Customer Reviews

Flowers in the Attic [VHS]

5 star:		(45)
4 star:		(26)
3 star:		(41)
2 star:		(21)
1 star:		(36)

 

 

In my point of view, if you want to know the real story, read the book! I read the book before I saw the movie and I was VERY disappointed. The movie leaves out all of the feelings and losses of the characters, which is what makes the book amazing.

The story is about four beautiful children (Chris, Cathy, Carrie, and Cory), who are locked away in a room by thier selfish mother, with a filthy attic as their playground. Their cruel heartless Grandmother 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.

This book will capture the tears from your eyes, as you feel the trials and triumphs of four helpless children, locked away without care.

I recommend the rest of the dollanganger series from V.C. Andrews, from the escape from the attic; to the return; and thier lives still haunted by the house; and a Pre-quel.
-Petals on the Wind,
-If there be Thorns,
-Seeds of Yesterday,
-and finally, Garden of Shadows.

First off, I have to say that the movie barely even follows the same plot as the brilliant book. The were so many problems! In the book the oldest girl was supposed to be 12 when they came to the attic, in the movie she looks 15 or 16. In the book the grandmother didn't cut the oldest girls hair, she tried but Chris stopped her. And what happened to the incest? It carried such huge messages and themes in the book and in the movie there is none of it. I could go on for pages about the inconsistensies, even the ending is hugely different. I swear sometimes when they actually said something from the book I would think "Hey! That's kinda like Flowers In The-...oh yeah...". But to defend the makers of this movie a bit, this was before the entertainment industry relized how much it annoys people when they don't follow much loved books. I mean look at the 2 latest movies based on books, Lord Of The Rings and Harry Potter. They are two great books with movies that are good as well and stay true to them. I really wish they would remake the movie and have a movie for each book in the series. I think Flowers In The Attic was around 400 pages. When a 400 page book is squashed into an 85 minute movie it isn't pretty...But for a moment here lets forget about the book, now lets look at the problems with the stand alone movie. The acting was quite weak at times. Cory's voice was annoying but I actually respected that because it seemed more realistic. Another thing I like about the movie was how it showed that man digging the four graves, that was a very eerie well done scene. A shame it was only 4 seconds and the rest of the movie never had that eerie mood. A movie like this really should have that eerie mood. It all happened too fast. And you never got to know the characters well enough to feel bad for them. You never got to know the mother well enough to be shocked when the truth came out. Nothing was understood, there seemed to be a shortage of lines. And half the lines were chocked full of emotion that came to soon and too rushed. Instead of getting the feeling they were in the attic for years, you feel they were in the attic for 85 minutes, the time of the movie. It doesn't glide you from scene to scene, it puts more circles under the childrens eyes and tell you it's been a few months. And by skipping those few months we lose a lot of important dialoge and emotions that must have passed between the children. All in all you should really only watch this out of curiosity, not for entertainment, and not for a substitute of the book.

I will have to agree with some of the other reviewers, that this movie was fluffed, and a little too careful with the production of this movie. I feel that the director could have definitely included the incestuous act, as it would add a little more spice to it. I mean it was interesting to the point where it made you not want to leave until you found out what was going to happen, but if you collect movies like most of us, and you will be watching this more than once, then it could use some excitement. Excellent story line, and in the beginning, how their father died and they had to resort to living back home, where she escaped from years ago.Now, because of the mom's incestuous relationship with the children's father, how the grandmother was going to punish them all for the mothers sins,including the mom. very sick. very interesting.At the end, I would have liked to see more reaction from the mother's wedding party when the children finally escape from the attic and tell everyone during the ceremony of the mom's marriage, how they were locked in the attic all that time and how the younger son was poisoned by his own mother, AND NOW HERE SHE IS GETTING MARRIED TO A MAN WHO HAD NO IDEA SHE EVEN HAD CHILDREN. The mom, falls off the balcony and dies, the grandmother never pays for what she's done and is still alive, and the groom, just stood there with a slightly shocked look on his face. COME ON??????! Needs to be more dramatic but over all very interesting plot and story.

