Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

Thanks for the memories!

I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

I was very disappointed with Lifetime's adaptation of "Flowers In The Attic" (2014) but I decided to give the first sequel they produced a try, hoping that it would get better. The answer? Yes and no. While Ellen Burstyn once again walks away with the "Best Acting" honors (despite her role being significantly smaller than in the first movie), the acting in "Petals" was generally better than in "Flowers"; even Heather Graham improved somewhat. The real problems with this Lifetime presentation are the rushed directorial pace, cheap budget, and the weak way the story has been adapted from the book. If you haven't read the novel, you will probably enjoy the film for what it is; a soap opera-like time waster. If you've read the books in the series, as I have, you will see how far it deviates from the source material.Of course, there's no such thing as a completely faithful adaptation; time constraints and plot are often altered to make things move quickly or to create more drama. However, not only is the timeline off (reducing Paul Sheffield and his relationship to Cathy, Chris and Carrie to a backstory) but so many things have been added that simply did not happen in the book. Cathy's relationship with Julian (Will Kemp) as well as his mother and other ballet dancers in the company she joins is either watered down or left out completely. We don't understand why she marries Julian here, or why she puts up with his abusive behavior. Carrie's death is pushed ahead (when in fact, she pre-deceased Paul in the book) and there is very little character development as to the trials she faced at school or trying to live a normal life after being deprived of sunlight and food to the point where her growth was stunted. A love interest was invented for Christopher, a young woman named Sarah (Whitney Hoy), who evidently serves no purpose other than to lead to Cathy and Chris being "discovered" as to their forbidden love and desire for one another, and for them to move to another state where no one knows them. In the book, Cathy spends most of it not only consumed with revenge (which does play a part here) but also fighting her love for Chris (who tells her he will never love anyone but her) by becoming involved with Paul, Julian, and later her mother's husband, Bart Winslow (Dylan Bruce). The latter two men do have roles here, but the complex nature of their relationships to Cathy are not really explored, no doubt due to the 90-minute running time. Which begs the question: why not make the these adaptations of V.C. Andrews' book into a two-part miniseries for each installment? Maybe Lifetime just didn't have the budget, but these films could have been so much better. The climax again, feels very rushed; atmosphere is also lacking. The confrontation between Cathy and Corinne contained none of the power that it had in the novel. I have to say, however, that Rose McIver and Wyatt Nash give better performances than Kiernan Shipka and Mason Dye, and it was nice to see Carrie (Bailey De Young) get more screen time and she did well with the little that she was given.It's okay for what it is, just don't expect it to reflect the book.

This is the sequel to FLOWERS IN THE ATTIC, released earlier in 2014, so if you haven't watched that movie, don't watch this movie or read this review, because I may accidentally mention some spoilers from the first film. Ready? Begin.Set ten years after FLOWERS, Christopher, Cathy and Carrie are living a semi-normal life, after dealing with their guardian Paul Sheffield's death, when suddenly, several factors come into play and their lives are once again thrown into chaos, with Cathy going to New York on a whim for a chance to do ballet, Christopher getting in over his head with a girl and being a doctor, and Carrie getting mercilessly teased at school. By the end of this film, only two people are left sane and standing, but who will they be?This film is a step down from FLOWERS, in my opinion. Some positives first though: The acting is better than FLOWERS. The decision to recast Cathy and Christopher was the right one, in my opinion, as these people do a much better job than the ones from the previous film. Carrie is obviously better (she isn't a little girl anymore) and the new additions to the cast of characters (Nick Searcy, Whitney Hoy, and Will Kemp) all do fantastic jobs.Keeping with the first film, the cinematography and the way the film was shot works very well. The special effects (there aren't many) are done well, and a particular scene in the climax looks very well done, even if it doesn't seem as realistic as it should be.Now, here's the thing that really made this film a step down for me. The film feels like Lifetime took what was originally filmed as a mini-series and condensed it to 90 minutes (this isn't what actually happened). Why does it feel like this? Because there are a total of three major time jumps in the film. 10 years, 10 months and then 6 years. It's kind of ridiculous, because it feels like we're missing pieces of the story. Sure, we get some backstory through dialogue, but it's nothing like seeing the actual backstory.And the other problem for me is that some of the characters are vastly underused, and you can seemingly tell that they might have had bigger roles to play, but it was cut out of the actual film. In particular, Ellen Burstyn and Heather Graham appear mainly at the start and the end of the film. The middle of the film is sorely lacking with them.The biggest problem with the plot itself is that each of the children have their own stories. Here's my own little review on their stories (in the order that I enjoyed them):1) Cathy. Cathy's story involves her being noticed by her ballet teacher's son and going with him to New York to become apart of a stage production of Romeo and Juliet. I won't spoil how the story ends up, but I personally enjoyed this one. I mean, sure, I didn't buy the ballet teacher's son and her's relationship, but it was an interesting plot thread, and the way it ends up is just awful.2) Carrie. Carrie's story isn't as fleshed out as the other two children, which is sad, because it's one of the best in the film. The story revolves around bullying at school due to her carrying around a doll her mother gives her. Again, I won't spoil the story on this one, but it was handled fairly well, better than I expected. The way it ended up though, just awful. These kids don't catch a break!And finally... *sigh*....3) Christopher. His story is easily the worst in my opinion. During his studies in medical school, he meets a girl and starts becoming involved with her. I won't spoil how it ends up, but I found it to be one of the most tedious parts of the film. It's just so underwhelming and not drawn out enough. You can buy Chris and Cathy because they've had 2 movies to develop. Him and his girlfriend have not. Worst part of the film.Final Verdict: A interesting film, but a step down from the first. I'd watch it when bored as background noise. I am still, however, excited for the last two films. 5.8/10.

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...

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?