2016]

I got my hands on these novels when I was in early high school. My mother had owned them and I found them in a box in the basement and devoured them. As an adult, of course this series is a lot creepier than I though it was then.

After watching the first in this series, Flowers in the Attic, and finding it to be not too far reaching from the original storyline, I had high hopes for the second, this installment, Petals on the Wind. Unfortunately, I was sorely disappointed.

The fact that it opens up to Dr. Paul Scheffield's funeral was enough to send me digging through my bookshelves to make sure that I wasn't remembering everything wrong. Sure enough, Paul was just as big a part of that book as I had remembered. Not only did he take the three siblings in, he nearly married Cathy! Removing him from the movie's storyline did it a great injustice.

Then there was the horrible job done of Cathy's career (in the books, she was going on world tours), Julian (they were married, he tried to destroy her feet, and after the accident - which Cathy was NOT in - he killed himself), Henny (she was mute!) Chris's turmoil (he was NEVER able to overcome Cathy - there was no Sarah in the books and that whole thing doesn't even fit with the story), Carrie's unhappiness (she was incredibly depressed during most of the book, and at the school, the girls left her bound, gagged, and blindfolded on a roof to die - she survived but broke her leg), and her death (Alex was not a minister to start with - Carrie had an ingrained fear of religion thanks to the grandmother), and Cathy's views of her mother (she did not try to reach out in love - she only wanted revenge in the books, and PLOTTED to steal her mother's husband). This wasn't just omitting parts of the story or changing little details to make a film watchable (think Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire). They had to completely rewrite entire chunks to make their botched adaptation work.

I have not watched If There Be Thorns or Seeds of Yesterday yet, though I will. Hopefully they fare better than this one.

It's an okay movie overall for a Lifetime.

Just don't go into Petals on the Wind thinking it will be anything like the original novel, or you'll be heavily disappointed.

real time drama

[panther2pup · 7/10 · 29 May 2014]

I've read this series several times and had my reservations that the film could be as riveting as the novels. And this being the second in the series further made me leery. But it was all for no reason.... all this film was intriguing from start to finish. Heather Grahams role is done so well and really brings a lot to the screen and her character. This is such a sad horrifying story that is sad and compelling as much as it is horrifying. It dares to bring what many feel are taboo or shocking subjects....child abuse.....incest.....romantic triangles....I loved this and am hoping for the third book to be made into a movie. Well done and highly recommended .

Hollow adaptation of Cult novel

[Falconeer · 4/10 · 1 June 2014]

This TV movie version of the beloved cult novel "Petals On the Wind" from Gothic romance author V.C. Andrews, mostly fails for several reasons. Of course it's biggest flaw is the tele-play adaptation. Somebody had the blind arrogance and stupidity to think they could improve on the source material, by making major alterations. Characters and incidents that are imperative to the story are sloppily chopped out of the script. At the same time, newly invented characters are introduced, pointlessly destroying the arc and the rhythm of the story. For instance, Christopher, who was so tortured by his love for his sister in the novel, suddenly finds time to embark on a shallow romance with a twangy speaking Southern airhead named Sara! Their relationship goes as far as the two becoming engaged. Apparently the writers failed to understand that Chris' unswerving devotion to Cathy, was the most tragically romantic aspect of this whole story. The sexy, and dangerous Russian ballet dancer, Julian is suddenly a whiny, un-intimidating Brit. Why? Why castrate one of the most potent and frightening characters in the book like this? I'm guessing the creators of this shallow soap opera were too lazy to do the research, or at least mimic a Russian accent. And remember how evil and terrifying Olivia was in the novel? Not here; now she is a strict, religious fanatic who still has the ability to show sadness and regret for her cruel treatment of the children in the attic. What the hell were they thinking?

