IMDb user comments for
Flowers in the Attic (1987) More at IMDbPro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 14:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Index

136 comments in total

---

95 out of 114 people found the following comment useful :-
Why isn't anyone else ripping their hair out at this movie?!, 7 June 2005

Author: gemma_l_love from United Kingdom

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?

---

16 out of 17 people found the following comment useful :-
So many ways to destroy a classic novel., 9 April 2005

Author: shanfloyd from India

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

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.

---

11 out of 11 people found the following comment useful :-
I Thought It Was Decent, Then Again I Haven't Read The Book..., 19 May 2007

Author: youshotandywarhol from Oregon

"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.

---

16 out of 21 people found the following comment useful :-
Jeff Bloom did one right thing...he never made a sequel., 16 January 2003

Author: Medusa13 from United States

That might sound a little harsh. It certainly wasn't the worst movie I have ever seen, but it's down there. The events that transpire throughout the course of the film stay true to V.C. Andrews' novel, in some ways. Four siblings are locked in the northern wing of their grandparents' house by their selfish mother and sadistic grandmother after the death of their father has left the family in debt. The movie does open up before "Daddy's" death, and there is even a scene where the oldest daughter, Cathy, is given a music box by her beloved father, just like in the book. However, the relationship between Cathy and her father seems almost irrelevant to the whole feel of the movie, from what I can remember, because unlike in the book, their relationship is not developed well, not much beyond that one scene in fact. And there were sequels to the book that were able to expand on the effects Chris Sr.'s death had on Cathy, especially seen through her incestuous relationship with her brother, which was cut out of the movie. Then there is the night of the father's birthday party (only in the movie, there are no guests), and the family is waiting for him to come home from work. He never does. Instead, a couple of police officers show up at the door. Cathy screams. Cut to Cathy and Chris in a bus (was it a bus? In the book, they were in a train), on their way to their grandmother's house, or rather, mansion. Blah blah blah. The kids arrive, are locked away in a northern room, and that's where they stay for the next few years. You have to pardon me. I know all about the book. I know it by heart. But I haven't seen this movie for years so I don't remember exactly how long they were imprisoned in the film. In the book, it was like 3 years, four months and 16 days. In the closet of this sequestered room, there are stairs leading up to the attic where they often like to play, and where Cathy practices ballet. Cathy and her brother Chris do not go on to have a love affair, though, like they did in the book. Yet there is still plenty of abuse. Besides the obvious fact that they are being locked away from the world, the grandmother also cuts Cathy's beautiful hair and slaps the children and stuff. And Chris and Cathy do like to take baths with the other one watching. The ending is the worst part of this movie. It strays far from the book's conclusion. It goes for sensation, unlike V.C. Andrews, whom I think knew what she was doing when she had the story end the way it did. She also left room for a sequel. Jeff Bloom really didn't. I read that there was talk of a sequel, but they never got around to it. I'm glad. Petals on the Wind was my favorite in the series, and the rest were really good too, better than the original because the characters were more complex. I shudder to think of what would have been done to them in a film adaptation. Overall, this is not a movie worth seeing. Fans of the book will most likely be disappointed, and those who haven't read it probably won't like it much either. I don't know quite why the movie failed to live up to the book. Well, no movie seems to, just by principle, with rare exceptions. On top of that, the acting wasn't very good, though Kristy Swanson does look like Cathy would. Though perhaps that's because I originally bought the movie tie-in copy of the book, and the kids on the cover were modeled after the actors. There certainly was a vague resemblance between Cathy, Chris and their younger brother Cory, twin of Carrie, on the cover and the actors who played them. On some of the movie covers, it shows the illustrated picture from the book cover. It is cool. It shows four kids standing in the attic doorway as if they are prepared to enter a dangerous other world, looking scared. The main failure though is probably that the way V.C. Andrews wrote the book cannot be duplicated by any director or screenwriter. And the prologue was ten times better than Cathy's voice-over during the opening credits. But mainly, this is the kind of story to be read, especially since I feel that V.C. Andrews was a much better writer than most people give her credit for being, most of all this movie, which by the way, she had a cameo in. She was a window-washer. So if you want the story, read the book. Read the whole series, if you want. I gave the first four books very high ratings on Amazon, though they disturbed me greatly, and in a way, I hate them for that. And it takes a lot to disturb me. Forget this. I give it a 3 out of ten.

