Loading...

Plot:

After the death of her husband, a mother takes her kids off to live with their grandparents in a huge, decrepit old mansion. However, the kids are kept hidden in a room just below the attic, visited only by the grandmother, and their mother, who becomes less and less concerned about them and their failing health, and more concerned about herself and the inheritance she plans to win back from her dying father, to the point of murder…

Also Known As: Cvijece u potkrovlju, Pimeyden kukat, Blomblad för vinden, Virágok a padláson, Цветы на чердаке Soviet, Blumen der Nacht West, O Jardim dos Esquecidos, Louloudia sti sofita, Flores en el ático, Flowers in the Attic, Fiori nell'attico, Herdeiros do Ódio, Flores no Sótão, Kwiaty na poddaszu

Leave a Reply

28 Comments

  • eric
    Eric

    Great adaptation of V.C. Andrews’ novel! Lifetime’s remake was more faithful to the book, making it a pretty good movie as well. When they filmed Andrews’ sequels to the book, they also did well, particularly since it was the first time the sequels had ever been adapted into movies. But I like this one the best. According to other people, this film didn’t explore the incestuous relationship that developed between Chris and Cathy, the 2 oldest children, something that angered many fans of the book. Having read and liked the book, I can tell you this is absolutely true; although, the reason for this might surprise many who’ve never seen this movie, regardless of whether or not they’ve read the book. Because of the fact that the romance between Chris and Cathy had been the main reason the book and its sequels had become bestsellers, writer/ director Jeffrey Bloom HAD filmed scenes that explored the relationship. But, when the movie was shown to target audiences at test screenings, the audiences, consisting mainly of 13-year-old girls, were extremely uncomfortable with those scenes. So, before the film was released into theaters, it was heavily edited, turning what would’ve otherwise resulted in an R-rated movie into one with a PG-13 rating. For myself, I have no problem with it. People who enjoy book, or even the Lifetime movie, talk about this one aspect of the story so much, it’s as if they either believe this to be the main plot point of the story, or at least, the element they like best. To me, this is not at the heart of what makes this a good horror story, or even an enjoyable, powerful, heartbreaking human drama, not as a movie fan or a bookworm who enjoyed this story. Having seen the movie AND read the book, I readily admit that the romance made the novel an even more intriguing read. But the premise of the story is about a woman whose children become their cruel grandmother’s prisoners when they and their mother go to live with the grandparents, their mother’s estranged parents, because she needs money after the tragic death of her wealthy husband, the children’s father. Because of their mother’s past sin, a shocking incident kept secret from the children, the grandmother considers the children evil; in her eyes, it’s justifiable cause for locking them in a bedroom at the far end of the house, with only an attic to play in, or even make a real home in. If that’s not unfortunate–and chilling–enough, she also finds it reason enough to abuse, torture, and starve them. This frightening, unnerving premise is what makes this classic tale both terrifying, and sad, to me. It’s the element that made it a great movie to watch, and a great book to read. One other thing many people complain about, when it comes to this film version, is the ending. Why? Because it’s so different from the book? While, this movie is, in many ways, different from the book, the book’s ending is what I would’ve been unhappy with, if V.C. Andrews hadn’t cooked up those amazing sequels! Whether it irritates you to hear it(or read it)or not, I actually watched this movie years before I read the book. And, I’m happy with the movie’s ending because I believe that, in a good horror story, the villain(s) should get their just desserts. And, thanks to some nasty secrets that are revealed about “mother”, secrets that cause her to become just as evil as the grandmother, I’m thrilled to know she gets hers BIG TIME at the end! I won’t reveal how; why spoil a good movie for everyone? Anyway, a good movie(amazing! sad! terrifying!)is what I’ve experienced every time I’ve watched this fright-fest! And how! Excellent writing and directing from Jeffrey Bloom, resulting in a creepy, gothic chiller that IS fairly close to the book, even if it could’ve been more faithful! Superb acting: Jeb Stuart Adams and Kristy Swanson were heartbreakingly convincing and poignant as beautiful and utterly sweet Chris and Cathy; lovely Victoria Tennant was believable and ultimately chilling as Corinne, the mother; Louise Fletcher proves she’s not someone anyone would want for a grandmother if she were truly as vicious as her character in this movie(she’s terrifying!); that butler is as sinister as they come(I don’t know the actor’s name, but if I ever met him, I’d tell I’m glad he’s probably nowhere near as creepy as John, the butler from this movie!); and I also don’t know who played Carrie and Cory, the little twins, but they were adorable little munchkins! And, finally, the music. Is Christopher Young an amazing composer, or what? He’s scored tons of movies, including many horror films like Hellraiser and The Grudge. And, in this one, he once again provides a great score. It’s a haunting score that perfectly captures the mood and emotion of any scene where you hear it: terror, panic, sadness. Final remarks: Ignore the haters! They have no clue what they’re talking about if they don’t like this. Whether you’ve read the book or not, this is the perfect choice for movie fans who are on the prowl for a gothic horror-thriller that’s scary, suspenseful, sweet, and sad in equal measure!