Apparently the creators of this film had no idea about the dedicated cult following that these novels have. They are loved and remembered by millions of fans throughout the world. Sadly, the movie could have had the same effect, if they didn't tamper so unforgivably with the storyline. Admittadly I did like the movie a bit more the second time around. By that time my expectations were lowered enough to watch it without getting angry. It isn't a total waste, as the V.C. Andrews story still manages to shine through all the horrible alterations. At it's heart, we still have that sad, and doomed love that exists between Chris and Cathy. The actors for the most part, look as they are described in the novels. Ellen Burstyn is a fine actress, and the movie comes alive the few times she is on screen. But again, I can't figure out why she is playing the Grandmother with a sympathetic edge. And at least the movie does have a very pretty look to it, as well as some effective romantic music.

But it just isn't enough, for something like this. It's very sad, because with the right screen writer, this thing could have been EPIC. I mean, it's supposed to be an 8 hour production when you put all four movies together. I just wonder why they had to gut and slaughter the source material so much. The third book, "If There Be Thorns" is supposed to be realized into a film next...let's hope they don't try and tweak THAT story. to the creators of this series: Get it right next time..there are people out there that actually care, even if you don't...

Petals On The Wind Movie Was Awesome!!!

[tiffani-bella-wallace01 · 10/10 · 27 May 2014]

I absolutely loved the movie and I felt it flowed perfectly!!I watched Flowers in the attic then Petals on the wind and it was absolutely believable.I felt the actors did very well and I was very satisfied with the outcome,I can't wait for If there be thorns,I hope Rose McIver and Wyatt Nash return.I looked at young Cathy and grown up Cathy and they definitely acted the same.Wyatt Nash did a really good job portraying Christopher,he reminded me of young Chris.young Carrie and older Carrie did an excellent job as well.I'm glad they added Sarah in and her storyline with Chris,it was very believable and flowed perfectly.Overall I could watch this movie a million times and still would be amazed with it.

Heather Graham, not a bad choice after all...

[farishthas · 7/10 · 8 November 2014]

After watching LIfetime's attempt at the second novel to screen, it seems as if they are improving...

Since I read petals on the wind first, it is my favorite book of the series, mostly because Cathy is brilliant at her revenge plotting against her mother!

Unfortunately the movie doesn't pay enough homage to characters like Paul Sheffield but thats alright since we get to see Heather graham portray Corrine exquisitely! She has now proved to be the right choice to play this character, she was wicked and charming and nutty in all the right proportions!

Nash and McIver were wonderful, their creepy chemistry was enthralling to say the least. I didn't enjoy the addition of Sarah too much but it was a wonder to see the adoration and torture in the eyes of Christopher for his love of Cathy. Julion was disappointing but entertaining nonetheless. Carrie's character though short lived was done quite well even though her death didn't really tug at my emotional strings.

In conclusion I think that Nash, McIver and Graham were a delight and they are the main reason that I gave this movie a 7. I am intrigued to see how they will bring Jory and Bart's outlook to the screen in If There Be Thorns...

It's bad. Really bad.

[shannonlong636 · 1/10 · 28 July 2020]

There isn't a single thing about this pitiful excuse for a movie that I liked. The acting is so bad it's laughable. I grew up reading the books and was hoping it would at least be a decent adaptation but it's even worse than I could have imagined. Don't waste your time.

They rocked it

[momluvshilary · 10/10 · 29 May 2014]

Awesome. I expected a part 2 to not be as good as the first But it was just awesome. They almost could have made 2 movies out of it cuz it moved so quickly- but that's only cuz it made you want more when it was over. Great job by robin lippin Csa.I'm a huge Lizzie McGuire fan. Robin did an AWESOME JOB - the older Cathy looked so much like the younger - when she'd turn her head at times she looked just like the young Cathy in FITA. with a plot of this going on and on you could almost do a mini series or a series - generation after generation--- very well done. Heather graham did so good with that crazed look in her eyes-- the girl who played Carrie was just beautiful. All the actors did a wonderful job- I was just so impressed and I never review movies or put things online about a movie- I just loved it.

