AniInterview Sorry, this movie sucks

Smartorhypo Highly Overrated But Still Good

FirstWitch A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

Portia Hilton Blistering performances.

katarzynkaprazynka 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.

bks-508-290401 I really don't see the need for remakes, especially when they're done so badly. Carrie, Robocop, Psycho, were all classic films and if not perfect, pretty darn close in their own right. Whenever they remake films like this, they ruin it with overdone effects, veering too far away from a story, or repeating the script almost word for word. Those films were classics for a reason. Flowers is no exception. In the original, the children were shiny and beautiful when they arrived. By the time they left, they looked so miserable, malnourished and waif-like, you believed they'd been stuck up there in that attic for years. The attic was an oppressive and claustrophobic place, even though the kids tried to make it more pleasant. In the remake, there are real flowers and sunlight, and it's quite a pretty and joyous space. 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. Louise Fletcher nailed the part. She was cold, detached and totally intimidating. The role was written perfectly for her, so Ellen cannot be blamed for the new version. She did the best with what she was given. The acting otherwise was meh (apart from Carrie's reaction to the news about Corey), but they're kids, so once again, can be forgiven. But don't even get me started on Heather's acting. How does she get work? She sounded like she was reading her lines off the back of her hand, and she was completely wrong for the part. Victoria Tennant had substance. When she slapped Cathy, you really believed she hated her. The original may not have been true to the books 100%, but it was entertaining, believable, and the acting was good. And if it ain't broke, why try and fix it?

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.

andreea_raiciu 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.