Flowers in the Attic (1987)

WE GET IT... NOW GIVE IT A REST!!!

Ok, now I understand that alot of the people who read the book first and then watched the movie were dissapointed; as the movie was not like the book at all. That being said, the movie is what made me want to read the book. I'll be the first to say that the book and its series are excellent, but I love the movie too. This movie came out when I was seven years old and it terrified me and made me cry (poor Cory). At the age of seven, I was so enraged at their mother's behavior I wanted to break the television set. Even today in my late 20s, I still find myself wanting to inflict damage on my TV. Both the book and the movie stirred up sadness, anger, and bewilderment at how people who you trust and who are supposed to love you can behave in such a callous and hateful way. In my opinion, I think both the book and the movie succeeded in bringing out these emotions. So for those who are bias and in favor of the book, sit down and watch the movie again and see how it makes you feel. Maybe you'll find you kinda like it. April 28, 2008

WOW

I gave this movie a high rating only because it brings back memories of my childhood. I saw the movie before I read the book, which made the movie like a watered down made-for-tv thing. I don't know if people were ready for the REAL Flowers in the Attic back when the movie was made. However,I used to love this movie! February 13, 2008

Flowers in the Attic DVD

Good movie however if you can watch the DVD first and then read the book. The movie was different than the book especially the ending. January 15, 2008

Aryan incestoids escape torture and neglect and discover that keeping it in the family really is the best policy.

The scariest thing about Flowers in the Attic, is that the novel by V. C. Andrews has sold billions of copies. For anyone who somehow missed the book, this is a story of four very blond children - a couple of strapping teens named Cathy (Kristy Swanson) and Chris (Jeb Adams), who like to sleep in the same bed and keep the bathroom door open. And then there's the little twinsies, Carrie (Lindsay Parker) and Cory (Ben Ganger). Their mother's name is Corinne (Victoria Tennant). If they have a cat, it is most likely named `Cat'.

This cute clan is disrupted by the death of father, whereupon Tennant takes them back to the family manse, from whence she was kicked out 17 years ago, after marrying her own uncle! She plans to regain the love of her dying father and inherit his fortune. (Apparently applying for a job and joining the workforce just never entered into the equation).

The kids are locked in a spacious bedroom and treated with extreme cruelty by their grandmother Louise Fletcher, who must have studied Piper Laurie's every move in Brian DePalma's "Carrie". (It's a shame she didn't notice the subtleties in that performance as well. Her acting is so over-the-top, if she had a black moustache, she would twirl it.) She calls them ''devil's spawn'' and goes so far as to trim Cathy's blonde locks. (oh no!)

The children spend most of their time in the attic - which they get to through a secret door in their room. It is here that their eyes grow cavernous - apparently from too much makeup. But what really gets to the kids is the realization that mother Tennant has been sprinkling arsenic on their cookies. (This makes Tennant a hero in our opinion as these children are so annoying and stupid, poisoning falls into the category of mercy killing.) But enough of this, lest, as little Cory, who eats more cookies than is good for him, puts it, ''We'll have to thwow up.''

Incestuous desires run rampant in the original novel, but the movie,written and directed for minimum impact by Jeffrey Bloom, only offers soft-focus innuendo. Stripped of its metaphorical trimmings, the sublimely ridiculous plot reduces the viewer to laughter more than tears.

On second thought, the scariest thing about this movie is that the original novel was followed by more horticultural horror sequels, ''Petals on the Wind,'' ''If There Be Thorns'' ''Seeds of Yesterday'' and ''Garden of Shadows.'' to name but a few.

Could there still be bitter fruit to come? . . .Now that's the REAL horror!

December 16, 2007

Good Golly Ms. Molly this one of the WORST interpretations of a GREAT novel!

I read "Flowers in the attic" during my pre-teens and I was captured by the story and by the characters. I envisioned them to be almost doll like and beautiful and especially the mother. Usually when a woman is very beautiful she passes on her beautiful traits to her children. The first time I saw this movie was at the age 13. I sat there about as riveted as a 13 year old can be. And when it went off, I thought to myself "that was a pretty good movie". And I took that thinking with me, all through these years...until today, when I saw it for the second time. This time I watched the movie through an adult eye, and thought to myself, "Wow, this movie is really bad"

This is a classic Bad Movie element especially when the film is a book adaptation. It generally means that the filmmakers are afraid that they'll be unable to cram enough of the book's contents into the movie. For those who don't know, the story is about four beautiful children (Chris (Jeb Stuart Adams), Cathy (Kristy Swanson), Carrie (Lindsey Parker), and Cory (Ben Ryan Ganger), who are locked away in a room by their selfish mother (Victoria Tennant), with a filthy attic as their playground. Their cruel heartless Grandmother (Louise Fletcher) brainwashes the small children, Cory and Carrie, into thinking that they are "devil's spawn", and they are painfully malnourished. They live each day as if it were a year, sadly awaiting the truths that are to come from their greedy mother. The narration is used to jam as much expository dialog and back-story down our craw as we can stomach. The narrator is an older version of Cathy, the main character, looking back at the film's events. The movie was nothing compared to the book. Maybe a few scenes here and there to tell you that you are watching the movie version of "flowers in the attic", but nothing major. It did not keep me on the edge of my seat at all. I also read a book called "Garden of Shadows" which leads up to the story of "Flowers in the attic".

Come to fine out the studio snuck out the actually rating quietly. First, the story had to be changed to PG-13 rating so there's no incest at all--not even suggested. The tortures their grandmother puts them through were softened or eliminated entirely. They aren't up there for three years. And they completely changed the ending (although it WAS great to see the mother get it at the end). All the changes drained the story of any impact it might have had. Acting didn't help--Louise Fletcher is a great actress but her role was rather wooden and farce; Victoria Tennant was even worse as the mother; Kristy Swanson overplayed her role a LOT. Only Jeb Stuart Adams gave a halfway good performance. It was no great piece of acting but okay.

I would really love it if some really great director came out with the movie version of "Garden of Shadows" and as the follow up with a remake of "Flowers in the Attic". And if the movie is recreated I would really like to see that the characters look as if they are described in the book and also they should at least be real blondes and try not to leave out the most explosive scenes. People love drama and to leave out the most dramatic parts of the book makes no sense. Chris and Cathy's romance is essential as a theme of the book because it parallels the 'evil breeds evil' theme that the grandmother believes in and what the children come to realize later: what *true* evil is. To be fair to the movie, a faithful adaptation of the book would probably be way too grim for a movie (and get an NC-17 rating) but diluting it completely AND adding lousy acting isn't the way to go!
December 10, 2007

More reviews at Amazon.com ...