This movie is so slow! Dialogue is stiff as well as actors movements. The guy with one leg was the best actor of them all. Tom Beringer must have needed some quick cash to do this movie and even his performance was below par. and Christina Ricci, . .. couldn't tell she is a professional actor if judging by her acting skills in this movie. Civil War period costumes were okay but make up and false mustaches were so laughable. That's when I knew we were in trouble but we did struggle thru the entire movie. At the conclusion, we couldn't figure out if it was a high end collegiate play or a made for TV movie. And the magic stars, what was that all about? Bottom line: Don't waste 100 minutes of your life on this stinker.
17 Reviews
Poorly done
zakuro228 July 2016
The story was good and I feel they tried to do it justice but the acting was poor. The little girl was terrible. Being a born and bred Southerner the fake accents made me cringe but that doesn't stop me from watching Southern themed movies. This just lacked everything: good acting, good directing and emotion equal to the plot. The only redeeming quality is that there is nothing offensive in the move other than the typical violence of Civil War action and it was not particularly graphic-- no bad language, no sex scenes nor nudity. I would love to see this story done by good actors and maybe better directing. I don't recommend it unless you are bored to death and need something to pass 98 minutes of your time.
Nothing bloomed in this movie...
paul_haakonsen19 November 2016
For an American civil war drama, then "War Flowers" was not a particularly impressive one. It was every bit as slow and long-dragged as it was uneventful and interesting.
Yeah, harsh words, but truthful words.
And the movie started out so nicely with a good amount of action and confrontation on the battlefield between the Union and Confederate troops. But after that scene it just went steeply downhill fast.
I managed to suffer through just a bit more than one hour through this unfathomably slow-paced movie before I was ready to surrender to either the Confederate or the Union troops, whomever had an available pistol for putting myself out of the misery and ordeal that was "War Flowers".
The story in "War Flowers" is about a southern woman living with her daughter under fairly poor circumstances, as they are waiting for the man of the house to return back from the front lines. When a small skirmish break out where they live, they come to find that a Union soldier has taken refuge in their basement. Wounded but conscious, the man poses no threat and they nurture him back to health.
Right, potentially the storyline could have been interesting, but director Serge Rodnunsky managed to claw onto anything even remotely looking like progress and holding it back in strict reins. This movie was literally taking forever to go from nowhere to nowhere, and it was was quite an ordeal to manage to suffer through an hour of it. And I can honestly say that I am not going to return to "War Flowers" in order to finish the movie and see how it ends. I just couldn't care less about the characters in the movie, nor the storyline itself.
The only actor I knew in this movie was Tom Berenger, and even he seemed to be tired and just wanting to get this over with. "War Flowers" was not his finest moment, not by a long shot.
If you enjoy American civil war movies, then stay well clear of "War Flowers", because it just isn't worth the time or the effort.
I am rating it a meager, but very generous, three out of ten stars.
Yeah, harsh words, but truthful words.
And the movie started out so nicely with a good amount of action and confrontation on the battlefield between the Union and Confederate troops. But after that scene it just went steeply downhill fast.
I managed to suffer through just a bit more than one hour through this unfathomably slow-paced movie before I was ready to surrender to either the Confederate or the Union troops, whomever had an available pistol for putting myself out of the misery and ordeal that was "War Flowers".
The story in "War Flowers" is about a southern woman living with her daughter under fairly poor circumstances, as they are waiting for the man of the house to return back from the front lines. When a small skirmish break out where they live, they come to find that a Union soldier has taken refuge in their basement. Wounded but conscious, the man poses no threat and they nurture him back to health.
Right, potentially the storyline could have been interesting, but director Serge Rodnunsky managed to claw onto anything even remotely looking like progress and holding it back in strict reins. This movie was literally taking forever to go from nowhere to nowhere, and it was was quite an ordeal to manage to suffer through an hour of it. And I can honestly say that I am not going to return to "War Flowers" in order to finish the movie and see how it ends. I just couldn't care less about the characters in the movie, nor the storyline itself.
