Product Details

• Actors: Louise Fletcher, Victoria Tennant, Kristy Swanson, Jeb Stuart Adams, Ben Ryan Ganger
• Directors: Jeffrey Bloom
• Writers: Jeffrey Bloom, Virginia C. Andrews
• Producers: Charles W. Fries, Mike Rosenfeld, Sy Levin, Thomas Fries
• Format: Anamorphic, Closed-captioned, Color, DVD, Widescreen, NTSC
• Language: English (Dolby Digital 2.0 Mono)
• Region: Region 1 (U.S. and Canada only. Read more about DVD formats.)
  
• Aspect Ratio: 1.85:1
• Number of discs: 1
• Rating: PG-13 (Parental Guidance Suggested)
• Studio: Starz / Anchor Bay
• DVD Release Date: April 24, 2001
• Run Time: 93 minutes
• Average Customer Review: 3.1 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (154 customer reviews)
• ASIN: B000059PP1
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #8,024 in Movies & TV (See Bestsellers in Movies & TV)

  Popular in this category: (What's this?)

  #36 in

  Movies & TV > Drama > Family Life > Brothers & Sisters

• For more information about "Flowers in the Attic" visit the Internet Movie Database (IMDb)

Editorial Reviews

Amazon.com

The classic teen novel of adolescent torment and forbidden love gets brought to the screen. When the father of four beautiful blond children is suddenly killed, their mother (Victoria Tennant, L.A. Story) takes them to the family home she fled 17 years earlier. Their fierce and frightening grandmother (Louise Fletcher, One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest) locks them in an upstairs room, from which the only escape is into the cluttered and cobwebbed attic. The children's isolation gets more and more extreme as their mother abandons them, finally even slowly poisoning them to gain her father's inheritance. Sadly, the movie shies away from what made Flowers in the Attic such a hugely popular book--namely, the incestuous sex that began between the two older children, Cathy (Kristy Swanson, the movie version of Buffy the Vampire Slayer) and Chris (Jeb Stuart Adams). Instead, the movie insinuates incestuous longing in all directions: Cathy's father brings her special presents before he dies, Chris scrubs Cathy's back in the tub, Chris has a noticeably stronger attachment to their mother than Cathy does--not to mention that the grandmother whips the half-naked mother in front of the grandfather. Fletcher brings a bit of bite to her role, and the movie occasionally rises to absurdly lurid zest. --Bret Fetzer

Product Description

AFTER A TRAGIC ACCIDENT LEAVES THEM FATHERLESS, FOUR KIDS RETURN TO THEIR MOTHER'S MYSTERIOUS FAMILY MANSION HOPING FOR AN INHERITANCE. BUT WHEN THEY ARE IMPRISONED & ABANDONED BY THEIR EVIL GRANDMOTHER, THEY MUST SURVIVE ANOTHER NIGHTMARE. FEATURES: WIDESCREEN, THEATRICAL TRAILERS.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

4 of 4 people found the following review helpful:

2.0 out of 5 stars Good Golly Ms. Molly this one of the WORST interpretations of a GREAT novel!, December 9, 2007

By	Jenny J.J.I. "A New Yorker" (That Lives in Northern Nevada) - See all my reviews (TOP 500 REVIEWER)

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!

4 of 4 people found the following review helpful:

1.0 out of 5 stars disappointing, December 9, 2003

By	Katie (la quinta, CA United States) - See all my reviews

I found the screen version of Flowers in the Attic disappointing at best. The story was not followed as well as it could have been and the acting was mediocre, especially Victoria Tennant who portrayed the mother, Corrine. She showed little to no emotion throughout the film. The rest of the actors were far from good. This was obviously an extremely low budget film.
If you've read the book and enjoyed it, leave it at that. It can't be improved upon. If you haven't read the book and are considering the film, don't waste your time or money. Read the book.

4 of 4 people found the following review helpful:

1.0 out of 5 stars An insult to the book - Skip it, June 17, 2003

By A Customer

This review is from: Flowers in the Attic [VHS] (VHS Tape)

This movie was so far from the book, it should have had a different title altogether.

The best parts of the book were left out: the fact that Chris and Cathy became the true parents of the twins (Movie Carrie continued to believe in her mother until the end while Book Carrie and Cory come to see Cathy as their mother). 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.

If the movie was going to be made, the filmmakers should have at least had the courage to do it accurately. People like the book for a reason. The ending was understandable (there had to be closure to the movie; they weren't making a mini-series) but ridiculously executed. It fit with the rest of this ho-hum movie perfectly.