rebeccahartmancc 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.

Paul Magne Haakonsen 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.

Mr Black 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.

Buck Cash 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.