Comwayon A Disappointing Continuation

AnhartLinkin This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

Humaira Grant It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

Kimball Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

tcthedj-25461 Poorly acted piece of garbage! Don't waste your time!

Austin S. Russell (arussell23) In lieu of the upcoming conclusion to the Dollanganger series, I decided to revisit the first two films in this lovely series. Keep in mind that I have not read the books, nor do I plan to in the immediate future. Ready? Begin.FLOWERS IN THE ATTIC, the first film in the series, follows four siblings and their mother as they are forced to stay with their evil grandmother after the death of their father. Once they get to Foxworth Hall, they soon realize all is not as it appeared, for once they get there, they are locked up in the attic, and that's when the film gets good.Let me say right off the bat, I knew going in that there would be incestous elements to the story. That didn't bother me that much, because I'm not as grossed out by the weird stuff as some people are (and believe me, those people would HATE this movie). I think the film did it well, to be honest. It was done in a way that it didn't overshadow the movie, and it was somewhat tasteful.The best performance definitely came from Ellen Burstyn, and there is no question that she did a fantastic job as the evil grandmother. I won't spoil it, but her performance during a climatic scene is very well done. The other performances are pretty good as well, Heather Graham does a good job as Corrine, the mother who does some pretty nasty stuff while they're at the home.The kids do good as well, but the standouts are definitely the characters of Christopher and Cathy, played by Mason Dye and Kiernan Shipka. They both own their roles and really try their best to sell you on the fact that they are two siblings that suddenly have romantic attraction to each other.I loved the atmosphere of the film and it was shot very beautifully. It's a great looking film, one I would love to see on something like Blu-Ray. However, every rose has it's thorn, and there are a few things I didn't like in this movie.For one thing, the plot didn't really make sense at times. I won't spoil it, but something is revealed about why Corrine went there in the first place, and one of the key players in that dies, and the kids don't know about it. Now, don't get me wrong, it's plausible that they could stay in the attic, but wouldn't people hear their footsteps?Other than that, and some minor inconsistencies and dialogue screw- ups, the film was pretty decent, especially for a Lifetime movie. I'd watch it again, if I was bored on a weekend. 7/10.

dhainline1 I was looking forward to this "Flowers in the Attic" movie as one that would follow the book to the letter with the incest and scary grandmother. It did with the incest, but Ellen Burstyn could never be mistaken for the tall, rawboned, threatening grandmother from the book! Louise Fletcher was born to play the Grandmother! In the book, Cory and Carrie, the small twins were terrified of the grandmother. They would never have gone up to her like this movie's version of Cory and Carrie! As for Cathy, I thought Kiernan Shipka brought a vulnerable strength to Cathy and like the Cathy in the book, she was smart, stubborn, and in regards to Corinne, her mother could smell a rat.

elisabethschreibmann As I just finished the book I just had to watch the film, which was to my disappointment. Here is why:It was way too short, especially the development of the relationship between Cathy and Chris, as well as the growing distance between the children and their mother. Very important details were missing for example, the movie didn't portray the attachment of Corrie and Carrie to each other, the grandmother wasn't as evil as in the books, etc. I also feel like there were many mistakes in the movie that made it less realistic, e.g. Cathys hair didn't grow after the cut as well as Chris' hair, which seemed always as if he just went to the hairdresser and generally, you couldn't tell that two years have passed if they wouldn't have shown the calendar. Of course a few things were changed such as John seeing them outside when they were escaping, etc. What made the book so special is the well-described development of the relationships of the main characters over the course of three years, which the movie is clearly missing. Another point would be that the characters were'nt developed at all! Sure, Cathys stubbornness was shown, but their hobbies and interests, the way they talk to each other was totally missing! Corries musical talent, Cathys dancing and Chris' obsession with being a doctor, them reading all of these books, and so on. Comparing the desprictions of the book to the movie, the house in general and especially the attic and Corinne's room seemed not as gigantic and unbelievable, which made the movie - again- less special and rather boring. To be honest, I didn't like the acting either, it seemed very stiff to me.I think the movie makers didn't interpret the book as grand as I did, hence my disappointment. Luckily I read the book first, because if I did otherwise, Im sure I wouldn't have read it based on my impressions of that movie!!