Flowers in the Attic
Tags: mystery, cruelty, murder, claustrophobic, revenge, sadist

Plot synopsis:
In 1957, the Dollanganger family lives an idyllic life in Gladstone, Pennsylvania. After Christopher Sr., the children's father, dies in a car accident, his wife Corrine and their four children are left deep in debt. As Corrine has no work skills, the family is forced to move in with her estranged wealthy parents, who live at Foxworth Hall, in Virginia. Corrine explains to the children that she has been estranged from her parents because of something she did when she was 18. She then adds that their true family name is Foxworth, not Dollanganger. Upon arrival Corrine's mother, Olivia, sneaks the family into a small bedroom that connects to the attic and insists the children must be hidden from their grandfather. Olivia treats the children with disdain and threatens to severely punish them for any disobedience. Corrine meets with her father, and when she returns to the children, she has been savagely whipped by Olivia, who then tells the children that their parents were half-uncle and niece. Corrine confirms this and explains her plan to win back her father's love so she can introduce the children to him.
The older children, Cathy and Chris, turn the attic into an imaginary garden for the twins, Carrie and Cory, educate the twins as best they can, and read books to keep up their own education. At first, Corrine visits her children every day, sometimes bringing expensive gifts, but as the days and weeks turn into months, her visits become less and less frequent. Meanwhile, the grandmother physically and emotionally abuses the children and constantly threatens to whip them for doing anything she considers "sinful". When Christmas comes, Corrine allows Cathy and Chris to watch the Christmas ball from a hiding spot, where they see their grandfather, Malcolm, for the first time. They also see their mother with their father's attorney, Bart Winslow, who is helping draw up Malcolm's will. When Corrine discovers Chris was wandering around the mansion, she slaps him and threatens to whip him and Cathy, then immediately apologizes and promises to make amends to them for their confinement. While Chris believes her, Cathy points out how their mother has changed and worries that Corrine no longer cares about them.
A year later, Cathy and Chris have both entered puberty and taken on parental roles with Carrie and Cory, who no longer recognise Corrine. While Cathy and Chris are both entering adulthood, the twins have stopped growing altogether due to being imprisoned and the lack of sunlight and fresh air in their prison. Olivia catches Chris staring at Cathy in her brassiere in the bathroom and orders him to cut off Cathy's hair or all four children will starve. Chris refuses, but Olivia drugs Cathy and pours tar into her hair. She then abandons them for three weeks, driving the children to near-starvation. Cathy ends up cutting off her hair and when Olivia see this, she starts leaving them sugar-powdered doughnuts with their usual food. Corrine visits the children for the first time in six months, announcing that she has married Bart Winslow and they have returned from their honeymoon in Europe. Cathy and Chris react angrily, accusing her of abandoning them, and Corrine refuses to visit again until they apologize. Olivia continues to abuse the children, even whipping Cathy and Chris after he talks back to her. Cathy and Chris become physically attracted towards each other, and start to fall in love in spite of their mutual shame.
Alarmed by the twins' declining health and mistrustful of their mother, Cathy and Chris plan to escape. They begin to sneak into their mother's room to steal money and valuables. One night, Cathy goes down alone, and finds her stepfather sleeping in the bed. Curious, she kisses him. When Chris overhears Bart talking about this 'dream' to Corrine, he is enraged at Cathy and rapes her. Afterwards, feeling guilty and ashamed, he apologizes, and Cathy forgives him by saying she wanted it too. Chris confesses that he loves her, and although Cathy reciprocates his feelings, she is unsure how to respond. Cory becomes sick and Cathy demands that Corrine take him to the hospital. Corrine slaps her, but Cathy retaliates and threatens revenge if they do not help Cory. Olivia seemingly sides with Cathy, and they take Cory away. The next day, Corrine returns and tells them that Cory died from pneumonia. Carrie goes into shock and stops speaking.
Chris goes to Corrine's room for money but finds that his mother and Bart have moved out. He then overhears the head butler talking about how Malcolm died seven months ago and how Olivia has been leaving doughnuts sprinkled with rat poison in the attic because it is infested with 'mice'. Chris and Cathy give Cory's pet mouse a doughnut to confirm the story. When the mouse dies, they finally flee the house with Carrie and catch a train to Florida. At the train station, Chris reveals to Cathy that he discovered their mother's inheritance is conditional on having no children from her first marriage and that if this were ever proven, she would lose everything. Their mother has been poisoning them for nine months to secure her inheritance. Chris and Cathy decide against contacting the police; their main concern is to stay together and be there for Carrie. Chris assures Cathy that they can make a new life without their mother, but Cathy swears that she will get revenge one day.

Review: Conniving mother Heather Graham (as Corrine Foxworth-Dollanganger) hopes to inherit her father's estate, but must keep her children a secret until the old man dies.
Increasingly neglected in the attic, the eldest children struggle to care for the younger twins as skeletons fall out of the mansion's closets...Ending with awkward abruptness, this is the first in a series of "Lifetime" TV movies based on Virginia C.
The six producers had to be happy with art/set direction and Miroslaw Baszak's photography.****** Flowers in the Attic (1/18/14) Deborah Chow ~ Kiernan Shipka, Mason Dye, Ellen Burstyn, Heather Graham.
