Blumen der Nacht

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...

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 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.

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.

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.