Flowers in the Attic

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.

"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 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.

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

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.