My mother, usually very protective and conservative when it came to movies, actually let me watch a movie called "Flowers in the Attic." It was kind of an "I-think-you-can-handle-it; it'll-be-our-secret" moment.
A few years after that I read the book and realized how sanitized it actually was.I was so excited to learn that there was going to be a 2014 remake of "FItA." However, I was a little nervous to learn that Lifetime was going to be the venue.
Featuring a beautiful, blond cast of talented actors, "Flowers in the Attic" makes the beloved Gothic novel come to life.
But you all know the story; this book series is such a big part of the childhood memories of so many people.This new adaptation has it all; beautiful sets, top rate actors turning in frighteningly believable performances, and an intelligent script that shows absolute respect to the novel from 1979.
Heather Graham, usually known more for her beauty than her acting abilities, gives a surprisingly good performance as Corrine Foxworth; sweet, charming, selfish, and cruel; all at the same time.
I can say that every major plot point of the novel was covered in this movie, except for one that I can remember; the passages in the novel where Chris lets Cory drink his blood, after the Grandmother has cut off their food supply, is sadly absent; sad because that is one of the most powerful images from the book, and shows just how much Chris loved his siblings.
If you are a fan of the novels, and haven't seen this movie version, i recommend that you give it a watch; I can't imagine anyone being disappointed with this one..
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.
I would recommend reading the book or seeing the original movie if you want the best version..
If you didn't read it or watch the original then you wouldn't understand some of the references and Heather Graham (whom i really enjoy) was miscast and her acting was under par for this role.
Ellen Burstyn however played her part wonderfully and she was truly the only reason i continued to watch the film to the end..I wish i could've given this a better review as i loved the book and the original movie ..sadly when it comes to this remake i was completely underwhelmed and disappointed.
the new one is badly written, a lot of original story is missing, and the sets look like set, rather than the feeling you get from the original...the closeness to detail is missing which makes a story, the connection between bro and sister does not feel right, and if they are going to make a set, make it so its close to the original..when you watch both, i feel you will agree with me that the first film is much better..
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.
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).
I read the book "Flowers in the Attic" a number of years ago around the time when it first came out.
The kids weren't very good actors either.The movie had most of the information and scenes from the book, but failed to translate the feeling/emotion of the book: the fear, the breaking down of trust, the desperation of eldest kids, especially during the twins declining health, the anger, pain, confusion and survival instincts that the kids went through.So, bottom line for me is that it was just an OK movie, a B-movie ...nothing special, and didn't portray the feelings of V.C. Andrews original story.
I did enjoy Ellen Burstyn/Grandmother (always plays evil with eerie accuracy) ,Kiernan Shipka/Cathy, and Mason Dye/Christopher but other than that it was certainly nothing special.
Victoria Chase should have been cast in the Lifetime Original Movie "Flowers in the Attic", as its over-dramatic, self-indulgent mother.I always thought that Heather Graham could act well, but this film proved otherwise.
"FLOWERS IN THE ATTIC" 1980's is my favorite movie which i like to rewatch from time to time, the reason why i watched this new version.
everything is diminished even the part about the poisoned cookies, in the original movie we see hands topping the cookies w/ what it is believed to be sugar until we know is actually poison, the suspense, the horror of that knowledge that a mother or a grandmother could be capable is still today impressed in my mind, creeping me out which is a very good thing ..
Ellen Burstyn was also not a good idea while she is a powerful presence it was not enuff to give me the creepy /icy look like of Louise Fletcher.What also irked me out was the idea of brother and sister having actually a sexual relationship!YUCK!!Where was that in the 80 version???
Whilst I adore Ellen Burstyn and her legendary acting ability, her character showed too much compassion for the children and there were times when I thought she would scoop them up and give them a hug.
When I was in junior high school, I was introduced to a book called Flowers In The Attic, this was not long after I had watched the 1987 film of the same name.
In comparisons, the film from 1987 was better casted, that at least is a positive, I feel that Kristy Swanson did play Cathy much better in the film vs the young actress who played her this time around, and the mother from the 1987 film, Victoria Tennant did a wonderful job bringing Corrine to life, however, I liked the set of twins portrayed in the 2014 version much better than the whiney children from the 1987 film.
Louise Fletcher was great at playing the grandmother, but Ellen Burstyn did a much better job, she brought back the original feel of Olivia Foxworth from the book.
This film from Lifetime did better at the book's real story and came closer to things that the 87 film failed to do, such as the last name of the family.
In the 1987 film, we never got into too much depth of why Corrine and Christopher Senior changed their family name from Foxworth to Dollanganger, and for those who may not have either seen this movie, read the book or seen the 1987 film, I won't go into such detail, it gives away too much.
Another great attempt was why Cathy had to cut her hair, in the 1987 film it shows the grandmother hacking at Cathy's hair, but in the book, it was far different and the Lifetime film came a little closer to why.
Also in the 1987 film, the mother was killed at the end, but in the book, this was not even close, the mother lived on and in later books, Cathy and Christopher would see her again, and the Lifetime film did a better job at this, showing us how the kids had escaped.