---

18 out of 25 people found the following comment useful :-
feeble adaptation of a powerful book, 23 May 2004
Author: didi-5 from United Kingdom

The original quartet of books (Flowers in the Attic; Petals on the Wind; Let There be Thorns; Seeds of Yesterday) combined to tell a controversial and powerful tale of abuse, incest, betrayal, murder, mental distress and collapse, and hidden family secrets. The characters leapt off the page and the situations were memorable.

This film, I'm sorry to say, is feeble and doesn't get even halfway near to doing justice to Virginia Andrews' work. As the key character, Cathy, Kirsty Swanson is all wrong, while her siblings Chris, Carrie, and Cory (played by Jeb Stuart Adams, Lindsay Parker, and Ben Ryan Ganger) don't engage the interest. Perhaps the most interesting character in the film is Corrine, their mother, played by Victoria Tennant, and given a bit of characterisation.

I just think the material is pretty unfilmable without it veering into pseudo-porn or just becoming a catalogue of violence. Stick to the books and avoid this.

---

13 out of 18 people found the following comment useful :-
Revenge of the 80's: The Lame book-to-film adaptation., 10 January 2005

Author: Captain_Couth (sirjosephu@aol.com) from Sacramento, CA

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

Flowers in the Attic (1987) was a weak attempt to translate the twisted V.C. Andrews southern Gothic horror novel into a made-to-teens movie. A film like this cannot be a P.G. film. If you even read a part of the book you'll know why. That's why today I'm going to give you a brief run down of the movie so you wont be tempted to watch this piece of garbage.

A hot mom and her four bratty kids have to leave their suburban home because the bread winner (i.e. Pop's) is killed in a traffic accident. Pop's and the daughter have a very bizarre relationship (shown briefly with Mum spying on the two). Pop's dies on his birthday leaving the family to fend for themselves. When the money runs out, the five of them move into a dreary mansion that's ran by a cruel grandmother, a butler who resembles a young and spry Ronald W. Reagan and a basket case on wheels who looks like Mr. Steptoe.

After being cleansed of her sins the ancient way (involving a scourging bull whip). The mother has to put her kids into an attic room while Mister Steptoe eh.. the Grandfather dies. While they wait, the children must live chaste lives and live out the days inside a musty and moldy attic. Chirs and Cathy (the older kids in their budding years) must fight temptation and (oops that's the book) they must become the most stupid and obnoxious children they can become. Grandmother berates them and calls them sinners and what not. The youngest of the brood the twins Corey and Carrie are even more unsympathetic than the older sibs.

Pretty soon the food stops coming and Mum only makes cameo appearances. The child have nothing to eat (expect when Chris plays Jesus and feeds the wee ones his blood. If you think the movie can't get more ridiculous, it does. While the children starve, Mum courts a middle aged mullet wearing suitor. When she finally visits the kids, the ungrateful children lash out at their benefactor and she makes a hasty exit. The day of judgment comes when they learn three things, one Corey is dead, two Gramps is dead and three Mum's gonna get married!

After stealing enough money, the kids get the courage to leave their room in the attic. After Chris puts the smack down on grandma and avoid lurch err I mean Ronnie err the butler, they run right into the middle of the wedding ceremony. Daughter confronts the jealous mother and a brief chase turns into tragedy. Mum hangs herself with her long veil. How ironic she wore white. As the three leave the mansion, the narrator promises more to come!

Thankfully this movie sank like the Bismark at the box office. No more book-to-film adaptations for V.C. Andrews (who died during the post production, probably due to watching the dailies whilst she was on the set). A shame about the movie because if it was done correctly, we could have saw the whole series on film. But when you cheap out and use a hack to write and direct, you get garbage on the screen.

Not recommended.

I wouldn't watch this movie again on a dare or a bet. Well, maybe if it was worth my while.

xxx

---

15 out of 22 people found the following comment useful :-
Don't judge it by the book, 9 January 2006

Author: joposa from United States

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 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.

---

8 out of 10 people found the following comment useful :-
One of the worst movies made from a book, 9 April 2005

Author: from United States

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

I was so disappointed when i saw this movie. I had just read the book, and thought it portrayed the characters so well, and showed the bad sides of human nature. In this movie the acting was horrible. There was no emotion, and so much drama over too little drama..if that makes sense The movie also seemed like it was over the span of a couple months, rather than three years. It did not touch on a major issue of the book, how the brother and sister fell in love, which took up a lot of the actual story. It also added in a lot of weird characters and it had little or no detail in the scenes, making the kids seem like total brats. It seemed like everything happened for no reason. If you have read the book, don't watch the movie because you will be disappointed. I hope they make another adaptation, because I think flowers in the attic could be a great movie.

