Flowers in the Attic

Good movie!

Good movie!

Good movie!

source: Flowers in the Attic

"FLOWERS IN THE ATTIC" 1980's is my favorite movie which i like to rewatch from time to time, the reason why i watched this new version. Well I hated this movie so much i was screaming in fury, they totally destroyed my memory of a wonderful horror/ thriller. Why my Lord why??? Why this keep happening, why these people do not just choke on the idea of duing remakes, especially when it is not needed, and the story is totally spoiled and altered with bad disgusting changes and wrong casting! Heather Graham is a good actress but compare to Victoria Tenant she fails to transmit a detached piercing stare. everything is diminished even the part about the poisoned cookies, in the original movie we see hands topping the cookies w/ what it is believed to be sugar until we know is actually poison, the suspense, the horror of that knowledge that a mother or a grandmother could be capable is still today impressed in my mind, creeping me out which is a very good thing .. But this modern version has lost in translation that sense of fear, uneasiness i feel every time i watch the 87's version. The children also are too much complacent of the situation i cannot really see any difference in personality form one to another, contrary to the anger, fear and disgust Swanson delivered, she knew from the start that something was up, i felt that with her. Ellen Burstyn was also not a good idea while she is a powerful presence it was not enuff to give me the creepy /icy look like of Louise Fletcher. What also irked me out was the idea of brother and sister having actually a sexual relationship!YUCK!!Where was that in the 80 version??? Many things they changed and not one was worth the time i spent to watch this piece of shxt! I hate you whoever directed and produced this pathetic waste, i don't even care to know your names but> Go to hell!

The story is powerful and shocking after all these years. It's as effective as a horror movie without any ghosts or blood or supernatural goings on. The family cruelty and tragedy is still painful to watch. The atmosphere and direction are good and evocative of the time. The claustrophobia of the attic comes through. Ellen Burstyn is perfect as the wicked grandma. Her coldness and vindictiveness really jump out on screen. The still young looking Heather Graham actually is quite right for the role. She looks pretty, selfish and silly enough to be the weak and terrible mother without overdoing it. She is better than the blank faced Victoria Tennant in the 80s version. The angelic looking young cast is good too. Kiernan Shipka (from Mad Men) is good at acting like she has the weight of the world on her shoulders. Mason Dye is suitably clueless then disillusioned. The incest is portrayed as delicately as could be for this story. Worth watching. Hope lifetime makes a sequel.

My wife who read the book many years ago was looking forward to this film adaptation. She informs me that the film was faithful to the book. As for me I probably not the target audience for this Lifetime Original Movie. Its mainly targeted at a female audience and despite the star casting of Ellen Burstyn, it has made for TV written all over it and the largely interior sets very much displays its low budget if glossy origins. The film is about a group of four children locked in an attic in the care of their stern and wicked grandmother while their glamorous mother (Heather Graham) tries to reconcile with her father and inherit his money. Over time the two older siblings embark on an incestuous relationship and discover that there mother has abandoned them and worse they are superfluous to her new life and they plan to escape. The film is plain, old fashioned, even a tad hammy. Burstyn imbues her character with some emotions and care towards her grandchildren but in the main she is a harridan. Graham starts of as the caring mother but over time she has entered her own glamorous world and you get the feeling she cares less about her kids. The younger children play their parts well, the older children did not convince. They did not look like kids locked up in an attic, malnourished, living in a troubled existence.

I read the book "Flowers in the Attic" a number of years ago around the time when it first came out. I also read all the sequels and still have them on my bookshelf. When I finished one, I couldn't wait for the next one to come out to find out what happened. When the 1987 movie version came out, I was eagerly looking forward to that. I was very disappointed. The only saving grace was Louise Fletcher's portrayal of the grandmother. When this new movie version was advertised, I thought surely it would be better, but it wasn't. First, the acting was very poor. The actress who played Cathy was particularly unsuitable. As one reviewer pointed out, Cathy was supposed to have this mane of beautiful blonde hair, not the shoulder-length, scraggly hair that was on her portrayer. A wig would have been a big improvement. She seemed to be just going through the motions, not putting much effort into the part. EllenBurstyn is always good, and she was in this too. She could've been far better and more impressive if she had been given better material to work with. As several other reviewers pointed out, the movie seemed very rushed, and there was so discernible difference with the kids, in looks or activities, as their stay in the attic increased. Without any warning, they were there a month, then along comes two years, and they still seemed the same as they did when they first arrived. I kept hoping as the movie went along it would get better, but it seemed to get more rushed as it went along, especially towards the end. The book was far superior.

the movie is well played throughout. the cast is beautifully assembled. the story line is good and induces a theme of horror without any ghosts or supernatural element. the characters Cathy and Christopher are well played by the actors. the story revolves around a dysfunctional family after the death of the father. the mother moves them all to their grandparents whom they have never met. the four children are made to stay in an attic for nearly two years, while their mother moves on without them. it shows the struggles they undergo due to isolation and their learning of the truth and dealing with it. the isolation and its effect on the children is shown very carefully including the incest which was handled well..

I guess I just keep in mind the version with Louise Fletcher who is as or equal to Ellen Burstyn in the first make. Fantastic in the role for both ladies. And either Victoria Tennant or Catherine Hicks as the wicked selfish mother...was phenomenal. I felt the characters and the pain of their existence in this attic. This new version attic was just a large playground of poor scripting...pooorrrrrr, ppooorrr, scripting!!! I have tried to watch this through 2 or 3 times now and I when I wake up I still miss the connection that I immediately saw with the Mother and her new husband in the first one. The movie almost could have just been made with Ellen Burstyn (she should stay away from attics, didn't the Exorcist teach her about those pesky attic rats) and servants, they were the best of the actors. Heather Graham was so out of character...I just don't get it..why did she get this role???? I could have seen a Kate Winslet or Virginia Madsen more believable than Heather as a mother...It had no climax...the kids get away and it ends with them telling us they are free..but do we really believe it? NOT because the children characters were so weak. But maybe it ends like it did because they are working on Flowers in the Attic 2...this will be the kids as adults, sibling getting married, have children and how they abuse their children, one is a serial killer and one is a child molester and the story goes on and on...you know FITA 3, 4 and 5.....