The acting in this film was not so great, other than Ellen Burstyn, she of course is an actress who has done many great things, and she is really the only star in this film, even though the part is grim and not so glamorous, but if you know the book Flowers In The Attic, Olivia Foxworth was not glamorous anyway.
Out of 10 stars, I gave this film a 3 star rating, it just needed better actors and actresses to compliment Miss Ellen Burstyn.
I recommend everyone to read the book first and then you would understand why the movie is not too good...
not very clear, few characters as sketches or stamps, an old recipes with new ingredients, Ellen Burstyn as pillar of story in precise role who explores many from her character sides, the film is almost an introduction to series.
That's about all there is to say that stands out about this movie, Though the film remains more faithful to the book then its previous 1987 incarnation The acting and characters fail to connect to heart strings of the viewer which was not the case with 1987 version.
Ellen Burstyn's character comes across as just a crabby grandmother type Heather Graham seems much more a older sister to Cathy then her Mother, Christopher as effeminate and Kienman Shipka as intellectual tomboyish figure just going along the ride waiting for her ending.
Ellen Burstyn is one of my favorite actresses (her performance in Requiem For A Dream should have earned her every award possible) but I don't think she was really right for the role, sorry to say Louise Fletcher was much better in the '87 adaptation).
I am ashamed to say that until I saw this movie, I had no idea about the existence of the book.I didn't even know the plot of the movie, but that was the best part because it was full of unpredictable moments that only made me more curious and fascinated.It's a strange idea that shows us how cruel can people be, even though they act so innocent and how sometimes the one that wants to hurt you is right there in your family.The actors were OK.Not the best, but not the worst either : the one who played the grandmother acted the best, while Heather Graham wasn't exactly a good choice for her part.It's worth watching it for its intriguing story.I know it made me go and buy the books..
Other than the speed of time between scenes and aging of the characters, it did seem to keep[ some really basic concepts of the book, but of course there are some parts that were left out that the audience, if they haven't read the book (and subsequent novels in the series written by VC Andrews), wouldn't have noticed, but I did notice and it's too bad they weren't included, to add to the tale.
But in this version I felt the actors played the parts well and I felt just as addicted to this film as I do the books and would happily watch it again..
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Flowers in the Attic (2014) It is not recommended that today's overweight youth spend time in the attic lest they fall through the ceiling.Which is why this drama takes place back in the 20th Century.Following the death of her husband/half-uncle, Corrine (Heather Graham) moves her children (Kiernan Shipka, Mason Dye, Ava Telek, Maxwell Kovach) into her parents' mansion.While she is welcomed back by her mother (Ellen Burstyn), her sinful offspring must be kept secret.Confined to a remote bedroom, the siblings find solace in a cavernous loft.
As weeks turn into years, and the children mature, the older relations connect in forbidden ways, while the younger succumb to strange ailments.Lifetime's adaptation of the V.C. Andrews novel, this made-for-TV-movie adheres more to the source material than the 1987 feature film - but it's acting is not much better.Incidentally, when you marry your sister she doesn't have to change her last name.
Louise Fletcher was terrifying as the grandmother, and Ellen Burstyn just wasn't, despite giving the best performance in the Lifetime presentation.
NOT because the children characters were so weak.But maybe it ends like it did because they are working on Flowers in the Attic 2...this will be the kids as adults, sibling getting married, have children and how they abuse their children, one is a serial killer and one is a child molester and the story goes on and on...you know FITA 3, 4 and 5......
Getting to my point, Corrine, though a desperate woman was not a clueless one, she had a certain cunning charm and used her feminine wiles to get far enough, lets face it she even used them on her clearly impressionable and devoted son Christopher, Heather Graham was not convincing, she lacked a certain depth that came across in the character in the actual book.The other actors though not great had a certain charm that sort of fit their roles, one has to understand that a page turner like flowers in the attic will most likely never be as good on film, in 91 minutes, how much of emotion can you display...
for all intensive purposes I do intend seeing the previous movie version and will most likely review that as well.All in all, flowers in the attic was not a bad movie but needed a slightly more promising cast and a more emotional dynamic.
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.
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.
I feel like an accurate and good quality film that stuck to the books would have to be two or three movies long.
But this version of Flowers in the Attic, like the previous does not to do the book justice.I found the characters to have no chemistry between them.
If only the directors, producers, actors, everyone could have taken a little time to read and appreciate the book, the movie would have been much better.
As far as the other actors, I like the twins better from the first version of the movie, The Twins had a little more interaction and speaking roles in the first film.
Overall I think Ellen Burstyn really makes this movie!
I believe I have seen the original Flowers In The Attic film but its been years!
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.
The film showed a good relationship between the children and how things would have been trapped in an attic for over 3 years.
Not as good as the original film in my opinion, where the characters were more blond(e) and although this didn't follow the story directly it was slightly better written..
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.
Sadly this film did not star Victoria Chase in the Lifetime original "Flowers in the Attic".
I liked it honestly, it got the most of the main ideas; yet I understand why my friend was so confused when we were talking about Flowers in the Attic; she had only seen this, while I have seen the original movie and read the book.