In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

The movie is surprisingly subdued in its pacing, its characterizations, and its go-for-broke sensibilities.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

Easily the biggest piece of Right wing non sense propaganda I ever saw.

I saw the film before I read the novel by V.C. Andrews (who appears briefly as a maid, and who died before the movie was released), so I wasn't as disappointed as fans of the novel were when I initially viewed it as a preteen. Of course, it pales in comparison but it does boast some decent performances, nice cinematography and locations, as well as a haunting score.Most are probably familiar with the general plot, and while it must be said that both Kristy Swanson (aged 16 at the time) and Jeb Stuart Adams (approximately 25 years old during filming) are too old for the roles of the two oldest children, Cathy and Christopher, they make their characters believable. Because the general incest sub-plot was edited out of the theatrical cut of the film, due to negative reaction at a test screening, the viewer is left wondering just how deep the connection is between Cathy and Christopher. A few scenes are suggestive and leave an impression that more is going on. Also, early in the story, there appears to be some jealousy from the children's mother, Corinne (Victoria Tennant) over Cathy's relationship with her father (Marshall Colt) but again, it is not really expanded upon. Corinne was disinherited and fell out of favor with her parents (Louise Fletcher and Nathan Davis) due to marrying her half-uncle, and following her husband's tragic death, must take her children to beg forgiveness and hope to inherit some of the family's wealth. Cathy, Christopher and the twins, Cory (Ben Ryan Ganger) and Carrie (Lindsay Parker), are virtually imprisoned in a far away wing of the mansion, known as Foxworth Hall, so that Corinne can endear herself to her dying father once more. Her pious, evil, nasty mother terrorizes her grandchildren, through starvation, physical and emotional torture (again, not overly graphic) and Corinne lets the wealth and privilege go to her head and decides that her offspring would only be in the way of her new life. This leads to tragedy.The title is derived from the "special place" where the children try to make the best of a terrible situation; the spacious attic where they make a garden of paper flowers. It is also symbolic of the innocence, freedom and beauty of the outside world that was denied to them.The novel is set primarily in the south, possibly Virginia, but most of the film was shot at an estate in Massachusetts, which is an interesting double but lacks the "southern Gothic" atmosphere of the book. While the novel takes place in the 1950s, the movie is very much a product of its time - 80s glam and yuppie sensibilities. The ending was also re-shot and feels abrupt, especially if you know how the novel ends.Louise Fletcher is terrific as the menacing grandmother; Victoria Tennant is decent for the most part as the mother whose motives are (rightly) questionable, Kristy Swanson makes the role of Cathy her own, Jeb Stuart Adams, well, it's easy to see why so many teenage girls had a crush on him after his film. Ben Ryan Ganger and Lindsay Parker are adorable. It's a shame that the director's cut and alternate footage has not been released.Not a bad little horror film, it will be interesting to compare it to the "Lifetime" adaptation.

Flowers in the Attic (1987)One of the most off-putting experiences you could ever have is attending a V.C. Andrews Family Reunion.And after watching this drama based on the author's infamous bestseller, you'll know why.When their father dies, Cathy (Kristy Swanson), Chris (Jeb Stuart Adams), Cory (Ben Ryan Ganger) and Carrie (Lindsay Parker) are uprooted and moved to their mother's (Victoria Tennant) childhood home.While she smooths things over with her parents for marrying her half-uncle, her incestuous offspring are locked away in an unoccupied bedroom.As they mature, they follow their parents' bad example.Eventually, they learn of their mother's engagement, and of the nefarious plans to rid the family tree of her sinful seeds. A poorly executed adaptation of the twisted teen lit classic, this version omits much of the story for the sake of sensationalism.Besides, a secluded attic is the ideal place for two siblings to raise their mutant.Yellow Lightvidiotreviews.blogspot.ca

"Flowers in the Attic" is geared towards nobody, except horror movie buffs. However, it is not your typical horror movie. It is a film with an interesting story, totally unbelievable and extremely memorable. To me, it was virtually a horror movie. However, this horror is all too real to understand why such a situation would ever happen. This movie is ONLY FOR ADULTS. Children should NOT WATCH the movie. I still remember the movie and the feeling it game me even after several months of watching it. This is the only reason I give it a higher rating than normal. I was totally blown away by this movie. Flowers in the Attic is a movie that appears to move slow, however, don't let the pace deceive you. The movie draws you in and does not let you go. This is a movie that will haunt you for a long time.

A bad summary of the book. Yes the book and that is what this movie is based upon: the book! The "Flowers in the Attic" movie is a very poor take on the Dollanganger family story written by Virginia Andrews, period! It was massacred and summarized to produce a poor movie. So many things were changed and not to produce a better movie, the movie was stripped of the soul of the characters. I don't want to mention all the things that were butchered to make this ragged movie. Too many details missing. Was the movie that tight on budget that they couldn't afford to make the scenes flow more realistically? Like teaching the twins in the attic on those old desks in the attic and teaching them crafts with all the gifts Corrine would bring. Not once did I see her bring any gifts, they mentioned them, they mentioned many things but why weren't they portrayed in the movie? What happened to the Attic? It did not fit the description of the book in the least. Let me stress the title of the this story is: Flowers in the Attic and that is where the young Dollangangers spent most of their days, where Cathy grew into puberty. They should of focused more about that. Not implement so many things in the movie that didn't exist in the book. I missed the twins sitting on the small desks and the blackboard, I miss Cathy impersonating the grandmother or dancing? All I saw was Cathy doing stretching exercises. I did not see her putting on old records and dancing, dancing, dancing. Oh and what about Cathy's hair that got cut off? Grandmother put tar in her hair, not cut it...the story is wrong beyond belief. I hope the next movie will pay tribute to the story because this one is a huge disappointment.