The only people criticizing this movie are those that read the book and feel that the movie came up short in comparison. I have news for you- the movie is going to be inferior to the book *every single time* no matter WHAT type of movie it is. Horror, drama, suspense, you name it. The book is going to be better, that's a fact.

That's why whenever you're planning to see a movie version of a book, you better lower your expectations by quite a lot.

With THAT out of the way, Flowers in the Attic is a shocking story. It's about four kids that are forced to live inside an attic while their wicked old grandmother with all her many delightful little mental problems does a below average job taking care of them as she keeps them trapped and unable to leave the house.

The interesting thing about the story is that later on, the kids find a way to free themselves from the room, and the grandmother doesn't seem to care a whole lot about that. But oh BOY- don't have a brother and sister sleeping together in the same bed or all heck will break loose!

The butler is another character in the film. He tries to be scary by never saying a word and walking around with a mean face, but he's just as much of a coward as the grandmother. He's just as heartless too.

There's a spoiler near the end involving one of the kids that shocked me a little. It's shocking because of the mothers reaction to it.

The GREAT storyline twist gradually starts revealing itself near the end involving the mother. I didn't see THAT coming. I'll leave it at that.

Great suspense, interesting storyline, magnificent acting by all four of the children, and just a great little movie. I don't know how I missed it back in the late 80's.

...You'll probably be a bit disappointed in the movie. I have to say, the book did indeed have all the makings of a B grade movie, and it sure didn't disappoint there. The movie was riddled with bad acting, and that was quite disappointing. The characters though, did look very similar to what I had pictured when having read the book. The story, however, loses something when translated to the screen, and the movie just was not what I had anticipated. Too bad, really. All in all, if you have nothing better to do, it's not a total waste of time, as the story is still an interesting one, but I wouldn't waste too much money on it.

This movie should have never been made. It goes away from the story in so many ways. The book really captures the essence of each character while the movie exploits the title of the book to make money and you end up not really feeling for the children.

The only positive thing is that the grandmother's role was acted superbly, but that in no way saves this travesty.

Flowers in the Attic should be made into a mini-series on A&E, they know how to be true to a book, such as Pride & Prejudice.

The incest was only implied and never went as far as it did in the book. You can make a movie telling what actually happended without being graphic. Granted no one wants to see incest but it was essential to the story. It really shows us the ramifications of the mother's action and how it forever scarred th lives these children.

As a movie itself, and if you've never read the book, the movie comes across as the Movie of the Week and the only reason you're watching it is to see what happens at the end.

If you compare it to the book, you will see how horrible this movie really is.

Pick up the book and enjoy. Pass up the movie.

The casting and acting is superb. So there's credit given where it is due.

However, the plot of this movie, when compared to the actual novel of the same name written by V. C. Amdrews, is just pathetic. The movie's ending stinks, the characters weren't developed hardly at all, and more than half of the things that happened in the attic were left out of the movie.

If I rated the movie based on the novel, it wouldn't even get one star. If you loved the movie, you would absolutely LOVE the book.

and you'll think this is a better-than-average made-for-TV (even though it wasn't) movie, and you'll appreciate the book even more.

Let's start with the cons: The book was set in the late 1950's (around 1957, I think, and I know I'm comparing to the book, but bear with me), whereas the movie is set in present-day. This presents many problems.

Just an aside: "A Walk to Remember" by Nicholas Sparks was set in 1958 and when it was translated to the screen, it lost a lot of its charm because it was set in the present. There's just a certain charm about time past that cannot be duplicated in the here and now.

