Cleveronix A different way of telling a story

RipDelight This is a tender, generous movie that likes its characters and presents them as real people, full of flaws and strengths.

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

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

Noirdame79 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 marries 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 evidently 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 really explored, no doubt due to the 90-minute running time. Which begs the question: why not make the 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 Corinne 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.

Armand 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.

wes-connors 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

Crazynat34 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.