Flowers in the Attic (1987) User Reviews

Example On How Test Audience Can RUIN A FILM

[Sober-Friend · 7/10 · 12 February 2017]

"Flowers" is a film based on the cult novel by VC Andrews. There are secrets Chris (Jeb Stuart Adams) and Cathy (Kristy Swanson) never knew about their parents. After their father dies, the teenage siblings, along with their younger brother and sister, are sent to live with their cruel grandmother, Olivia (Louise Fletcher). Olivia is disgusted by the children -- she knows their mother (Victoria Tennant) and father were actually cousins -- and locks the brood in the attic. The kids then try to keep their spirits high in spite of their bleak situation.

Now this film was re-shot and re-edited without the directors approval. The producers harmed the narrative of the story because the test audience was appalled by the incest theme-however that is what drove the book sales and made it almost mandatory reading for the JR High Set.

Now the original version did "Stick close" to the source material. However when they tested the the film to girls around 13 they hated the scenes with incest themes. THE FILM SHOULD OF BEEN FILMED AS A R RATED FILM. Well that is understandable but the book had already been around for over 5 years and the girls that first read the book were now old enough to see an R RATED FILM.

For years people have wanted to see the original directors cut. What is not known is who owns the film now? New World Cinema? MGM? Now if they own the film do they own the outtakes? Most importantly if a company wants to fund the restoration of the directors cut can they? Is the footage still around?

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

[drownsoda90 · 6/10 · 19 May 2007]

"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

[joposa · 7/10 · 9 January 2006]

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.

it was not that bad

[emhdolphin13 · 6/10 · 31 December 2005]

I completely disagree with the previous summary. Granted I have not read the book, however this movie is a good movie. It might not be the best adaptation of a book but it is a very interesting & scary thriller. I first saw this movie in 1988 when I was 8 & it was scary then. I have seen it since & though a bit sappy it is a scary movie. There are hundreds of other movies that came from the 80's that I would not suggest however this is a pretty good one. Keep in mind the era it was made, but overall it is NOT a bad movie. Maybe we should look at the movie for what it is a movie & not just an adaptation of a book. This movie is truly scary & worth a cheap rental on a rainy Saturday night.

feeble adaptation of a powerful book

[didi-5 · 23 May 2004]

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.

Flowers of the darkness

[rose-294 · 7/10 · 23 March 2008]

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.

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

[gemma_l_love · 1/10 · 7 June 2005]

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?

very effective Gothic style horror(in my opinion)

[disdressed12 · 7/10 · 20 March 2007]

i think this is a very effective horror movie,but without blood and guts.the movie is filled with an air of dread and depression,and i found it hard to watch,but i did manage to get through it.the last time i tried to watch it,i had to stop it after about 15 minutes.to me,Louise Fletcher is absolutely terrifying as the wicked,evil grandmother.the movie doesn't go into as much depth as the novel(by V.C Andrews) on which it is based,but i think that would take at least a 2 part mini series.i wouldn't recommend this movie if you are feeling down.also just keep in my mind that they did leave quite a bit out compared to the novel.otherwise,i would recommend it,especially if you like Gothic style horror,which i think this is.for me,"Flowers in the Attic" is a 3.5/5

Flowers in the Attic dances around its murderous agenda without the gothic buds ever blossoming.

[TheMovieDiorama · 4/10 · 14 June 2020]

Incalculable amounts of money? Or doting motherhood? The fundamental ultimatum for any recent widower, lumbered with four beautifully blonde children, who seeks the extensive inheritance of their terminally ill yet abundantly wealthy father. "We will have more money than you could possibly dream of", she reassures her grieving offspring after the abrupt death of their father. Leading them to her idyllic childhood abode, as if a group of sheep lining up for slaughter. Their devout religious grandmother awaiting in the lavished corridors of the beguiling manor, guiding them to their designated imprisonment. "Your mother has come home after seventeen years to repent for her sins and for her crime", she exclaims, detailing the "unholy" marriage between their mother and father, whom is actually her uncle. And with the grandmother's last words, "and you, the children, are the Devil's spawn!", she swiftly locks the children in the attic. Patiently waiting for their mother's return, abiding by their grandmother's strict punishable rules, they soon begin to realise that she gradually abandons them for unlimited wealth and must discover a means of escape.