  • amanda-nelson
    amanda nelson

    I owned half the rights with chuck Fries and produced an line produced the movie Flowers in the Attic. I feel that this site does not show my credits. I bought the book rights in 1980 from the writer V.C. Andrews and chuck fries bought into the project with me. It took eight years to finally get the project an okay. First was Universal with the president at the time was Ned Tanen. Bob Rehme was head of distribution at universal at the time of the green light on the project. Bob Rehme left Universal and started New World Pictures and that is were we made the deal for Flowers in the Attic. I have contracts and just look at the movie I have first credit above Chuck Fries son ///sy levin

  • rufo-fontana
    rufo fontana

    Virginia Andrews’ immensely popular best selling novel must have been a sensational read, however as a movie it does not come off as well, mainly due to the lack of professionalism from those who brought it to the big screen.Jeffrey Bloom’s (screenwriter and director) direction is stale as he merely tells the story, as though we’ve never heard it before, whilst the players do little but act out their parts. Louise Fletcher’s grandmother character is sufficiently unnerving, but she is not able to do enough with it.”Flowers in the Attic” is a disturbing story, but it’s told too ‘matter of fact’ to have any real impact.Monday, January 3, 1994 – Video

  • jonathan-morrison
    jonathan morrison

    I have to admit, I used to love this movie. I fist saw it when I was quite young and while my sister is a big Virginia Andrews fan and had read all the books, I am not one who reads much so I was happy to watch the film instead.Well, I just finished reading the book and I have to say, there is no comparison in any way. The movie is no where near as detailed. It misses many events, including the incestuous relationship between Cathy and Chris. It does not span the 3 years that they were locked away in the book. The grandmother cuts Cathy’s hair, but in the book she pours tar on it.***SPOILER ALERT*** This movie ends with the mother dying at her wedding – in the book, the mother marries and ultimately leaves Foxworth Hall. Totally different. While the plot of her dying at her wedding isn’t all that bad, it is completely different to the book which they are claiming this to be a film adaption of.The other thing is the actors. Now, it is my opinion that Virginia Andrews describes people more beautiful than possible, but they picked a mediocre bunch of people to portray them.Since I saw the movie first, then read the book, I expected I may dislike the book, but I have to tell you, if you are considering watching the movie – you’d be more entertained to read the book. Similarly if you have already read the book, don’t watch this movie as it will only annoy you.

  • kayla-dean
    kayla dean

    I too was a huge V.C. Andrew’s series fan, during its day. It was fascinating to read such intensive, dark, and emasculating drama about an incestuous family’s dysfunctional journey through future generations.However this film adaption is far from the book series’ justice. Only Louise Fletcher as the cruel grandmother, delivers any real or decent performance. Now I’ve always liked Kristy Swanson during her teen years, in the many TV movies and smaller roles she’s played, and Jeb Stuart pulled off some decent supporting roles himself, in some classic 80’s teen movies. However, direction did not pull much justice of intensity for either one of their characters in this. At times their Chris and Cathy’s are plain flat or just whiny. And their ‘interaction’ with the mother, also falls flat.And Victoria Tennant. Get me started on her. The former Mrs. Steve Martin (Yes, the famous comic actor who seasoned during SNL) is as bad or flat an actress is bad-acting can nose-dive. She always was noted as mediocre. And here, she is less than such. Barely believable as Corrine, in spite any proper direction she was allotted during shoot. Mostly she was down right boring, especially the attic scenes.Jeffrey Bloom’s overall direction is just okay. Only Oscar-winner Louise Fletcher delivers any such notable performance.

