Flowers in the Attic: reviews

What the critics say average 4.9 from 19 outlets

• 8.3 St. Louis Post-DispatchGail Pennington The only way to review 'Flowers in the Attic' is to consider how well it does what it sets out to do: that is, adapt the book faithfully and still make an entertaining film. For that, it gets a B+.
• 8.0 PeopleTom Gliatto 'Flowers', both the book and the new movie, is completely absurd (if you want to gauge the absurdity, just know that one of the darkest secrets in the narrative involves a doughnut) but somehow also psychologically coherent. It has a grip. Read
• 7.0 StuffSarah McMullan While Graham pulls out every trick in the book, Burstyn achieves more with an eyebrow or pursed lips. Combined, they're a brilliant foil to the innocence of the children. Read
• 6.7 Boston HeraldMark A. Perigard The production moves at a brisk pace, and unlike the children's predicament, never feels claustrophobic. Read
• 6.7 Uncle BarkyEd Bark It all seems fairly preposterous until one takes into account that stranger things have happened in real life. Read
• 6.7 The A.V. ClubGenevieve Valentine Though the five-book Dollanganger series eventually descends into straight-faced plot-pretzels, much of the Gothic drama in this installment is quaint by cable standards: children locked in an attic discovering illicit love. Read
• 6.0 Common Sense MediaJoyce Slaton This 'Flowers in the Attic' also nails the grandmother's menace, with a scene-chewing performance by Burstyn that could give even adults nightmares. Read
• 6.0 The Philadelphia InquirerDavid Hiltbrand It was adapted into a middling creepy film in 1987. Now Lifetime has remade it as a sharper creepy TV movie. Read
• 5.0 Refinery29Kelsey Miller Still enjoyable, especially when watched with a group of your closest, tipsy-est friends, 'Flowers in the Attic' is not entirely so-bad-it's-good as I would have liked. Read
• 5.0 VultureMatt Zoller Seitz But all the actors are spot-on, even ones who have just a few scenes. It's a pity Kayla Alpert's script and Deborah Chow's direction don't do their collaborators justice. Read
• 4.0 New York Daily NewsDavid Hinckley V.C. Andrews' popular and creepy 1979 novel 'Flowers in the Attic' gets no favors from the scriptwriters in this latest adaptation. Read
• 4.0 VarietyBrian Lowry The problem is 'Flowers in the Attic' always sounds like it's more fun, or at least more kooky, than it actually plays onscreen. Read
• 3.0 AutostraddleChelsea Steiner But the voiceover (lifted from the book) is SO heavy handed and clunky it needs a dolly just to move it around. Read
• 3.0 Zap2itJean Bentley Frankly, the best Lifetime movies straddle that fine line between "totally engaging look at serious issues" and "overacted campy mess" very well, and "FitA" just didn't cut it. It was ... kinda boring, right?
• 3.0 The Washington PostHank Stuever I was particularly delighted when the children figured out that their mother was trying to kill them with powdered rat poison sprinkled on doughnuts, but this should all be a lot more frightening, or at least more unsettling, than it winds up being.
• 3.0 TV GuideMatt Roush I'm not quite sure why this needed to be remade, but Lifetime's curiously inert adaptation of V.C. Andrews' twisted Gothic 'Flowers in the Attic' at least gives Ellen Burstyn the opportunity to display her florid take on a classic Nurse Ratched/Baby Jane psycho character. Read
• 3.0 The Kansas City StarSara Smith Lifetime goes there, then backs away from the issue immediately, making for some scenes that add nothing to the story but brief bouts of nausea.
• 3.0 New York TimesMike Hale If you're going to make a movie about four children who are locked in their room for years because their grandfather can't know they're alive, the last thing you want to do is play it straight. Unfortunately, that's the only way Lifetime knows how to play it. Read
• 2.0 Los Angeles TimesMary McNamara The problem is not that it's just terrible, but that it's also no fun. At all. Read