Bloom's adaptation of Andrews' popular novel of the same name illicitly exudes gothic aesthetics and a haunting score that are regrettably unable to masquerade the butchering of its source material. Originally a suspense thriller infamous for its explicit incestuous relationships and child abuse, Bloom, whom largely blamed producers and studio interference for cutting the suggestive elements (albeit retaining insinuations), removed the vast majority of metaphorical endeavours to settle for a straightforward flat narrative that lacked the required motivation from its characters. The sanctimonious virtuosity of the radically religious and their inner hyperbolic inhumanity.

Fletcher, whom consistently portrays a conniving antagonist with superb efficiency, is unforgivably under-utilised. Locking the children away, starving them, and occasionally checking up on them before smacking their life force or cutting their hair. The grandmother was the catalyst for the evil within the manor, yet Bloom randomly decided to shift the villainous focus to the mother, whom was admittedly a background presence in the novel. She still remains lurking in the corridors, rarely making an appearance to convey the children's eventual abandonment, but consequently the altered third act rarely made an impact due to her narrative absence. Her exaggerated inhumanity perpetuating the greed for wealth and luxury was, to say the least, less characterised than the dilapidated interior of the attic itself.

The children, with the two oldest notably played by an appropriately aged Swanson and the far too old Stuart Adams (looked like he could be married to the mother!), held much of the story together with some genuine onscreen chemistry. The acting ranged from maturing cheddar cheese to blatant mediocrity, however their relational strengths were in full bloom. Unfortunately, the unsubstantial plot progressed at a glacial pace, forcing their shenanigans to be nothing more than menial distractions. When the most "thrilling" scene revolves around crafting paper flowers to decorate the attic, you just know something is missing.

That's the inherent problem with Bloom's adaptation. It's missing the vital controversial components that shaped the novel's legacy. Whilst this adaptation is shrouded in a clumsy watchability factor, due to it being a viable product of its time, it confusingly avoids watering its incestuous seeds and therefore prevents its thrilling story from growing. Forgettable. Those cookies sure looked delicious though...

great movie sadly there are parents this evil

[buckeyefanohiostate · 7/10 · 27 June 2021]

Great movie terrible story so sad and the sadist part is there are way too many children with parents or guardians that treat there children horrible! This movie makes you really think.

So many ways to destroy a classic novel.

[shanfloyd · 4/10 · 9 April 2005]

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.

American Gothic

[dworldeater · 8/10 · 21 January 2020]

I must confess, I never read the book. However, on its initial run on cable I by chance viewing I saw the film and I have been a fan ever since. Even if it takes out the incest themes that are prevalent in the novels, this film still works in my opinion and even without that element Flowers In The Attic is disturbing enough. For its time there was not really anything quite like it and falls somewhere in between drama and horror. The late 80's most horror and movies in general had lots of campy humor and one liners. This film is serious as a heart attack and is presented in a Gothic style with dark atmosphere and really solid performances from the cast. In being an early vehicle for up and coming actress Kristy Swanson, she does a good job as the leading actress in this film. Later on she would grow up to be insanely hot and is best known for starring as the original Buffy The Vampire Slayer. The story is told from her character's(Cathy) point of view and in my opinion did a nice job carrying the story along. Most movies with a younger cast usually don't do as good of a job, but here it works and works really well. Originally Wes Craven was attached to this project and it would have been interesting what he would have brought to the table. However, he made a film The People Under The Stairs which is quite similar to this and reminds me a lot of Flowers In The Attic. Someday, I will have to make a point to read VC Andrews book, but I really like the film and has a lot going for it with good performances, nail biting tension,great sets and brooding atmosphere enhanced by Christopher Young's moody and depressing score. In my book Flowers In The Attic is a great Gothic melodrama and a classy, well made movie. This film really holds up in my opinion.

It pales in comparison to the book, but is still pretty good

[Dragoneyed363 · 6/10 · 19 April 2009]

My mom had been wanting me to watch this movie ever since she had heard that I had never seen it. It seemed interesting enough and one day when it came on TV I recorded it and decided to watch it later that night. Now, maybe I was just not expecting much from it, but I absolutely loved it the first time I watched it. Then, I realized it was based on a book.

Not long ago I finished the book, and when I look back this movie kind of did not do it justice at all. There was tons of material that was left out and though I like the ending in the movie better than the ending in the book, I thought the book was much more mystifying and eerie. The thing about the movie though is it's entertaining enough on it's own to where I still really enjoy it and the characters are well adapted and played out by the actors and actresses. The movie maintains some eeriness and has a nice, creepy atmosphere, but now I just wish that there was so much more they would've done with the movie.

