• Network:
  • Series Premiere Date: May 26, 2014
  • Season #: 1
Petals on the Wind Image
Metascore
64

Generally favorable reviews - based on 4 Critics What's this?

User Score
5.7

Mixed or average reviews- based on 9 Ratings

Your Score
0 out of 10
Rate this:
  • 10
  • 9
  • 8
  • 7
  • 6
  • 5
  • 4
  • 3
  • 2
  • 1
  • 0
  • 0
  • Summary: The sequel to V.C Andrew's Flowers in the Attic novel picks up 10 years after Cathy (Rose McIver) and Christopher (Wyatt Nash) escaped. An abusive relationship with a fellow dancer (Will Kemp) brings Cathy closer than ever with her brother as their past continues to haunt them.
  • Genre(s): Drama, Movie/Mini-Series, Horror
Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 3 out of 4
  2. Negative: 0 out of 4
  1. Reviewed by: Tom Gliatto
    May 16, 2014
    75
    Petals doesn't have the same smothering intensity but it's compellingly crazy, the TV equivalent of outsider art. [26 May 2014, p.42]
  2. Reviewed by: Geoff Berkshire
    May 23, 2014
    70
    By alternating significant time between Cathy, Christopher, Carrie and Corinne, the ADD storytelling in Petals ensures there’s never a dull moment--or a sensible one either--and the events retained from Andrews’ novel are just bonkers enough to make the approach pay off.
  3. Reviewed by: Genevieve Valentine
    May 27, 2014
    67
    Petals On The Wind largely skews a bit underbaked to meet the promise of its own third act, and lacks the strength of Ellen Burstyn as its central figure, but there’s enough of the all-out V.C. Andrews flavor to make this installment worth a look for those who want to catch up with a family of soap people 30 years in the making.
  4. Reviewed by: Melissa Maerz
    May 21, 2014
    42
    Petals isn't good enough to satisfy anyone's nostalgia, and it's not bad enough to be awesome. [30 May/6 Jun 2014, p.111]
Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 1 out of 2
  2. Mixed: 0 out of 2
  3. Negative: 1 out of 2
  1. May 27, 2014
    7
    Despite variance in quality, Petals on the Wind is surely a compelling sequel to its predecessor, despite some of its digestible flaws, it is disturbing, shocking and leaves you at the edge of your seat. But is it as absorbing and breathtaking as the first one? Surely not, like every other sequel, it is entertaining but falls flat for repetition. However, it is a must see! Expand
  2. Jun 9, 2014
    1
    I was made to watch "Petals on the Wind" this past weekend with my girlfriend and I have to say that it is the most contrived thing I have ever seen. It seems almost deliberately bad, to the point that you find yourself asking "how much more drama will they insist on packing in?" The entire movie is VERY predictable, and relies to heavily on piling on drama, The movie would have been a decent watch had the writers stuck one one or two predicaments/dilemmas, but it seems like the writers couldn't agree on which bomb to drop onto the viewer, so the gave up arguing and included everything. In summary, "Petals on the Wind" is all over the place and isn't worth the 2 hours of your time. Someone get a rake and lets put "Petals on the Wind" into the trash bag it belongs in. Expand