---

9 out of 12 people found the following comment useful :-
Pathetic, 31 March 2004

Author: Wayne Malin (wwaayynnee51@hotmail.com) from United States

I read the book back when I was in college. It was trash but it was GOOD trash. It involves a happy family--a mom, a dad and four kids. The father dies and the mother rapidly runs out of money. She has no choice to ask her parents (who disapproved of the marriage) for help. Her mother agrees but tells her that her children must stay up in the attic--her father doesn't know about them and, if he did, he wouldn't help her. The kids are in the attic for THREE YEARS. And, over time, one of the brothers "discovers" his sister...and the grandmother tortures them almost daily. Those were the big selling points of the book...the incest and kids being tortured. It does have a happy ending though (sort of).

I was one of the "lucky" ones who actually saw this at a theatre back in 1987. The studio snuck it out quietly--I found out why. First, the story was changed. They wanted a 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 LOUSY as the evil grandmother; Victoria Tennant was even worse as the mother; Kristy Swanson as the oldest daughter overplayed her role a LOT. Only Jeb Stuart Adams as her brother gave a halfway good performance. It was no great piece of acting but pretty OK.

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! Boring, stupid, illogical...a total waste. This deserves a 0. I'm really surprised that some people LIKE this movie!

---

11 out of 16 people found the following comment useful :-
EAT THE COOKIE, MOTHER!, 26 October 2000
Author: mercuryix from Los Angeles

This movie has one of the strangest, classic climactic lines of any movie I've seen, with the old, dependable, wrap everything up in 15 seconds endings.

I haven't read the book this is based on, but have to ask why readers find the theme of incest more appropriate in print than in a movie. The plot revolves around a seemingly perfect family, two parents, four children (all of them unrealistically beautiful)and their happy life - until the father dies. Instantly, they are destitute and all of their furniture is respossessed. Why is it that every B movie follows the theme of instant poverty when someone dies? Apparantly, concepts like having life insurance, owning furniture, etc, don't apply in filmland. Whenever tragedy strikes in a film, we discover that every house is double-mortgaged to the hilt. Maybe this is a subtle comment on American consumerism. Mother's only recourse after this turn of events is to take her children back to her relatives she has alienated by marrying her own uncle. She actually encourages her children to sleep in the same bed, as if "normalizing" her own act of incest by perpetuating it in her children who don't know any better. Naturally, the relatives are evil and twisted, and lock the children in the attic, and we discover that mother is definitely from the same family stock. There are too many reviews that give a blow by blow description of the plot for me to repeat them, but my main observation is that this is a typical copout "provocative" movie, with a sicker-than-usual theme; it "alludes" to incest, without actually confronting it, which causes the story to fall between the cracks in a bad way. It becomes irrelevant to the story, and there isn't much of a story here to begin with. Either the incest theme should have been eliminated entirely, or dealt with frankly. Instead, we are shown scenes of brother washing his sister's back in the tub, undressing in front of each other, etc. Sex is never shown, though it is left up to our imaginations whether they are actually in a sexual relationship or just never taught that brothers and sisters don't undress in front of each other. The only thing that works is the way the characters don't know that what they are doing is wrong, in fact are innocent to the implications. The movie tries to have its cake and eat it too, i.e. imply incest and then chicken out, but gives us insulting implied scenes as if we are being nudged in the ribs by a pervert in the local porn shop, only not as subtle. Implying incest without confronting it in an honest way makes us feel as if we are being manipulated into having perverted fantasies about these characters ourselves, which is the most disgusting aspect of this film, and is my biggest problem with it. An intelligent script could have dealt with incest in a psychological way, as we understand these characters' relations with each other, and eliminated all the sudsy bath sequences (which true pervs will be dissappointed in, as they don't actually show anything) that makes us feel like we are peeking in someone's bathroom window.

An intelligent script would also deal with the idea of family betrayal (by the mother) in an intelligent way; but this isn't an intelligent script. It relies entirely on atmosphere and images of betrayal, which don't work or are extremely heavy-handed. This is a very depressing movie about depressing ideas, depressingly presented. Only the final line "Eat the cookie, mother!" gives it a surreal hilarity for a moment.

The saddest part of this movie is that the actors are all very good; but they are completely wasted, because the script and direction isn't there to support them. Four out of ten stars.

---

---

Page 1 of 14:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Amazon.com summary	Ratings
Awards	External reviews	Plot keywords
Main details	Your user comments	Your vote history