The only actor I knew in this movie was Tom Berenger, and even he seemed to be tired and just wanting to get this over with. "War Flowers" was not his finest moment, not by a long shot.
If you enjoy American civil war movies, then stay well clear of "War Flowers", because it just isn't worth the time or the effort.
I am rating it a meager, but very generous, three out of ten stars.
A mistake
jeff-finley011 August 2013
Warning: Spoilers
We saw that this movie starred Christina Ricci and Tom Berenger and figured it had to be decent. Nope. Wrong. Not close. My wife gave it a "C" which was generous; I deemed it a mistake. I could not tell whether the editing was intentional to make it look like it was a t.v. movie, or just bad. The acting was wooden, the story line weak, and the special effects not special nor effective.
The story, at its simplest, is about a Civil War wife who is at home waiting for the return of her Confederate sergeant husband. While waiting, with occasional skirmishes going on around her house (which she inexplicably runs through the middle of while dragging her little girl behind her) she discovers a seriously wounded Yankee soldier in her basement. No surprise in that she nurses him back to health. And for no reason, other than perhaps loneliness (which we are forced to guess)she falls in love with the Yankee. There is no heartfelt discussion, no longing looks, no kindnesses from Yankee to his Florence Nightingale, nor even to her daughter.
The southern accents are not just contrived, but painful to the ear. There is an occasional, intentional blurring of the scene which almost made me believe that maybe there was supposed to be some type of magic going on (accompanied by the presence of little stars whirring about- literally). However, it was such an odd occurrence, and without any explanation that it just added to the bizarre nature of the movie.
The strongest acting comes from the gentleman that plays the one-legged lecherous drunk. Saddled with a ridiculous set of false teeth, he nevertheless seemed excited to be in the movie. Second to the one- legged man was the teddy bear, who played his role well. Christina Ricci, who is talented, simply looked trapped. (And by the way, if you are going to have the heroine make threatening gestures with a "cap and ball" rifle, you need to have the hammers pulled back). Ricci's daughter in the movie appeared to be channeling Ricci's "Adam's Family" performance, which was great in Adam's Family, but not so great in a Civil War romance. Of course, she may have just been as bored as I was with the whole thing.
It sounds like a tragic Civil War love story. The real tragedy is that I watched it to the end.
The story, at its simplest, is about a Civil War wife who is at home waiting for the return of her Confederate sergeant husband. While waiting, with occasional skirmishes going on around her house (which she inexplicably runs through the middle of while dragging her little girl behind her) she discovers a seriously wounded Yankee soldier in her basement. No surprise in that she nurses him back to health. And for no reason, other than perhaps loneliness (which we are forced to guess)she falls in love with the Yankee. There is no heartfelt discussion, no longing looks, no kindnesses from Yankee to his Florence Nightingale, nor even to her daughter.
The southern accents are not just contrived, but painful to the ear. There is an occasional, intentional blurring of the scene which almost made me believe that maybe there was supposed to be some type of magic going on (accompanied by the presence of little stars whirring about- literally). However, it was such an odd occurrence, and without any explanation that it just added to the bizarre nature of the movie.
The strongest acting comes from the gentleman that plays the one-legged lecherous drunk. Saddled with a ridiculous set of false teeth, he nevertheless seemed excited to be in the movie. Second to the one- legged man was the teddy bear, who played his role well. Christina Ricci, who is talented, simply looked trapped. (And by the way, if you are going to have the heroine make threatening gestures with a "cap and ball" rifle, you need to have the hammers pulled back). Ricci's daughter in the movie appeared to be channeling Ricci's "Adam's Family" performance, which was great in Adam's Family, but not so great in a Civil War romance. Of course, she may have just been as bored as I was with the whole thing.
It sounds like a tragic Civil War love story. The real tragedy is that I watched it to the end.
Uneventful storyline and slow moving plot
Gordon-1131 August 2014
This film tells the story of a young woman and her daughter living in a farm house, waiting for the man of the house to return from the civil war.
