Aggiungi una trama nella tua linguaChildren are hidden away up in an attic by their conspiring mother and grandmother.Children are hidden away up in an attic by their conspiring mother and grandmother.Children are hidden away up in an attic by their conspiring mother and grandmother.
- Regia
- Sceneggiatura
- Star
- Premi
- 1 vittoria e 1 candidatura in totale
- Cory
- (as Ben Ganger)
- Narrator
- (voce)
- (as Clare C. Peck)
- Window Washing Maid
- (non citato nei titoli originali)
- Wedding Guest
- (non citato nei titoli originali)
- Wedding Guest
- (non citato nei titoli originali)
Recensioni in evidenza
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.
The story revolves around a family who at one time was very happy indeed. However as this movie shows they hit hard times. I won't say how because that would give away major plot points for you. After these unhappy turn of events they, I mean the four children and their mother, all have to return in poverty and destitution to their grandmother's home for help. The mother has a plan to win back her father's love to inherit a fortune the likes the kids had never dreamed. When the group enters the grounds of the ornate mansion we are treated to the main villain of the movie....Grandmother, and her bodyguard/servant John The Butler. Needless to say Grandmother is less than thrilled to see her daughter after umpteen years and bringing four unwanted "Spawn of the Devil" with her. This, sadly is what she refers to them as.
Grandmother, as she is called is played wonderfully by Louise Fletcher. Granted I'm a fan of Kristy Swanson, but this is a movie made before she really got good roles such as Buffy. However this movie has only Mrs. Fletcher to lean back upon as the ONLY person who really CAN act.
Grandmother makes life hell for the children, and punishes the mother for leaving with her husband years earlier. Eventually Mother as she is referred to tells the children of an attic above their room. For months they use this place to escape the harsh reality around them. As time continues pressing on they realize Mother doesn't love them as much as they had originally thought, and decide its time once and for all to make a break for it.
The movie is very depressing, and I think this is what the film is supposed to do. I believe the director wanted you to feel as they did, hopeless and trapped in that attic as the kids were. For that I give it a 5/10, because in some areas it does succeed, and Mrs. Fletcher's acting really does get you angry at her character. Otherwise I count off for bad-acting, scenes which made no sense at times, and plot points which were utterly useless (the list of rules which was never expounded upon, certain other key moments as well) if you watch you'll understand what I mean. Also the time frame for which these events took place also seem out of order, which if I remember correctly were very detailed in the book.
To me its good for a one time watch but there are better movies which succeed at doing what this one tries to do. I re-watched it the other day and remembered it being very good when I was younger. However now it seems more like a straight-to-video diatribe which I could've easily bypassed completely.
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...
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.
Lo sapevi?
- QuizVirginia C. Andrews: the author of the novel appears as a maid cleaning a window, just after 0:44:23. She died before the movie's release. Tribute is paid to her in the end credits.
- BlooperWhen Cathy throws herself on the floor in her attempt to catch the ballerina figure, she is wearing knee pads.
- Citazioni
Cathy: Why are you just standing there, Mother? Cory needs to be taken to a hospital. There is no other decision to make!
[the mother just stands there looking and quivering]
Cathy: What's wrong with you, Mother? Are you going to just stand there and think about yourself and your money while Cory lies there and dies? Don't you care what happens to him? Have you forgotten that you're his mother?
Mother: Always, it's you.
[slaps Cathy]
Cathy: [slaps her mother back]
Chris: Cathy!
Cathy: [shouts] Damn you to hell, Mama, if you don't take Cory to a hospital right now! You think you can go on doing whatever you want with us and nobody will ever find out? If Cory dies, Mama, you'll pay for it! One way or another, I will find a way. I promise you that.
- ConnessioniFeatured in Troldspejlet: Episodio #1.6 (1989)
I più visti
Dettagli
- Data di uscita
- Paese di origine
- Lingua
- Celebre anche come
- Flores en el ático
- Luoghi delle riprese
- Aziende produttrici
- Vedi altri crediti dell’azienda su IMDbPro
Botteghino
- Lordo Stati Uniti e Canada
- 15.151.736 USD
- Fine settimana di apertura Stati Uniti e Canada
- 5.020.317 USD
- 22 nov 1987
- Lordo in tutto il mondo
- 15.151.736 USD
- Tempo di esecuzione
- 1h 33min(93 min)
- Colore
- Proporzioni
- 1.85 : 1