Blumen des Bösen

I got this flick at big lots for two dollars. and after watching it, i fell as if they owe me twenty. This movie is like a study in bad acting, scriptwriting, acting and sets. First off the casting was atrocious. Grieco looks as if he doesn't belong within 500 feet of this movie, playing the lieutenant, a role that seems to have been written for a much older actor. Everheart has no range, no emotion and is as stiff as richard simmons staring at stone phillips. malcolm mcdowall, well he looks as if he has to keep repeating in his head, "i'm being paid for this, i'm being paid for this." Poor malcolm, he has so much talent and spends all of is time in awful movie after awful movie. the dialoge seems as if it was written by a group of spider monkeys on payotee, lines seem to be thrown in grabastically without rhyme or reason. the worst thing though, has to be the directing, actually the complete lack of direction, Greico's character stays angry through the entire flick because he's not sure about the point of the character. Everheart is pointless, and francis ford coppala couldn't drag a decent performance out of her. there is a complete lack of connected storyline, and because of that, the bad acting is all the more evident. there is really nothing i can say that can relate the awfullness of this movie. i'm afraid that to understand you will actually have to watch this poor excuse for a film. i almost forgot about the cheaply done and completely out of the blue cgi effects. i apoligize, the movie has fried my brains.

The miscasting is almost fatal (Richard Grieco as a police commissioner??? Whose bright idea was that?), and the storyline is painfully obvious (we are forever waiting for the thickheaded heroine to figure out what is in clear view). Those two factors alone make the movie a waste of time (and a warning to Angie Everhart fanatics: don't come here looking for nudity). Even if you happen to catch this on TV, viewing it will offer you nothing; renting is simply out of the question. (*1/2)

I would say this Movie is Almost Superior To The Silence of the Lambs, I should say it was better, except the fact that i think this movie was inspired by It. It is the Gardener's Absolute Genius, lack of Sanity, and Twiztid Sense of Humor that make this movie a must see for all Serial Killer Movies. I would Recommend it for Fans of: The Psycho Movies, The Hannibal Lectors Thrillogy, and Ed Gein (considering the fact that is not Gory or a dumb fakey slasher movie; but it can Deliver a good scare or to.) You should also consider that it took VERY little money to make this movie that instantly became one of my favorites. INSTEAD OF TAKING MY WORD FOR IT, RENT IT, THEN BUY IT!!

A friend of mine bought this film on DVD because he wanted to see Malcolm McDowell in it. After watching it, and consequently spending several weeks in therapy, he somehow convinced me to do the same.

You have to understand, this film is diabolical on almost every conceivable level. There is simply no redeeming feature to it. The script, premise, acting, direction, sets, costumes, stunts, score and special effects are all excruciatingly insufferable, but it doesn't even stop there.

It is the *only* film I can think of where I can stand up and say "Yes, even the props are awful." In that respect, I am referring to the typical example of a random DEA Officer - little more than an extra - who, for some unknown reason, brandishes a pistol that is so enormous, one would normally expect to find it on the deck of the Bismarck.

In this way, an inconceivable absurdity permeates every facet of this motion picture. The US Government would not be unreasonable to establish a special agency tasked with keeping James D.R. Hickox (director), Joseph Gunn (writer) and Angie Everhart (`actress') away from movie studios from now until the end of time.

Frankly, I would happily welcome a visit from the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, rather than watch this film again. When compared to suffering The Gardener in all its nightmarish glory, passing a dozen kidney stones would be considered a joyous and uplifting experience.

The two couldn't be more different, yet they seem to share a similar fate: appearing in bad movies again and again. While McDowell has the best of his films tucked away fairly deep in his filmography, Everhart still is looking for the one feature that will allow her to really shine. Both get offered the wrong kind of parts - for the wrong reasons. "The Gardener" is a classic example of this: there's the mad scientist (McDowell plays that stuff without thinking about it - and it shows) and the abused beauty that brings the villain down in the end is played by - yes, a beauty. How could that be interesting? I know that many would disagree with me but I do believe that Everhart has talent, all she really needs is a solid script and a decent director to bring it out. And would please someone offer McDowell a part in which he's not some freak that makes the Mad Hatter look like Al Gore?