I am rather surprised by how bad "War Flowers" is. The opening battle scene is supposed to be impressive, but it gives me the impression that it is a bad made for TV movie. The story is slow and quite uneventful, maybe it is because they are in a very small town where nothing happens. Then, an enemy soldier arrives and turns things upside down. The romance is so unbelievable and poorly built up, that I find it ridiculous that they would fall for each other. Another poorly constructed storyline is the daughter talking about how the father would come back. And another annoying thing is that people talk so slowly in the film that it doesn't even sound realistic. Poor Christina Ricci, she has starred in more than her fair share of bad movies in recent years. I hope her next film will be better!
I am rather surprised by how bad "War Flowers" is. The opening battle scene is supposed to be impressive, but it gives me the impression that it is a bad made for TV movie. The story is slow and quite uneventful, maybe it is because they are in a very small town where nothing happens. Then, an enemy soldier arrives and turns things upside down. The romance is so unbelievable and poorly built up, that I find it ridiculous that they would fall for each other. Another poorly constructed storyline is the daughter talking about how the father would come back. And another annoying thing is that people talk so slowly in the film that it doesn't even sound realistic. Poor Christina Ricci, she has starred in more than her fair share of bad movies in recent years. I hope her next film will be better!
Awful!
mzmojorizn-4068923 December 2018
Amateur Effort Makes this History Buff Cringe
makleen27 March 2020
Written and directed by Serge Rodnunsky, War Flowers (2012) is a vanity period film staring a surprising cast, including veteran actors Christina Ricci and Tom Berenger. A few charming performances save this otherwise meandering and strange take on American history from being too unbearable to watch, but history buffs will cringe.
Union general McIntire (Tom Berenger) lost two sons at the Battle of Antietam, so when his army invades an unnamed valley in North Carolina in 1863, he tries to send his third son, Louis (Jason Gedrick), back home before the war ends. Eager to get into the fight, Louis disobeys his father but gets wounded and seeks shelter in a farm house.
The house is owned by Sarabeth Ellis (Christina Ricci) and her daughter Melody (Gabrielle Popa), who are waiting for Sarabeth's husband, John (Bren Foster), to return from the war. Sarabeth believes John has been killed, but Melody has faith. Short on food, they're harassed by a local derelict, Rufus (Kurt Yaeger).
As the fortunes of war swirl around their farm, Sarabeth must decide whether to embrace her unwelcome Yankee visitor and perhaps move on with her life, or give up and succumb to the horrors of war. Things look bleak when Louis McIntire is captured by his own men, mistaken for a Confederate, and left in the stockade by his father. Will the two reunite and survive?
There aren't many redeeming qualities in this film, but if I had any praise at all, it would be for Gabrielle Popa's portrayal of seven-year-old Melody. It's a shame that actress hasn't gone on to do more with her career. The back-and-forth between her and Christina Ricci's character is the highlight of this movie. Their dialog borders on anachronistic, but it has a certain charm that saves the viewer from an otherwise lackluster and cliche-ridden script.
War Flowers' two stars, Ricci and Tom Berenger, are not at the height of their abilities. Berenger played Lt. Gen. James Longstreet in my favorite Civil War film Gettysburg (1993), but here both his acting and his physical health seem to have deteriorated. Likewise, Ricci gives it her best effort but there isn't much to work with. This movie was released after her TV show Pan Am (2011-2012) was cancelled, so maybe she had nothing better to do.
On a side note, North Carolina in 1863 is a weird setting for this film. There were only two battles fought in North Carolina that year: Fort Anderson and Washington. Both were Confederate offensives along the coast in the spring. Did the writer do any research for his movie, or did he just pick a southern state and year at random? If you're going to make a historical film, details matter. Grounding a story in real events makes it more compelling and authentic.
War Flowers currently has a 4.2 rating and a 38% audience score on RottenTomatoes, for good reason. Like the more recent Son of a Gun (2019), War Flowers is an amateur effort with a low production value. Despite spending upwards of $5 million, the direction, cinematography, editing, and sound are all embarrassingly poor quality, even for an indie film. Civil War buffs should avoid this amateur effort.
