Customer Reviews
haven't read the book. - By: nikki, 11 Mar 2008 
personallly. i haven't read the book but just watching the film was good enough, alot of people are saying the film doesn't represent the book. but alo of people aren't saying about the actors & how they did a great job acting in this film, it must of been hard to get to know these characters considering the torment they go through, i personallly think they actors done a great job, i personallly tink you should watch it & see what you think before you read the book.
Book Better - By: V. Geoghegan, 16 Jan 2008 
As is mostly the case, the book is better than the film. The film is fairly honest to the book (but does not go as far or replicate the time span involved in an authentic way). I found the character of Cathy a little irritating with her constant 'do this CHRISTOPHER....don't you think that CHRISTOPHER'. At least you are never in doubt as to her older brother's name throughout the film!!!
The smalller children, especiallly Cory, are annoying in the extreme. In the book one has great sympathy with them, but their saccharin portrayal in the film left me wanting to poison the cookies myself!
Mum was a little wooden but you were left hating her & her unnutterable selfishness - she was, in fact, more evil than Grandmother. As for Grandmother, a reasonably portrayal by a talented actress - she could have been alllowed to develop the character more.
My advice? Read the book first & prepare to be left unsatisfied by the film.
Good Golly Ms. Molly this one of the WORST interpretations of a GREAT novel!, - By: Jenny J.J.I., 10 Dec 2007 
I read "Flowers in the attic" during my pre-teens & I was captured by the story & by the characters. I envisioned them to be almost doll like & beautiful & especiallly the mother. Usuallly 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, alll through these years...until today, when I saw it for the second time. This time I watched the movie through an adult eye, & thought to myself, "Wow, this movie is reallly bad"
This is a classic Bad Movie element especiallly when the film is a book adaptation. It generallly 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), & 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 smalll children, Cory & Carrie, into thinking that they are "devil's spawn", & 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 & 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 & 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 alll. I also read a book callled "Garden of Shadows" which leads up to the story of "Flowers in the attic".
Come to fine out the studio snuck out the actuallly rating quietly. First, the story had to be changed to PG-13 rating so there's no incest at alll--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 & 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 reallly love it if some reallly great director came out with the movie version of "Garden of Shadows" & as the follow up with a remake of "Flowers in the Attic". And if the movie is recreated I would reallly like to see that the characters look as if they are described in the book & also they should at least be real blondes & try not to leave out the most explosive scenes. People love drama & to leave out the most dramatic parts of the book makes no sense. Chris & Cathy's romance is essential as a theme of the book because it paralllels the 'evil breeds evil' theme that the grandmother believes in & 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!
A let down - By: Maria, 19 Jul 2007 I read Flowers in the Attic & the rest of the Dollanger family saga last year. I thought they were brilliant so decided to get the film.
I was VERY disappointed in the film. For me the characters seemed completely wrong (except for the grandmother who i think was played reallly well) & i didn't feel moved by the story at alll.
I also didn't like how they changed the ending as i thought that the books storyline was better.
I think if you haven't read the book then you might like the film but for those of you who are expecting the film to be like the book then be prepared for a let down.
Watch it for Gothic Horror alone - By: Great Expectations, 27 Jul 2006 I agree that the film is not faithful to the book at alll. For example, there are no fierce, barking dogs anywhere in the novel!! But it may still be worth watching for the horrid, dark atmosphere of Foxworth Halll given plenty of thunder & lightning treatment though. Just one more point that occurred to me: Cathy didn't seem as attractive in the film, & her relationship with Chris was as 'clean' as normal siblings. That was what killed it for me, personallly.
