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.

Having seen the original movie, I was curious to see how a newer remake would turn out. To say I am disappointed would be an understatement. Absolutely appalling acting all round but primarily from Heather Graham and Kiernan Shipka, although I do wonder how much of this is due to the horrendous script and questionable direction, having seen the leading characters in previous movies (and excelling, so far as acting ability is concerned). Watching the almost pantomime nature of the range of emotions on display is somewhat akin to nails on a chalk board. On the plus side, the movie does TRY to follow the novel more closely than the original movie, delving slightly further into the more taboo subjects. Overall I wasn't impressed. It has a couple of saving graces but few and far between.

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.

I believe I have seen the original Flowers In The Attic film but its been years! Its been even longer since I read the book. However, I know the story well and it is truly a brilliant and gripping story with underlying tones of incest, abuse and religious fanaticism. I think the story is due for a re-telling and under the right direction and writing should be a stone cold success. Lifetime decided they could do it and you know I won't lie...the film is watchable. Somehow I found it gripping enough to stay with it and I didn't hate it. Some reviewers have called it "watered down" and I think that's a huge understatement. It is very watered down and still covers some very taboo areas but the performances, nearly all of them, are so cheesy and "Little Theater"-esque that its hard to say the film "good" necessarily. I think its just the original story that makes this so watchable. VC Andrews was a brilliant writer and its easy to become enamoured with her stories. The film goes from a story about children being held captive to a Blue Lagoon type romance between brother and sister that is simply hard to believe or accept. This rendition of the story is full of holes that make little sense and they do nothing to paint over.I will start with Heather Graham who I have always been sort of indifferent towards. She is a decent actress that I've never really liked nor disliked. Honestly, she's sort of awful in this. She seems ridiculous and delivers her lines with such excruciating blandness that she literally is laughable in a very dark, serious film. Not to be outdone, I'm afraid to say the older children are not much better. Kiernan Shipka and Mason Dye have some good scenes (and believe me it gets awkward) but they just seem so stiff and cheesy in their line delivery. I don't suppose its a great script but they don't do anything with it that's for certain. The only thing I can say is that they're campy performances make the entire film seem even more awkward which actually works in the favour of making this more watchable. Odd but true. Ava Telek and Maxwell Kovach are actually pretty good in small roles as the younger siblings. Thankfully they always manage to keep them out of the more awkward and abusive scenes. Ellen Burstyn should really be the saving grace to this film. She is a legend and I will say she easily gives the best performance but that isn't saying much amongst this cast. I actually found they underused Burstyn in a lot of ways but she definitely gives an edge to the role but I still think it could have been more.There is so much content here to this story and I think Lifetime spent FAR too much time focusing on the incestuous relationship between Chris and Cathy. I know they were purposely trying to be shocking and water cooler type viewing but it stumbles and misses the mark with so many other great things in this story. The musical score for the film is really good, haunting and noticeable and drives the story forward. The redeeming qualities of this film are not unnoticed. Towards the end there is a lot of emotion, the campier performances get slightly better and some of that original story that rips your heart out is certainly present. At times I thought this would be a total laughable write off and then I would find myself being shocked and on the edge of my seat. Somehow, they pull it off but the missed potential should not go unmentioned. I think its good they got a woman director, Deborah Chow, but someone with more experience would have helmed a much better film. There are a lot of unanswered plot holes, and things they rush over far too quickly but it is what it is and this is what we have. I'm actually anxious to go back and watch the original film now. And to prove this wasn't a total write off...for some unknown reason I was pleased to hear Lifetime was doing the sequel film in a month or so. Maybe this film will find a place in cult history after all. 7/10