I absolutely loved this film.I don't normally enjoy sequels more but this is brilliant and better than the first. I have been a fan of the book series for many years and have read them several times, then by accident I came across the films. I watched the first one and was impressed when it did the book justice but I still felt there were parts that could have been portrayed better. But this film blew me away. I would watch it again and again. I felt it showed the book well and did miss much, obviously there are still part that have to be missed due to film not being able to be hours and hours long but the way they cut it to make it into a film I felt was great. The only part I was disappointed at was the beginning. The book continues from the previous where as the film started a little bit way through so you did miss little bits but if you haven't read the books you wouldn't know and if you have you would understand why they missed it out as it didn't really hold any importance.

This is the sequel to FLOWERS IN THE ATTIC, released earlier in 2014, so if you haven't watched that movie, don't watch this movie or read this review, because I may accidentally mention some spoilers from the first film. Ready? Begin.Set ten years after FLOWERS, Christopher, Cathy and Carrie are living a semi-normal life, after dealing with their guardian Paul Sheffield's death, when suddenly, several factors come into play and their lives are once again thrown into chaos, with Cathy going to New York on a whim for a chance to do ballet, Christopher getting in over his head with a girl and being a doctor, and Carrie getting mercilessly teased at school. By the end of this film, only two people are left sane and standing, but who will they be?This film is a step down from FLOWERS, in my opinion. Some positives first though: The acting is better than FLOWERS. The decision to recast Cathy and Christopher was the right one, in my opinion, as these people do a much better job than the ones from the previous film. Carrie is obviously better (she isn't a little girl anymore) and the new additions to the cast of characters (Nick Searcy, Whitney Hoy, and Will Kemp) all do fantastic jobs.Keeping with the first film, the cinematography and the way the film was shot works very well. The special effects (there aren't many) are done well, and a particular scene in the climax looks very well done, even if it doesn't seem as realistic as it should be.Now, here's the thing that really made this film a step down for me. The film feels like Lifetime took what was originally filmed as a mini-series and condensed it to 90 minutes (this isn't what actually happened). Why does it feel like this? Because there are a total of three major time jumps in the film. 10 years, 10 months and then 6 years. It's kind of ridiculous, because it feels like we're missing pieces of the story. Sure, we get some backstory through dialogue, but it's nothing like seeing the actual backstory.And the other problem for me is that some of the characters are vastly underused, and you can seemingly tell that they might have had bigger roles to play, but it was cut out of the actual film. In particular, Ellen Burstyn and Heather Graham appear mainly at the start and the end of the film. The middle of the film is sorely lacking with them.The biggest problem with the plot itself is that each of the children have their own stories. Here's my own little review on their stories (in the order that I enjoyed them):1) Cathy. Cathy's story involves her being noticed by her ballet teacher's son and going with him to New York to become apart of a stage production of Romeo and Juliet. I won't spoil how the story ends up, but I personally enjoyed this one. I mean, sure, I didn't buy the ballet teacher's son and her's relationship, but it was an interesting plot thread, and the way it ends up is just awful.2) Carrie. Carrie's story isn't as fleshed out as the other two children, which is sad, because it's one of the best in the film. The story revolves around bullying at school due to her carrying around a doll her mother gives her. Again, I won't spoil the story on this one, but it was handled fairly well, better than I expected. The way it ended up though, just awful. These kids don't catch a break!And finally... *sigh*....3) Christopher. His story is easily the worst in my opinion. During his studies in medical school, he meets a girl and starts becoming involved with her. I won't spoil how it ends up, but I found it to be one of the most tedious parts of the film. It's just so underwhelming and not drawn out enough. You can buy Chris and Cathy because they've had 2 movies to develop. Him and his girlfriend have not. Worst part of the film.Final Verdict: A interesting film, but a step down from the first. I'd watch it when bored as background noise. I am still, however, excited for the last two films. 5.8/10.

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...

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.