Anyway, fast-forwarding the book about thirty years, it lost something. The children would have been much more innocent, but then again, Jeb Stuart Adams and Kristy Swanson were MUCH too old for the roles. I know they were supposed to be older going into the attic than they were in the book (I am guessing Chris and Cathy are the same age going into the attic in the movie as they were coming out in the book), but Jeb Adams was twenty-seven, and he looked it. And am I the only one who noticed the children more resembled displaced Amish children (Chris wears suspenders and what was with Cathy and those dowdy dresses?) than the Dresden dolls they were supposed to be?

These children did not look Aryan enough--yes, they had blond(e) hair, though I didn't notice any blue eyes, and Cory's curly hair made him look Jewish (which would have been fine, if this was a story about Jewish children, but it wasn't), neither were any of these children stunning; they were all rather ordinary looking (Kristy Swanson was somewhat pretty, at least before her hair got chopped off). Though Victoria Tennant is elegant and attractive (but not as) in a Grace Kelly sort of way, she looked a bit tired. As for the father, well, I imagined a much handsomer man (think Jeffrey Hunter with blond hair), but oh, well.

But it was the children's ages that were worse. The twins were fine, but Chris and Cathy were post-pubescent in the movie, as opposed to pre-pubescent in the book (though Chris is fourteen in the book, he doesn't start growing hair in certain places until later), which explains why the children in the book held out for as long as they did before escaping. It is much easier to control a fourteen-year-old boy than a boy old enough to serve in the military.

I think the worst scene of the film was when Chris and Cathy are on the bus in the daytime and Cathy is going on about how they never had a pet, about how they should have had one so they could get used to death, or some such nonsense as that, so that she would know that fathers die, even handsome, wonderful ones, too. It was so totally pointless.

I also think the fact that they arrived at Foxworth Hall during the daytime and through the front door instead of in the dark of night through the back deflated some of the mystery. The cinematography could have been darker in some places, lighter in others. Instead, it always seemed like it had just rained.

We are given just a glimpse of what life was like, how sunny yellow it was, before Chris Sr.'s death.

I didn't really mind the ending with Corinne dying, being hung by her wedding veil, because I really do see a book and a movie made from it as two separate works of art. That's how Margaret Mitchell felt about "Gone with the Wind". Though I read somewhere a sequel was planned, I am not sure how they would have went about doing that as "Petals on the Wind" focused not only on Cathy's exciting and versatile love life, but on getting revenge on her mother.

Cathy's character was just totally different in the movie (and so was Carrie's--Carrie was a little spitfire in the book) and in leaving out the incest between Chris and Cathy, it lost something. Chris was just blah and Cory was cute and all, but not much else. The female characters dominated this film.

Overall, the movie was just a low-budget, lackluster production.

Now for the pros: The haunting, chilling score (I'm still not sure how I feel about Cathy's narrating), and Louise Fletcher was perfect as the grandmother. This flick is entertaining enough because when I watched it before I even knew of the book's existence, I was intrigued. I've watched it twice since then and have the same opinion I've had since reading the book--that it could have been so much better, but better had it not been done at all. What's in my imagination is better than anything they can put on film. I've found the best movies are made out of bad books.

Watch it once or twice, maybe even a third time with a friend, but that's about it. The book has much more readability.

i am a massive fan of the flowers in the attic book, but i guess that's why the film was such a disappointment for me. i had read a few good reviews but mainly bad reviews, but i decided to buy it as it wasn't that expensive and see for myself.
the film doesn't last that long and i appreciate that they could not film it how the book was written word for word. i don't think any film could go into that sort of depth, and make you feel exactly what the characters are going through.

when i read the book i could feel every emotion that the children up in the attic went through, but when i saw the film, i just did not feel anything. what got to me the most is the ending. i'm not going to give it away, but they couldn't film a sequel even if they wanted to! i don't know why it ended the way it did, so totally different to the book, and cathy and chris falling in love is such a main part of the book, but the film just did not emphasise this.

i would not reccommend this film, but if you're curious then by all means, rent it out or something, but if you are a massive fan of the book, then you will probably be dissapointed.

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!