Union general McIntire (Tom Berenger) lost two sons at the Battle of Antietam, so when his army invades an unnamed valley in North Carolina in 1863, he tries to send his third son, Louis (Jason Gedrick), back home before the war ends. Eager to get into the fight, Louis disobeys his father but gets wounded and seeks shelter in a farm house.
The house is owned by Sarabeth Ellis (Christina Ricci) and her daughter Melody (Gabrielle Popa), who are waiting for Sarabeth's husband, John (Bren Foster), to return from the war. Sarabeth believes John has been killed, but Melody has faith. Short on food, they're harassed by a local derelict, Rufus (Kurt Yaeger).
As the fortunes of war swirl around their farm, Sarabeth must decide whether to embrace her unwelcome Yankee visitor and perhaps move on with her life, or give up and succumb to the horrors of war. Things look bleak when Louis McIntire is captured by his own men, mistaken for a Confederate, and left in the stockade by his father. Will the two reunite and survive?
There aren't many redeeming qualities in this film, but if I had any praise at all, it would be for Gabrielle Popa's portrayal of seven-year-old Melody. It's a shame that actress hasn't gone on to do more with her career. The back-and-forth between her and Christina Ricci's character is the highlight of this movie. Their dialog borders on anachronistic, but it has a certain charm that saves the viewer from an otherwise lackluster and cliche-ridden script.
War Flowers' two stars, Ricci and Tom Berenger, are not at the height of their abilities. Berenger played Lt. Gen. James Longstreet in my favorite Civil War film Gettysburg (1993), but here both his acting and his physical health seem to have deteriorated. Likewise, Ricci gives it her best effort but there isn't much to work with. This movie was released after her TV show Pan Am (2011-2012) was cancelled, so maybe she had nothing better to do.
On a side note, North Carolina in 1863 is a weird setting for this film. There were only two battles fought in North Carolina that year: Fort Anderson and Washington. Both were Confederate offensives along the coast in the spring. Did the writer do any research for his movie, or did he just pick a southern state and year at random? If you're going to make a historical film, details matter. Grounding a story in real events makes it more compelling and authentic.
War Flowers currently has a 4.2 rating and a 38% audience score on RottenTomatoes, for good reason. Like the more recent Son of a Gun (2019), War Flowers is an amateur effort with a low production value. Despite spending upwards of $5 million, the direction, cinematography, editing, and sound are all embarrassingly poor quality, even for an indie film. Civil War buffs should avoid this amateur effort.
I didn't make it through to the end
buckcash5 August 2013
I love movies. A movie has to really be bad for me to not like it. I only made it 20 minutes with this movie, then I had to just put a stop to it. I really wanted to like it. I just couldn't do it.
As a period piece set during the civil war, I looked forward to the costumes, props and scenery. Sadly, they weren't enough to carry me through to see it to the end.
What killed it for me was the acting. Really bad acting. Even Berenger, who I've come to expect more from, couldn't pull it together for this one. And the main characters, the mother and little girl, were just horrible actors, I'm sorry to say. So stiff and unconvincing in their dialogue that I just couldn't stand to watch the train wreck before me any longer.
I gave it 20 minutes, every one of which was wasted.
As a period piece set during the civil war, I looked forward to the costumes, props and scenery. Sadly, they weren't enough to carry me through to see it to the end.
What killed it for me was the acting. Really bad acting. Even Berenger, who I've come to expect more from, couldn't pull it together for this one. And the main characters, the mother and little girl, were just horrible actors, I'm sorry to say. So stiff and unconvincing in their dialogue that I just couldn't stand to watch the train wreck before me any longer.
I gave it 20 minutes, every one of which was wasted.
boring uneventful more like a children's play
kathyh32627 August 2013
This boring uneventful film I have to say I left the TV after watching it for about a half hour. My husband was dozing in the chair so I don't know if he actually "watched it" He likes civil war films but he was sorry to have had to pay the rent price on this one. I thought the acting was horrible and appeared child like more like a play one would see at school on a stage. Never heard of the actors or actresses either RED FLAG on that one. Do some research on films before you rent them. This is a boring and long and disastrous movie. I would not recommend anyone to watch it. It is going back to the video rental store as one of the worst movies I have ever rented.
