Flowers in the Attic (1987) Reviews

• So many ways to destroy a classic novel.

  shanfloyd2005-04-09

  Every great story has its own essence. And when it is stripped off that, it becomes a story that easily you and me or any John Doe could write. "Flowers in the Attic", written by Virginia Andrews, is a gripping tale of broken trust, betrayal, and complex human relationships that seem so natural under the circumstances, however forbidden they were to be. It's such a pity that such a novel should fall in wrong hands for its screen adaptation. The movie horribly lacks the original soul of the story, its sinister twists, its surprises, its adventures in sociology. The story is like this: after their father dies accidentally, Corrine, the mother, takes pre-pubertal Chris, Cathy and little twins Cory and Carrie to her own wealthy parents hoping she would inherit from his dying father. But there's a catch; her marriage had been earlier disapproved by the old man and he won't let her a penny if he finds out she has children. So she and the equally cruel grandmother lock the kids up in the attic... until the fine moment comes when she'd win the old man's heart back and tell her everything. But that day never comes while Corrine herself marries another man and eventually inherits the money... without telling her father about the children. In the meantime, Chris and Cathy grow up through teens and discover each other quite fruitfully, and eventually all four of them become a family, sharing a special bond made out of the feeling of being betrayed, and the longing to escape, which occurs not before three years. The movie changed a lot of it. Some I didn't mind, but some are really outrageous. The account of mental and physical growth of the children during the course of time is largely left out. The movie shows Chris and Cathy in late teens right from the start, which ruined the basic message behind their relationship. In the book the twins played an enormous role in building up that relationship between their older siblings. The movie did not treat them as characters, to put it flatly. And how the movie ends, it may look dramatic in a rather happy-ending manner, but comparing to the book, it is overtly exaggerated, giving the whole thing a cheap smell. The book's climax is not dramatic, yet far more thrilling than this crap about the kids meeting their new stepfather. And finally this sick hush-hush about the incest! Somebody who liked the movie considered the brilliant plot of the novel just an excuse to write about incest, and told me it's good how the movie avoided the details. Nonsense! incest in this story comes as the most natural thing on earth. And how wonderfully indifferent Andrews is when she writes about it, the storyteller being Cathy. The movie blandly leaves a large part of it out, making the whole movie seem, well, infertile. For the casting, only Louis Fletcher made a great grandmother. She is right there in her Oscar-winning standard. But besides her, it's all a bad casting throughout. Kristy Swanson as Cathy is just disgusting. How can she act so blunt when she's the central character? Jeb Adams as Chris may not look like he's described, but he acts not that bad. And Victoria Tennant as Corrine too, receives little screen time to be judged well. I wish there hadn't been a movie. You cannot make an art movie through three years, and you can't easily show a 13-year-old girl naked performing incest, both of which are absolutely necessary to make a good screen adaptation out of the story. But I don't want this crap to be remembered as the only movie out of Andrews' novel. I now want a remake, however controversial it may be, whatever ratings it may get.

• Why isn't anyone else ripping their hair out at this movie?!

  gemma_l_love2005-06-07

  I had been debating with myself for years about watching this movie. Having been an avid fan of the entire series of "Flowers in the Attic" books, I knew there was a strong possibility the film would do nothing but irritate me by way of poor acting and even poorer script-writing. What I didn't realise, was how much of a massacre the film was going to make of such a beautifully written book. First off, and I'm sorry - but it is a shallow comment to make: Those kids; Chris, Cathy, Carrie and Cory are supposed to be stunning. "The Dresden dolls" because they are *that* striking. Whoever cast the film seemed to have sorted through the "Village of the Damned" rejects in order to find the two youngest (scariest looking couple of children I have ever seen) Chris was, I'm sorry - just nothing like the original character and while Kristy Swansen is very pretty - she just didn't cut it as Cathy. Which brings me to my next point - Cathy's thing is ballet - she's an excellent dancer - and aside from a couple of pathetic scenes involving Swansen trying to get her leg higher than her hip-bone, they ignored the one thing that the entire character centres around. And just out of interest - where was the relationship between Cathy and Chris? I know having an incestuous relationship played out in film has got to be controversial - but don't bother even picking up a pen to write a script for a story if you have absolutely no intention of keeping the central story-lines. And if you do, don't have the audacity to pass it off as the film version of a highly acclaimed book just by giving it the same title. "Flowers in the Attic" was based on a true story. (As stated in the prologue of the copy I have anyway). How - HOW is it OK to just butcher such an awesome piece of work? It's like passing Pokemon off as the Mona-Lisa; sick and entirely wrong. They have completely missed the point of the story: It wasn't about 4 kids sitting in an attic waiting to die or be let out; it was about four children adapting to a situation wherein they have to become adults long before their time. It was about how the relationships between the siblings evolved, and the psychological consequences of losing one parent through death and another through greed. For anyone who has watched the film and is ready to dismiss the books because of it - seriously; don't be fooled by such an obvious lacklustre attempt at a book adaptation. There are not enough words in the English language to explain how wrong this film is - how utterly and completely pathetic the script, setting, acting, casting, directing and the 101 other ways in which the movie sucks beyond belief. And just... just don't get me started on the ending. Every time I think about it I just want to do nasty things involving pointy objects to the script-writer. Please tell me someone agrees with me?

