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

Benas Mcloughlin Worth seeing just to witness how winsome it is.

Jakoba True to its essence, the characters remain on the same line and manage to entertain the viewer, each highlighting their own distinctive qualities or touches.

Wyatt There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

TheBlueHairedLawyer I won't deny that this modern version of V.C. Andrews' 4th book in the Dollanganger series has a lot of cinematic style, highlighting the dark and ugly secrets of the rich and strange in a haunting and often surreal way. But Seeds of Yesterday just came across as lame and overdramatic. The acting was horrible for the most part, and the character of Cindy especially really got on my nerves. She's this wealthy, worldly dancer, almost an adult, so it makes sense for her to just blurt out "d!ckhead" at her brother like a five-year-old? The perverse sex scenes between siblings Cathy and Christopher were just shudder-inducing, disgusting and frankly silly. The film takes place in an earlier point in time, yet every character talks just like a 21st century hipster. All of them act like children. The constant lines such as Bart's "your wife can't stay off my junk" and the pretentious speech style of the immature and dysfunctional family seemed out of place and a little stupid.I honestly think that this film series has been stretched out much longer than it needed to be, and that it's just a cash cow for a company already known for making identical films about shallow cookie-cutter families. I never would've thought that Lifetime would be the company to revive this twisted series, and instead of focusing on giving the story some depth, they just kept on piling up the shock value of the incest, sexual phrases and violent theatrics. I just kept laughing the whole way through, because it's impossible to take Seeds of Yesterday seriously.

dhainline1 I thought even without Corinne's religious brother, Joel making a sudden appearance like he did in the book, the ending of the Dollanganger series was satisfactory. James Maslow made an excellent Bart Foxworth (Dollanganger was a funny name Cathy, Chris, Carrie and Cory's father found in the genealogy). Foxworth was the real last name of this family. James was creepy, attractive, and rather scary as the ultra-religious Bart who thinks his family is mired in sin and will all suffer from hell's torment. The other characters were great and I thought the newborn twins who were Deirdre and Darren Marquet (older brother Jory's children) were adorable! Sammy Hanratty as slutty younger adopted Cindy was great and she and James Maslow had a love/hate sexual relationship. The last scene with Cathy going up to the attic of the mansion and yellow flowers appearing was a fitting closure to this series!

wes-connors The fourth (and, presumably, final) "Lifetime" TV-movie in the "Flowers in the Attic" (2014) series continues to focus on the children who took the spotlight in "If There Be Thorns" (2015). Blonde mom Rachael Carpani and doctor dad Jason Lewis and (as Cathy and Christopher "Chris" Dollanganger) return as the incestuous parents; they provide good-looking continuity and have more involvement in the storyline. However, they take a back seat to the story's newest entry in the crowded "shirtless hunk" character sweepstakes, handsome James Maslow (as Bartholomew "Bart" Foxworth). Here, he has restored the original Foxworth mansion, which burned to the ground in "Petals on the Wind" (2014). No slouch in the shirtless department, Anthony Konechny (as Jory Marquet) assumes the role as Mr. Maslow's brother...The family gathers at the mansion to sort out inheritances and have uncontrolled sex with each other..."Seeds of Yesterday" ups the arousing female quotient, which had dipped in the previous movie; however, there are no nipples. The new nymphomaniac in the mansion is sexually-charged Sammi Hanratty (as Cynthia "Cindy" Sheffield). The little blonde girl adopted in the previous story reveals her real worth, herein. Of course, she was meant to grow up and have sex with anyone willing, which she states is her insatiable "appetite." Also needing, as she says, "a man inside me," is ballet dancer Leah Gibson (as Melodie). Lead actor Maslow attracts every woman in the cast, even getting his mom on her knees for a suggestive scene. In between the sex, the story is lost and confused. Original author Virginia C. Andrews' characters seem only used to show various family members live simply to copulate with each other.**** Seeds of Yesterday (4/12/15) Shawn Ku ~ James Maslow, Anthony Konechny, Sammi Hanratty, Rachael Carpani

jnrh I am a long time fan of this book series and of V.C. Andrews. I have read and re-read the books dozens of times so needless to say, I know the Dollenganger/Foxworth story quite well. I watched this movie on Lifetime last night and while I enjoyed it for the most part, I did not enjoy the massive deviation from the original book story. For starters, anyone who has read these books knows that Foxworth Hall is the king of homes, the biggest and most elaborate structure in all of Virginia. In the beginning of the film, when Chris and Cathy pull up to Foxworth Hall, Cathy remarks how Bart had built an exact replica as the original. The home they use for the film seriously lacks the majesty that is Foxworth Hall. In fact, it looks no different than your average home in an upscale neighborhood, hardly befitting someone like Malcolm Foxworth. The Foxworth Hall from the books was imposing and frightening, standing alone on a high hill like a king over his subjects. One big problem I had with this movie was the complete omission of Joel Foxworth, Corrine's long-though dead brother. As those of you who have read the books know, Joel was a main character in Seeds of Yesterday and was also a significantly bad influence over Bart. I suppose if the filmmakers did not intend to make "Garden of Shadows" into a movie, I can understand the omission of Joel but it took a lot away from the story. The characters of Chris and Cathy lacked any real passion or intensity. In the books, Cathy was stronger, more fiery and more of a fighter. The Cathy in this movie was a passive pushover. Cathy and Chris' relationship is always defined as intense and very sexual. That did not come across in this movie at all. Bart and his adopted sister Cindy having sex and then later getting married? Definitely not from the book. Jory Marquet is descended from the Russian Ballet and was always described in the books as having jet black hair and blue eyes, very intense. The Jory from the movie did not fit the book character at all. Jory was much more fiery and passionate, in the movie, he was turned into a pathetic character who didn't stand up for himself at all. All in all, this was a good movie but I believe the books are always better than the films. This was no exception to that rule. I would recommend seeing the movie but I would also recommend reading the books first so that you have a more accurate understanding of the characters. The "Flowers in the Attic" series is best understood if you read from beginning to end. Otherwise, it won't make any sense to you.