A Hallmark Civil War movie, this film includes drama, romance, battles.
rebeccahartmancc2 January 2017
This film is a combination of a war and a Hallmark movie. Some parts are somewhat accurate to the time such as some uniforms. Others were not hidden well. Or changed to draw in more people in. This film is about a wife/mother Sara Elizabeth, whose husband goes off to the civil war to fight. She waits for him at their house with her daughter Melody, of course there has to be drama so some battles break out near their house. A soldier is injured and goes to their cellar. They find him and care for him. As he stays he falls for Sara Elizabeth. She refuses to get involved with him even though she has feelings for him, to stay true to her husband. After healing he goes home. There is more drama and surprises but that would spoil the movie.
Really bad movie
MrOvletine29 July 2014
Warning: Spoilers
I can usually find the good in most movies, and enjoy most movies - but this one really stinks! Sorry, finally found a movie to watch BECAUSE it's so bad. For starters, the acting is bad. Really bad. Super cheesy 'southern' accents,, flat deliveries. I don't think they did more than one take for any scene. Other than the two stars, i'm pretty sure they got locals to do the other speaking parts. And not well at all. The film work, is okay, but looks like it was shot on a video camera or something. The locations are terrible. I'm pretty sure the entire movie was shot on someone's farm. Looks nothing like a 'southern' style setting at all. No sets other than the house and most of the outdoor stuff is shot on a single country road - no town, no other buildings. The worst parts is the special effects. Two scenes in particular. One scene near the end shows a long column of marching soldiers. This is obviously a shot from another film , super imposed over a field. You can see the shot cut out with difference in the grass and sky. Horrible. The other shot is a dark swirling sky imposed over a field. And yet at the top of the tree line you can see bright blue sky where they couldn't mask the digital impression. Makeup was terrible. Very cheap. The only good thing was the costumes. Christina Ricci's dresses were very well done as were the soldiers uniforms, although I suspect the re-enactment guys brought their own uniforms. Except Tom Berringer's hat wasn't even a military hat. Looked like an old fedora they found in someone's grandfather's closet! Another thing that bugged me was the set. The women lives in what appears to be a very large farm house with huge rooms.. Yet when it is burned to the ground, there is no heaps of charred rubble like there should be. It's just a tiny basement and 1/8 size of the house layered in straw..and obviously fake stones as a foundation. I don't know what they spent the budget on,, but his seriously looks like it was produced by college film students.
Low-budget, but really good story with an impressive cast and convincing acting
Wuchakk22 May 2020
During the second half of the Civil War, a mother (Christina Ricci) and her precocious daughter await the return of their husband/father at their farmhouse in North Carolina. Meanwhile they have to fend with a local ne'erdowell, skirmishes, a questionable Confederate patrol and a wounded Union soldier found in their basement (Jason Gedrick). Tom Berenger has a peripheral role as a Union general.
Written & directed by Serge Rodnunsky, "War Flowers" (2012) is an Indie that some have criticized as having a student film vibe with some help from (very convincing) Civil War re-enacters. It's shot kinda stagily and edited using dissolves for many cuts. Meanwhile a few shots don't match each other colorwise.
These technical criticisms are valid due to an obvious low-budget, which reportedly cost $5 million with the bulk of it spent on the impressive cast and Civil War Reenactors, BUT the film does work on the most important level, that of storytelling. My wife & I saw it separately and we both enjoyed it: The story pulls you in and maintains your interest until the end with convincing acting by the principles. It's vital that a film like this have human interest (otherwise it's a lost cause) and it scores well in this area.
The movie runs 1 hour, 39 minutes, and was shot in Michigan.
GRADE: B-/B
Written & directed by Serge Rodnunsky, "War Flowers" (2012) is an Indie that some have criticized as having a student film vibe with some help from (very convincing) Civil War re-enacters. It's shot kinda stagily and edited using dissolves for many cuts. Meanwhile a few shots don't match each other colorwise.