Shouting and screaming

[BandSAboutMovies · 6/10 · 25 June 2019]

Ten years after escaping from their mother, the surviving Dollanganger children - Cathy, Chris and Carrie - have tried to move on with their lives. But now, Cathy decides that enough is enough. She's finally ready to take her horrible revenge on her mother, vengeance that was only hinted upon in the first film.

After the death of the man who took them in, our three heroes have moved on with their lives. Meanwhile, their grandmother Olivia is now an invalid after a stroke while their mother Corinne has fully taken over Foxworth Hall, the site of their imprisonment.

Cathy (Rose McIver, The Lovely Bones) has become a ballet dancer while her brother Chris (Wyatt Nash, whose career started on the reality show Survivor) learns to be a doctor and her sister Carrie (Bailey De Young) is bullied in high school.

On the eve of Carrie leaving town to try her luck on Broadway with her new boyfriend Julian, she gives in to her passion for her brother. That's when it's revealed that they almost had a child that miscarried. She leaves in the hopes of a new life while her brother remains behind, unable to love anyone but her. That's bad news for the daughter of his boss at the hospital, Sarah Reeves, who falls in love with him.

Meanwhile, Julian is the rogue you probably figured he would be. He abuses her and even drops her at the try-out, breaking her leg and ruining her dreams of being on the Great White Way. That said, he does sabotage the girl who wins the lead by putting glass in her shoes and getting Cathy into a restaging of Romeo and Juliet. However, he starts getting touchy with her sister and an argument causes him to drive so badly that he wrecks and dies. Want to bet that Cathy is pregnant with either her brother or Julian's child?

That said, Carrie is still a mess. She falls in love with a minister named Alex, but when she meets her mother and invites her to the wedding, her refusal leads to suicide. Cathy finally enacts her plan - seduce her mother's husband Bart Winslow and then ruin her life. She also shows up to kiss her brother the day before his wedding, causing him to lose his new bride and his job as a doctor.

Chris decides that Cathy and her son Jory should come to California, where they will start a new life where no one knows them. But hey - why do that when you can go to a Christmas party and reveal to your evil mother that her husband's baby is growing inside you?

The ending of this - how do I even get into it? Corinna and Olivia get in a shouting match, which ends with the old woman revealing that she kept the skeleton of her grandson Cory. Everyone but Cornnine, Chris and Cathy dies in the ensuing inferno, leaving for California while their mother is institutionalized.

This one has everything you want - if what you want is crazy people acting crazy and shouting recriminations at one another.

Still an entertaining sequel!

[Sylviastel · 5/10 · 22 June 2014]

The first story in this Dollanganger series was disturbing enough especially the incestuous nature of the storyline. The children have escaped the attic at Foxworth Hall and survived with the help and kindness of Dr. Sheffield. At the beginning of the film, we see his funeral where Cathy had brought the audience up to date. Cathy and her brother Christopher still have a disturbing attachment to each other. The younger sister Carrie never recovered from losing her twin brother Cory. Cathy, Chris, and Carrie have not forgotten the attic nor their mother and grandmother. I have to say the best part of this film is Ellen Burstyn's performance. Even at the end, she is still worth watching. This series is a lot more faithful to the V.C. Andrews' Gothic novel series. It is shocking and disturbing especially the incest element. I'll miss Ellen Burstyn though as the grandmother.

it could be better

[Vincentiu · 26 December 2014]

it is the first impression. and the last. because, after the story from the first part, the expectations are not little. but the choice of director is far to be inspired or clear. the best solution seems be a kind of soap opera, few beautiful actors with a not too large chance to do more than decent work, with a sketch of revenge not real credible, with crumbs of stories and good intentions. and that is all. the result seems be an improvisation. not thriller, not drama. only a story without chances to give memories. confuse, unrealistic, a collection of crumbs who reminds another stories but only in delicate manner. it is not a bad film; only a disappointment for the public of the first part. because the story is interesting and the possibilities to use it many.