I guess since I'm not a huge fan of the book, it doesn't really upset me that the movie fails to do it justice, but I really do wish there would be another movie adaptation where it's rated R and they include tons of more important material. In any matter, Flowers in the Attic is enjoyable, entertaining and well executed. It's nothing like the book, so don't expect it to be if you haven't seen it and think you might like to.

Revenge of the 80's: The Lame book-to-film adaptation.

[Captain_Couth · 2/10 · 10 January 2005]

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

Half-Hearted Adaptation

[barrynewblood · 7/10 · 26 February 2020]

Flowers in the Attic doesn't live up to the novel from which it was based, but it keeps enough of what made it interesting in the first place and still manages to entertain. It all centers around a recently widowed woman and her 4 impossibly blonde children who find themselves without a cent in this world, so they move back in with her strict, religious family who suggest that the children hide away in the attic. You see, the children were the byproduct of the mother's relationship with her uncle and her father doesn't even know they exist, so the best chance to get back into her dying father's heart (and will) is to pretend they don't exist. This goes about as well as could be expected.

The camp level can be a bit high at times, some scenes are beautiful and haunting and some look like they came straight from a generic TV movie, Christopher Young's lush orchestral score goes for Oscar gold (it's easily the best part of the movie), and Victoria Tenant's shows all the emotions of a wet piece of cardboard.

If it weren't for Louise Fletcher's memorably scary performance as the religious fanatic grandmother, most people probably wouldn't remember this film, but she really is that good and deserves a lot of credit.

Was Probably A Masterpiece Before....

[Falconeer · 7/10 · 31 October 2019]

Before all the studio-forced cuts to the finished film, based upon opinions by some moronic test audience who thought it was "too disturbing..." I always wondered why this very well made film completely deleted the fact that brother and sister become lovers, which was the very thing that made the books so intense and creepy. After discovering that those scenes actually were filmed, and later discarded, it all makes sense. "Flowers In the Attic" is a beautifully wrought, atmospheric Southern Gothic epic, but with the heart and soul cut out. I am sure the Legions of fans of this cult phenomenon would give anything for one of those "director's cuts" of "Flowers In the Attic." If nothing else, that would give the director the opportunity to finally present his original vision to the world. As it stands, this is still a very watchable movie, but it's a difficult watch, knowing that it was once, so much more, before it's deconstruction..

Just re-watched this the other day

[bujinbudoka · 5/10 · 24 February 2008]

As a young child I remember my mother watching this movie and having the titles in book form. V.C. Andrews book, when I read it myself wasn't that bad, actually it was very good! Sadly as in most cases the movie just wasn't as good as the book.

The story revolves around a family who at one time was very happy indeed. However as this movie shows they hit hard times. I won't say how because that would give away major plot points for you. After these unhappy turn of events they, I mean the four children and their mother, all have to return in poverty and destitution to their grandmother's home for help. The mother has a plan to win back her father's love to inherit a fortune the likes the kids had never dreamed. When the group enters the grounds of the ornate mansion we are treated to the main villain of the movie....Grandmother, and her bodyguard/servant John The Butler. Needless to say Grandmother is less than thrilled to see her daughter after umpteen years and bringing four unwanted "Spawn of the Devil" with her. This, sadly is what she refers to them as.

Grandmother, as she is called is played wonderfully by Louise Fletcher. Granted I'm a fan of Kristy Swanson, but this is a movie made before she really got good roles such as Buffy. However this movie has only Mrs. Fletcher to lean back upon as the ONLY person who really CAN act.

Grandmother makes life hell for the children, and punishes the mother for leaving with her husband years earlier. Eventually Mother as she is referred to tells the children of an attic above their room. For months they use this place to escape the harsh reality around them. As time continues pressing on they realize Mother doesn't love them as much as they had originally thought, and decide its time once and for all to make a break for it.

The movie is very depressing, and I think this is what the film is supposed to do. I believe the director wanted you to feel as they did, hopeless and trapped in that attic as the kids were. For that I give it a 5/10, because in some areas it does succeed, and Mrs. Fletcher's acting really does get you angry at her character. Otherwise I count off for bad-acting, scenes which made no sense at times, and plot points which were utterly useless (the list of rules which was never expounded upon, certain other key moments as well) if you watch you'll understand what I mean. Also the time frame for which these events took place also seem out of order, which if I remember correctly were very detailed in the book.

To me its good for a one time watch but there are better movies which succeed at doing what this one tries to do. I re-watched it the other day and remembered it being very good when I was younger. However now it seems more like a straight-to-video diatribe which I could've easily bypassed completely.