These technical criticisms are valid due to an obvious low-budget, which reportedly cost $5 million with the bulk of it spent on the impressive cast and Civil War Reenactors, BUT the film does work on the most important level, that of storytelling. My wife & I saw it separately and we both enjoyed it: The story pulls you in and maintains your interest until the end with convincing acting by the principles. It's vital that a film like this have human interest (otherwise it's a lost cause) and it scores well in this area.
The movie runs 1 hour, 39 minutes, and was shot in Michigan.
GRADE: B-/B
Boring, Slow and plotless
ronmcreynolds10 June 2022
The only reason to watch this movie was Tom Beringer, but his minor role wasn't important, just lame. One should skip this movie as everything about it is poorly done. Bad directing, silly plot, bad acting, poor photography, reenactment vololunteers doing fake fighting and cannon shooting with no element of war emotions, just going through the weekend motions.
Below low budget quality movie. Worse than a student film.
Below low budget quality movie. Worse than a student film.
I have so many questions? Help.
rogopdpc30 October 2023
Why did Ricci and Berenger agree to do this film? I really like both actors and muddled through this one. You get the distinct impression the actors showed up on day one and catering was a bucket of KFC chicken. I watched on TUBI and was dumbfounded to learn this film had a theatrical release. Did someone misappropriate the budget for this film? The acting, special effects, costumes, historical accuracy, and reenactments are SO bad. It's like a made for television movie, but one not quite good enough for the Hallmark Channel.
I gave it a 3 because the script was OK. You wonder with a proper budget IF the outcome would have been different. I would LOVE to watch Ricci in a big budget Civil War epic BUT this one just misfired on almost every level. This was just wasted performances against what could have been an interesting story. It fills me with utter sadness.
I gave it a 3 because the script was OK. You wonder with a proper budget IF the outcome would have been different. I would LOVE to watch Ricci in a big budget Civil War epic BUT this one just misfired on almost every level. This was just wasted performances against what could have been an interesting story. It fills me with utter sadness.
This wins the clothes pin award.
kbrooks-260679 October 2020
I gave this a 1 only because there wasn't anything lower. Totally disappointed in Berenger as he is a superb actor and this was way below his abilities! The director needs to get more training from from experienced and professional directors and learn a bit more of of history for accuracy in costumes and behaviors!
Wow this was bad!!
BaublesBangles23 July 2020
This was so bad!!!! It's a tranquilizer with a bad southern accent!! I made it through just to verify the other bad reviews. Christina Ricci plays a better "southern belle" in "Z-the beginning of everything" about the wife of F.Scott Fitzgerald.
Soft and Muted Romance with a Strong Girl Character
summersglow9 June 2014
If you are looking for a CIVIL WAR extravaganza (The Patriot) with all kinds of CGI battle scenes, or an overblown romance (Gone With the Wind), this won't be the movie for you. It is a simple family romance with a Civil War backdrop. I found it touching, especially the little girl, seven year old Melody played by Gabrielle Popa. The cinematography and story are beautifully muted. For whatever reason I got the same feeling from the movie that I do from early Little House on the Prairie episodes.
One or more of the reviews complains that the acting by Cristina Ricci and the little girl Gabrielle Popa was horrible. For the first ten minutes or so I might have agreed but as I became comfortable with movement of the plot I found that I loved Melody's character. She was a smart, strong little girl character and as far away from many of today's glitzy charismatic child stars as can be. I loved her plainness, her questions, and the sadness she felt while hiding the sadness she felt.
Anyway, I have a feeling that if you like family drama/romance and remember Little House on the Prairie fondly, War Flowers will be a soft, enjoyable hour and a half.
One or more of the reviews complains that the acting by Cristina Ricci and the little girl Gabrielle Popa was horrible. For the first ten minutes or so I might have agreed but as I became comfortable with movement of the plot I found that I loved Melody's character. She was a smart, strong little girl character and as far away from many of today's glitzy charismatic child stars as can be. I loved her plainness, her questions, and the sadness she felt while hiding the sadness she felt.
Anyway, I have a feeling that if you like family drama/romance and remember Little House on the Prairie fondly, War Flowers will be a soft, enjoyable hour and a half.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