• I Thought It Was Decent, Then Again I Haven't Read The Book...

  drownnnsoda2007-05-19

  "Flowers In The Attic", based on the controversial Gothic novel from V.C. Andrews, centers around a widowed mother (Victoria Tennant) who decides to whisk her four children off to live with their grandparents in their isolated mansion. The children consist of Chris, Cathy, and the two younger children, Cory and Carrie. Little do the children know, their mother has essentially given them over to their abusive, religiously-fanatical grandmother (played by Oscar winner Louise Fletcher), and they are locked away in the attic and kept there, while their health deteriorates and they are abused constantly. All the while, their evil mother conspires to receive the inheritance from her own dying father, and plans on starting a completely new life with another man - even if it means murder. A decent but semi-disturbing film, "Flowers In The Attic" is a strange movie. Keep in mind I haven't read the novel that the film was based upon, so I have no reference between the two (although I've heard numerous times that the film did the book not an ounce of justice). So, without comparing the film and the novel, I thought this movie was pretty effective. The storyline is nicely written here, it's an obscure plot for sure. The script was decent as well, and again I'm not sure how it correlates with the original book. Atmosphere and claustrophobia is consistent in the film as well, it isn't your typical bloody horror flick. Everything has a very Gothic, depressing tone, and the mood here fits everything very well. It's an eerie film, mainly because of the disturbing subject matter and the gloomy atmosphere that is present throughout. The film deals with some heavy issues as well (including incest, among other things), so you may want to be aware of that. As far as the acting goes here, I thought it was very good. Louise Fletcher (who garnered an Oscar for her stunning performance in the film classic "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest") is terrifying in her performance as the abusive, psychotic grandmother of the children. As if her character isn't scary enough, Fletcher is a very tall woman as well, and her stature and attitude adds to the menacing nature of her character. I thought she carried the film in way of the performances and more notable than the others, but everyone else was good here too. A young Kristy Swanson plays the eldest daughter Cathy, and Victoria Tennant plays the manipulative and evil mother of the four kids. The ending of the film consisted of some good old bittersweet revenge, it's definitely one of those endings that you're likely to remember. Overall, "Flowers In The Attic" is a good movie. I haven't read the novel, so I don't personally know how it compares to the book. Based on other reviews here, the book apparently blows the film away, but since I've yet to read it, I'm just judging my review on the film alone. It's a decent psychological Gothic horror story about abuse, abandonment, human relationships, and revenge. Personally I thought it was an alright film, and worth watching if it sounds like your cup of tea (although, judging from what I've heard, if you've read the novel, you may be disappointed with it). 6/10.

• Don't judge it by the book

  joposa2006-01-09

  An earlier review here, one of the few positive reviews of this movie on this site, had one thing wrong, saying that those who read the book would appreciate the movie, and vice-versa. In fact, the opposite seems to be true. Having not read the book, I first saw this movie unjaded, and so was able to appreciate it as the sad and tragic story that it is. The sudden death of a loving husband and father (it appears he may be a little too loving toward the oldest daughter, but the movie doesn't expand on that) leaves the family in despair, so the mother takes the children and herself to her filthy-rich parents' mansion, hoping to inherit the estate from her dying father. Just one little thing: she was long-ago disinherited because she entered into a forbidden marriage, and her father will not grant her an inheritance if he knows the marriage resulted in children, so she and her mother, "The "Grandmother", keep the children hidden in an attic as they await the old man's death, and she tries to win back his approval. The Grandmother is like a cruel warden, treating the children, a teenage boy and girl, and two young twins, boy and girl, like convicted criminals, only worse. The waiting goes on and on, during which the mother is consumed by greed, and emerges as the real villain. Some readers of the book are indignant that the story was cleaned up for the movie, but that was necessary to make it more watchable to a wider audience. It is still a great and haunting story, reminiscent of the black and white horror flicks of the 1960's ("Whatever Happened To Baby Jane", "Hush Hush, Sweet Charlotte", etc.). Audiences of the 1980's were not so jaded as today's, and were not ready for incest, especially among sympathetic characters. Maybe the acting was not first-rate, and some elements, like the climactic ending, a bit campy, but the compelling storyline easily compensates for it, so long as you don't dwell on the few shortcomings, and can't see the forest for the trees. And the movie has one thing the book hasn't: a memorably haunting, chilling musical score, a perfect compliment to an equally haunting, chilling story.

• Flowers of the darkness

  rose-2942008-03-23

  I read Flowers in the Attic (under the Finnish title Flowers of the darkness)) as a teenager. I did not know it was supposedly scandalous in USA for it's content: violence was melodramatic instead of hardhittingly realistic and the romantic(ized) incest fantasy was just that: PG spice. There was no sleazy, trashy horror scum in this book - V C Andrews is not Jack Ketchum or even Stephen King - just Gothic romance melodrama. The movie kept the striking Old dark house setting and entertainingly villainous Christian fanatics, but took away the incest. Rats! Louise Fletcher, the depraved nurse torturing mentally ill in the socially critical One flew over cuckoo's nest, was again the source of evil - in all Andrews books everybody over 25 was the necessary evil - and Kirsty Swanson was blonde enough to play the "innocent" heroine Cathy.