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

Zoe Elissa I first read the novel when i was in my early teens, and I've loved everything about the whole series ever since. The 1987 film always disappointed me, in casting and execution. I was pleased to see that the cast was much more how I imagined the characters as I read. However, the movie was awfully executed. The characters at times felt so scripted (when Chris confronted Cathy after kissing Bart, I cringed), and the whole thing felt rushed. At the point in the movie where I thought it had been a few weeks in the attic, Cathy hit us with two years. Small details were left out too. The swan bed was nothing as described, the doll house had 4 rooms even though it was supposed to be based on the grandmothers childhood mansion, the tar in Cathy's hair was supposed to come out, but leaving the hair weak, which I always thought was symbolic. The starvation period always felt like a huge crux of the book to me, but it was all but completely left out. Cathy's tantrums were overlooked, and she did ballet once. Was Chris even a doctor-to-be in the movie? I feel like an accurate and good quality film that stuck to the books would have to be two or three movies long. The book was divided into two parts, the movie should do the same, rather than skipping half of the plot and leaving major themes unexplored.

Armand a decent adaptation. interesting performance of the lead actors. an OK Gothic atmosphere. but something missing. 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. and it is not a bad fact. but the impression to discover a sketch, the feeling the story has not real roots, the incest theme presented in superficial manner, all does a fragile construction. sure, it is a good film. decent adaptation, remarkable young actors. but it could be better. that represents a certitude.

bousozoku 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. Did she never have any really difficult moments from which to draw? I saw the original movie way back when, and was surprised to see a remake. Remakes tend to promise much but add nothing. This one seemed to subtract a lot for the mere thought of a sex scene.While Ellen Burstyn's character was certainly unlikable, she couldn't make me hate her. I felt sorry for her. That never happened with Louise Fletcher. She found a way to make her character truly evil.Equally, I never felt the sympathy for the children--it was all two dimensional. They were just there, bored. I kept waiting for one of them to pull out a phone and take a selfie.The crew did a good job, however.