I liked it.

[onemilliondj · 6/10 · 20 December 2016]

Certainly much better than the newer version of this movie, I found it an innocent dark tale. That grandmother has serious issues! However it was terrific acting from the woman who played her part. I thought the acting was good although I didn't like the elder daughters acting. I would also like to mention the set as I feel it was a good choice to set the film where they did. I enjoyed how everything look old fashioned, I really want to stay there JUST NOT IN THE ATTIC! I thought the film was creepy in someways, for an 80s film this film hasn't aged in someways other 80s films have and considering this film was made 30 years ago next year I think they did a fine job.

The book is better

[BoPeepers · 4/10 · 8 October 1999]

In a way, I'm glad I saw the film because it was interesting enough to finally motivate me into reading the books, which were MUCH better than the movie. The movie was somewhat okay, but mostly sucked. Let me explain. The film is okay in that it has a good plot (of course, because it is based on the books) and it tries to follow the books as best it can, but the acting is very, very poor especially from the mom and the kids and that definitely takes you out of the element. There are also a couple of really dumb things that the characters do that make you shake your head. In this type of movie however, unfortunately you seem to see a lot of that.

Let's say it was interesting!

[cute_kitten25 · 6/10 · 20 April 2002]

I have actually read the book by VC Andrews, and i'll say this movie was nothing compared the book. In fact, it was total rubbish compared to the book.

It was nothing like the book, apart from the basic outline. Some of the things that happened in the film did not happen in the book, and some things happened in the book that did not happen in the movie.

If you enjoyed the movie, then I urge you to read the book, it is so much better. The book is much more compelling than the film is.

Pathetic

[preppy-3 · 1/10 · 31 March 2004]

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!

This movie will haunt you the rest of your life.

[egf3532 · 10/10 · 27 August 2018]

I agree people attacking this movie are way to harsh. I saw this in 1987 when it came out and yes even though it's not the book. It's better actually! This movie alone and the emotions it brings out has haunted me since 1987. These four kids should have gotten an Oscar. I can't bare to watch It more then once a year. For the emotions its brings out are just too overwhelming. If you want a movie that will haunt you for years this version of Flowers in the Attic will do just that. An if your a sensitive person be warned its emotionally rough. I'm very glad I saw it though for such a emotionally moving movie like this is rare.

book was a lot better than the movie

[jkoldan · 6/10 · 10 January 2006]

i saw the movie first when i was younger and i thought it was a great movie . and just a couple of days ago i started reading the books and the books are so much better but not for young children . and i think they should have stayed true to the book and i mean all of the book and i think they should make movies about the rest of the Dollanger books . for people are not familiar with them. the name of the books are flowers in the attic , petals on the wind , if there be thorns seeds of yesterday and garden of shadows . the movie was good the books are better i could not put them down . if they do follow the rest of the book which would be wonderful they should stay true to the books.

The worst movie version of a book ever

[tomquicksell · 1/10 · 25 May 2012]

I just stumbled across this movie on demand and hadn't seen it since it came out in 1987. I don't know if I was more disappointed then or now. V. C. Andrews must be turning over in her grave daily, disgusted to what was done to her incredible series of books.

This movie had so much potential to be a huge franchise and the idiot producers and directors killed it before it was ever released. Never have I anticipated a movie so much and been so disappointed at the same time.

This movie should be destroyed and remade with the integrity and honor of the book.

Good Movie, Great Book

[catherine_dah1 · 11 May 2002]

While not up to the book's par, the film version of Flowers in the Attic was well-written, and well acted out. The actors portrayed their characters brilliantly, and the most obviously missing scene is understandable in that it's probably illegal or at least wrong to depict in the US.

When watching this movie, you sympathize with the locked up, neglected and abused children, hating those torturing them so. It makes you feel, and has you wondering what you might do in a similar situation. Realistic as it is, a lot of people, including me, were conviced it was based on a true story. After seeing Flowers in the Attic, many viewers were probably thankful for their relatively normal families and lives.

Want to know the rest of the story? Read the other books. Flowers in the attic was the first in a series which includes 3 sequels (what happened after the Cathy, Chris and Carrie left, and how did all this affect the next generation of Foxworths?), and a prequel (why was the Grandmother so crazy?). The movie ending was nowhere near as interesting as the 2nd book in the series.

The movie was good, but the books were even better. They told the whole story and thus had more substance.