Blumen der Nacht

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.