WE CAN'T BECOME OUR PARENTS

[nogodnomasters · 7/10 · 22 October 2018]

This is the Lifetime sequel to "Flowers in the Attic" which left me speechless. The film picks up a few years later. Our children managed to survive until Dr. Paul Sheffield adopted them. The incestuous siblings pick up where they left off. Cathy (Rose McIver) leaves for NY for ballet. Christopher (Wyatt Nash) is following his adopted father in the medical field and young Carrie (Bailey Buntain) has trouble adapting socially to high school and the world in general.

Christopher gets a girlfriend and plans to get married, while Cathy is pregnant with a child she claims is her ballet boy friend, but who knows. Mom (Heather Graham) makes it back into the film during the second half.

I was scratching my head at the disjointed script and soap opera type drama. Wyatt Nash reminded me of Casper Van Dien and not in a good way. The plot twisted in ways I was not prepared for, i.e. the character had not really been established, especially Cathy who ranged from sweet innocent to demonic devious. The sexual curiosity of Carrie was done awkwardly if not unintentionally comical. The bizarreness of the film, kept me watching, like a train wreak. Please don't make another one because I will watch it. I haven't read the books, but it has to be better.

Rated TV-14 for theme and implied sex. Several scenes of clothes being removed and passionate kissing. Rose McIver in bra.

Weak follow up to Flowers in the Attic

[Leofwine_draca · 3/10 · 10 January 2017]

PETALS ON THE WIND is the follow up to the glossy TV movie adaptation of the Virginia Andrews novel FLOWERS IN THE ATTIC and I'm sure it was shot at the same time as it shares most of the cast members and has exactly the same kind of glossy look and feel. Unfortunately, with Ellen Burstyn off screen for large parts of the running time, it's a weaker film than its predecessor, which really wasn't all that hot to begin with.

This story is set ten years after the events of the original and follows the lives of the siblings as they attempt to cope in the normal world. The focus of PETALS ON THE WIND is on relationship stuff, with copious screen time made up of depicting the siblings in their relationships with new partners and the struggles they face thanks to the psychological scarring they experienced in the first story. The acting is generally sub-par and unrealistic, no more so than Heather Graham whose increasingly shrill character has become more of a caricature. Burstyn is great but needed much more screen time, although the final scenes provide a fitting close to this two-part story. Inevitably, another sequel followed.

The Vidiot Reviews...

[capone666 · 6/10 · 11 September 2014]

Petals on the Wind

The best way to get revenge on a bad parent is to abuse them when they get senile.

However the siblings in this drama have chosen to attack much earlier.

A decade after their mother (Heather Graham) and grandmother (Ellen Burstyn) held them captive in the attic of Foxworth Hall, the surviving Dollanganger children: Cathy (Rose McIver), Chris (Wyatt Nash) and Carrie (Bailey Buntain), mourn the death of their adopted father.

With a forbidden fire still burning for each other, Chris and Cathy unwillingly take-on unrelated lovers as they pursue careers in medicine and ballet, respectively.

But a failed encounter with their estranged mother sets off a scheme to spoil her and her new husband's life.

Based on the sequel to Flowers in the Attic, this latest installment in the Dollanganger series is as tawdry, melodramatic and campy as its predecessor.

Furthermore, the best revenge an incestuous couple can get on their mother is having her baby-sit her two-headed grandchild.

