CheerupSilver Very Cool!!!

StunnaKrypto Self-important, over-dramatic, uninspired.

mraculeated The biggest problem with this movie is it’s a little better than you think it might be, which somehow makes it worse. As in, it takes itself a bit too seriously, which makes most of the movie feel kind of dull.

Payno I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Leofwine_draca PETALS ON THE WIND is the follow up to the glossy TV movie adaptation of the Virginia Andrews novel FLOWERS IN THE ATTIC and I'm sure it was shot at the same time as it shares most of the cast members and has exactly the same kind of glossy look and feel. Unfortunately, with Ellen Burstyn off screen for large parts of the running time, it's a weaker film than its predecessor, which really wasn't all that hot to begin with.This story is set ten years after the events of the original and follows the lives of the siblings as they attempt to cope in the normal world. The focus of PETALS ON THE WIND is on relationship stuff, with copious screen time made up of depicting the siblings in their relationships with new partners and the struggles they face thanks to the psychological scarring they experienced in the first story. The acting is generally sub-par and unrealistic, no more so than Heather Graham whose increasingly shrill character has become more of a caricature. Burstyn is great but needed much more screen time, although the final scenes provide a fitting close to this two-part story. Inevitably, another sequel followed.

farishthas After watching LIfetime's attempt at the second novel to screen, it seems as if they are improving...Since I read petals on the wind first, it is my favorite book of the series, mostly because Cathy is brilliant at her revenge plotting against her mother! Unfortunately the movie doesn't pay enough homage to characters like Paul Sheffield but thats alright since we get to see Heather graham portray Corrine exquisitely! She has now proved to be the right choice to play this character, she was wicked and charming and nutty in all the right proportions! Nash and McIver were wonderful, their creepy chemistry was enthralling to say the least. I didn't enjoy the addition of Sarah too much but it was a wonder to see the adoration and torture in the eyes of Christopher for his love of Cathy. Julion was disappointing but entertaining nonetheless. Carrie's character though short lived was done quite well even though her death didn't really tug at my emotional strings.In conclusion I think that Nash, McIver and Graham were a delight and they are the main reason that I gave this movie a 7. I am intrigued to see how they will bring Jory and Bart's outlook to the screen in If There Be Thorns...

edwagreen This is so morbid. It is so depressing. After the prequel, "Flowers in the Attic," the author should have stopped there.Everything is depicted as being so negative here. Lust, incestuous relationship between brother and daughter, cruelty abounds and one tragic sequence after another. Even at the end, when things look like they have resolved themselves, one begins to wonder what else is new.After all, we have witnessed a brother and sister in love, the youngest sister taunted by classmates and locked in a closet. Anyone notice how quickly that issue was resolved? The latter about to marry a minister but finding rejection once again by her mother commits suicide. This drives the oldest sister to plot revenge by getting involved with the mother's new husband and becoming pregnant from him. If that isn't enough, the oldest daughter enters into an abusive relationship with a ballet dancer who also went after the younger sister.Not missing are illegitimate children. Where is the morality in this wayward writing?

Falconeer This TV movie version of the beloved cult novel "Petals On the Wind" from Gothic romance author V.C. Andrews, mostly fails for several reasons. Of course it's biggest flaw is the tele-play adaptation. Somebody had the blind arrogance and stupidity to think they could improve on the source material, by making major alterations. Characters and incidents that are imperative to the story are sloppily chopped out of the script. At the same time, newly invented characters are introduced, pointlessly destroying the arc and the rhythm of the story. For instance, Christopher, who was so tortured by his love for his sister in the novel, suddenly finds time to embark on a shallow romance with a twangy speaking Southern airhead named Sara! Their relationship goes as far as the two becoming engaged. Apparently the writers failed to understand that Chris' unswerving devotion to Cathy, was the most tragically romantic aspect of this whole story. The sexy, and dangerous Russian ballet dancer, Julian is suddenly a whiny, un-intimidating Brit. Why? Why castrate one of the most potent and frightening characters in the book like this? I'm guessing the creators of this shallow soap opera were too lazy to do the research, or at least mimic a Russian accent. And remember how evil and terrifying Olivia was in the novel? Not here; now she is a strict, religious fanatic who still has the ability to show sadness and regret for her cruel treatment of the children in the attic. What the hell were they thinking? Apparently the creators of this film had no idea about the dedicated cult following that these novels have. They are loved and remembered by millions of fans throughout the world. Sadly, the movie could have had the same effect, if they didn't tamper so unforgivably with the storyline. Admittadly I did like the movie a bit more the second time around. By that time my expectations were lowered enough to watch it without getting angry. It isn't a total waste, as the V.C. Andrews story still manages to shine through all the horrible alterations. At it's heart, we still have that sad, and doomed love that exists between Chris and Cathy. The actors for the most part, look as they are described in the novels. Ellen Burstyn is a fine actress, and the movie comes alive the few times she is on screen. But again, I can't figure out why she is playing the Grandmother with a sympathetic edge. And at least the movie does have a very pretty look to it, as well as some effective romantic music. But it just isn't enough, for something like this. It's very sad, because with the right screen writer, this thing could have been EPIC. I mean, it's supposed to be an 8 hour production when you put all four movies together. I just wonder why they had to gut and slaughter the source material so much. The third book, "If There Be Thorns" is supposed to be realized into a film next...let's hope they don't try and tweak THAT story. to the creators of this series: Get it right next time..there are people out there that actually care, even if you don't...