Flowers in the Attic


Action / Drama / Horror / Mystery / Thriller

Rotten Tomatoes Critics - Rotten 52%
Rotten Tomatoes Audience - Spilled 39%
IMDb Rating 6.1 10 8209


Uploaded By: OTTO
Downloaded 24,442 times
April 06, 2018 at 11:17 AM



Heather Graham as Corrine
Kiernan Shipka as Cathy
Ellen Burstyn as Grandmother
Dylan Bruce as Bart Winslow
720p.WEB 1080p.WEB
763.44 MB
23.976 fps
1hr 26 min
P/S 4 / 7
1.44 GB
23.976 fps
1hr 26 min
P/S 0 / 3

Movie Reviews

Reviewed by katarzynkaprazynka 3 / 10

Disappointed ..story simplified, some details changed, average acting and just did not have that something

I recommend everyone to read the book first and then you would understand why the movie is not too good... Many scenes are simplified and lack of great details that could be shown..also some of the parts are slightly changed, but it makes a big difference. When I was watching the movie it was ok, but it just did not have that something...I think that the movie could be longer to reflect the story more and the acting could be improved as well.

Reviewed by Noirdame79 2 / 10

Where Have All The Flowers Gone?

. . . . . 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.

Reviewed by Leofwine_draca 4 / 10

Generic, glossy, and bland

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.

Read more IMDb reviews