Yellow Light

vidiotreviews.blogspot.ca

Very Dissatisfied

[petunia-fartblossom · 1/10 · 28 May 2014]

I was so excited to watch Petals On The Wind because I loved the book. For Flowers In The Attic, they made a good movie. Sure some details were skipped. Though in this one to miss the whole beginning of the book and one of the main men, who was very important, just dismissed? I mean sure skimp a little, but don't make something that ruins the memory of it. I have never been so disappointed in a movie in my entire life. Honestly if you make a movie based on a book, perhaps reading the book, even just skimming the pages would be a good idea. I hope they don't ruin the rest of the series this way. I believe V.C. Andrews would have made sure a book she wrote would have at least had a decent movie made out of it. For a movie this long at least have it related to the book. Based On The Novel used to mean something.

Well Done Considering the Content of the Book

[Crazynat34 · 9/10 · 27 May 2014]

When we were young women hiding our VCA books and only daring to read by night light when everyone had gone to bed, never at that time by any stretch of the imagination could it be a conceivable idea to actually transfer those story lines to film.

Considering the sheer amount of content in Petals it was incredible they were able to piece so much of it into the 2 hour slot. Unfortunately, they left out some important "gasp" moments from the book such as the miscarriage. I also felt they did a good job with the nature of the content considering it is a made for TV movie.

Overall, the writers and director did a great job for what they had to work with. It was a great way to bring the genius of Andrews to an audience that hasn't read her books. If the the book enthusiast are looking for an exact account then you should know from the beginning there is no way to make a movie that captures what the book draws from the imagination. After all most people are much more comfortable reading story's like the Dollanganger Series in the privacy of their own minds.

A good film overall

[claire_harley24 · 7/10 · 18 April 2016]

A good film overall.

It generally follows the book but in a different order. It should have followed more closely because the film missed out on vital things, like what happened when they left, how they met the doctor and the relationship between Cathy and Paul. Their first few years at the family home with doctor Paul and how Cathy came to dance and actually meet Julian. Also where Cathy is in New York that was 5 ish years too late, as that happened a lot younger in the book. Carries incident in school where she's locked in the room happened when Carrie was around 9 where she was then removed from school. The film doesn't really explain what happens with Julian and why Jory is called that.

I liked the fact that they showed Corine in her house trying to hide the attic and the grandmother telling everyone about the poisoning of Cory in the first film/book.

Overall a good film but it was spoilt by the fact I've just finished the book and it wasn't directly following the book.

Not worth the two hours of your time.

[melissa-lawrenson · 1/10 · 28 May 2014]

This was absolutely awful. I guess it may pass if you haven't read the books but I would assume it would be rather hard to follow considering how choppy the movie was. They attempted to fit too much into much too little time. It should've been split into two separate movies. Everything was wrong, small and large.

Let's start with the fact that they took away EVERYTHING involving Paul. The opening scene is his funeral and the timeline is all off. The movie seems confusing because Cathy seems to run away with a guy she has met once and then proceeds to let him abuse her, in the book she knows him for YEARS and he repeatedly tries to court her and then she runs away with him and marries him because she believes Paul has deceived her. Also, she DOES become a big dancer and thats part of why she is so hesitant to leave! She believes she will ruin her career that she has worked so hard to build. And I feel I should mention that while Julian is a good portrayal of cruelty in the movie, he never once apologizes to her and attempts to rectify it as he does in the movie. He eventually purposefully stomps on her toes breaking them to ruin her career, he does die as in the movie although she is not with and he dies later at the hospital after she tells him of the baby and he kills himself. Cathy's whole plot against her mother is accurate but she does love Bart, they play it out like it was just a ruse but she did fall for him.

Carrie's storyline is similar to the book so I will give them that, she is abused by the girls at school and teased for her size although it is not right. Also she does hook up with Julian but this is found out right before her death and Chris never knew, and that whole fight scene was made for the movie. She does kill herself due to her mother denying her and the donuts were accurate although she is not dead when they find her, they take her to the hospital although she does not pull through.

Christopher's entire thing was wrong. He did propose to Sarah. He never even dates any girl seriously because he can't get find anyone because he always wants Cathy. And no one ever knows about Christopher and Cathy except Julian suspects.

The last point I will make is that Corinne was portrayed poorly. She does not purposefully kill her mother and she does not renovate Foxworth Hall. She actually had been following her children's lives. Cathy was a famous dancer and Corinne quite frequently went to her shows. And the grandmother did not feel remorse as they showed in both Flowers and Petals. The whole thing with Cory's body was eerie but no where near accurate.

I can't even go on, the point is the movie was horrible, I loved the books and frankly the movie just didn't deliver. The movie could have been well executed but even the moments that were good were vastly overshadowed by the inaccuracies and the really big "wow" moments didn't have as much impact due to being rushed.

Cathy Strikes Back!

[dhainline1 · 8/10 · 6 April 2015]

In this sequel to "Flowers in the Attic" Cathy gets her revenge against her evil mother and grandmother. I just remember the actress who was Cathy was named Rose and I don't really remember the last name all that well! Cathy wants to have a normal life and she wants that for her older brother Chris and younger sister Carrie, but the horrible life she had at Foxworth Hall has her in its grip! Chris wants to move on with medical school and dating Sarah, the daughter of his instructor but he still has less than pure feelings for Cathy. Unfortunately for Sarah, he acts on those feelings and the relationship and potential marriage go to hell! Carrie, the sister who suffered the loss of her twin brother, Cory suffers in another way: she has not grown very tall, carries a doll around, and is teased mercilessly by the snobby girls at the boarding school she attends. Cathy is also abused by Julian, the son of her ballet instructor. She stays with him because she thinks he can make her a big star and the fact that she is carrying his unborn son is another factor. He dies later in a car crash. Into all of this, Corinne comes back as Bart Winslow's wife. Bart wants to have kids with her, but Corinne can never have children. Heather Graham brings her A-game with Corinne's selfishness and shallowness. Corinne hates caring for the scary grandmother of the kids who has had a stroke and is basically helpless. Ellen Burstyn is great as the grandmother who despite the stroke knows the evil things Corinne has done to her children and she keeps reminding her daughter of the fact. Corinne's evil and greed makes her deny poor Carrie and this drives the girl to eat arsenic laced donuts in the same way Cory did. This kills Carrie and Cathy has her revenge at last! She has an affair with Bart Winslow and conceives his child. She almost assaults the grandmother and comes out at Bart and Corinne's Christmas Party to tell the guests what Corinne did to her kids. The grandmother is of no help to her daughter and in the bedroom, she shows Corinne the trunk with little Cory's rotting corpse inside. This drives Corinne out of her tree and she thinks Chris her son is her husband. She sets fire to the house, killing her mother and Bart. At the end of the movie, the family of Chris and Cathy which includes 2 sons is now living in California under the name Dollanganger. The neighbors think they are so perfect and Corinne is locked up an insane asylum. This movie like the book is a guilty pleasure and all the characters were very good!

Petals Fly-Petals in the Wind **1/2

[edwagreen · 6/10 · 15 June 2014]

This is so morbid. It is so depressing. After the prequel, "Flowers in the Attic," the author should have stopped there.

Everything is depicted as being so negative here. Lust, incestuous relationship between brother and daughter, cruelty abounds and one tragic sequence after another. Even at the end, when things look like they have resolved themselves, one begins to wonder what else is new.

After all, we have witnessed a brother and sister in love, the youngest sister taunted by classmates and locked in a closet. Anyone notice how quickly that issue was resolved? The latter about to marry a minister but finding rejection once again by her mother commits suicide. This drives the oldest sister to plot revenge by getting involved with the mother's new husband and becoming pregnant from him. If that isn't enough, the oldest daughter enters into an abusive relationship with a ballet dancer who also went after the younger sister.

Not missing are illegitimate children. Where is the morality in this wayward writing?

Lifetime. Enough Said.

[twelve-house-books · 1/10 · 14 September 2018]

This could have been great. But Lifetime directed it. So, it was a soap opera.

0/10 stars