  • amanda-levine
    amanda levine

    “Flowers” is a film based on the cult novel by VC Andrews. There are secrets Chris (Jeb Stuart Adams) and Cathy (Kristy Swanson) never knew about their parents. After their father dies, the teenage siblings, along with their younger brother and sister, are sent to live with their cruel grandmother, Olivia (Louise Fletcher). Olivia is disgusted by the children — she knows their mother (Victoria Tennant) and father were actually cousins — and locks the brood in the attic. The kids then try to keep their spirits high in spite of their bleak situation.Now this film was re-shot and re-edited without the directors approval. The producers harmed the narrative of the story because the test audience was appalled by the incest theme-however that is what drove the book sales and made it almost mandatory reading for the JR High Set. Now the original version did “Stick close” to the source material. However when they tested the the film to girls around 13 they hated the scenes with incest themes. THE FILM SHOULD OF BEEN FILMED AS A R RATED FILM. Well that is understandable but the book had already been around for over 5 years and the girls that first read the book were now old enough to see an R RATED FILM. For years people have wanted to see the original directors cut. What is not known is who owns the film now? New World Cinema? MGM? Now if they own the film do they own the outtakes? Most importantly if a company wants to fund the restoration of the directors cut can they? Is the footage still around?

  • ramaz-gumberize
    ramaz gumberize

    This movie has one of the strangest, classic climactic lines of any movie I’ve seen, with the old, dependable, wrap everything up in 15 seconds endings.I haven’t read the book this is based on, but have to ask why readers find the theme of incest more appropriate in print than in a movie. The plot revolves around a seemingly perfect family, two parents, four children (all of them unrealistically beautiful)and their happy life – until the father dies. Instantly, they are destitute and all of their furniture is respossessed. Why is it that every B movie follows the theme of instant poverty when someone dies? Apparantly, concepts like having life insurance, owning furniture, etc, don’t apply in filmland. Whenever tragedy strikes in a film, we discover that every house is double-mortgaged to the hilt. Maybe this is a subtle comment on American consumerism. Mother’s only recourse after this turn of events is to take her children back to her relatives she has alienated by marrying her own uncle. She actually encourages her children to sleep in the same bed, as if “normalizing” her own act of incest by perpetuating it in her children who don’t know any better. Naturally, the relatives are evil and twisted, and lock the children in the attic, and we discover that mother is definitely from the same family stock. There are too many reviews that give a blow by blow description of the plot for me to repeat them, but my main observation is that this is a typical copout “provocative” movie, with a sicker-than-usual theme; it “alludes” to incest, without actually confronting it, which causes the story to fall between the cracks in a bad way. It becomes irrelevant to the story, and there isn’t much of a story here to begin with. Either the incest theme should have been eliminated entirely, or dealt with frankly. Instead, we are shown scenes of brother washing his sister’s back in the tub, undressing in front of each other, etc. Sex is never shown, though it is left up to our imaginations whether they are actually in a sexual relationship or just never taught that brothers and sisters don’t undress in front of each other. The only thing that works is the way the characters don’t know that what they are doing is wrong, in fact are innocent to the implications. The movie tries to have its cake and eat it too, i.e. imply incest and then chicken out, but gives us insulting implied scenes as if we are being nudged in the ribs by a pervert in the local porn shop, only not as subtle. Implying incest without confronting it in an honest way makes us feel as if we are being manipulated into having perverted fantasies about these characters ourselves, which is the most disgusting aspect of this film, and is my biggest problem with it. An intelligent script could have dealt with incest in a psychological way, as we understand these characters’ relations with each other, and eliminated all the sudsy bath sequences (which true pervs will be dissappointed in, as they don’t actually show anything) that makes us feel like we are peeking in someone’s bathroom window.An intelligent script would also deal with the idea of family betrayal (by the mother) in an intelligent way; but this isn’t an intelligent script. It relies entirely on atmosphere and images of betrayal, which don’t work or are extremely heavy-handed. This is a very depressing movie about depressing ideas, depressingly presented. Only the final line “Eat the cookie, mother!” gives it a surreal hilarity for a moment. The saddest part of this movie is that the actors are all very good; but they are completely wasted, because the script and direction isn’t there to support them. Four out of ten stars.

  • annette-iversen-schmidt
    annette iversen schmidt

    I first saw the film on Zone Horror (a horror movie channel), and of course I expected it to be a horror. As much as the content off the book and the film is quite disturbing, and some scenes were slightly graphic, it was not as much a horror as it was just a sad tale. A sad tale of four beautiful children kept from the world in a dingy attic. And although it wasn’t frightening in the least (and horror’s are the genre I watch the most and love), I absolutely loved the film.The basic storyline is the same for both the book and the film, although both are very different. However, both are just as enchanting as each other. The ending are very different, so do not get confused between the two. I prefer the film ending, but if the book had ended like that, then there couldn’t be any more books in the series (and I haven’t included the ending so that I don’t spoil the movie for anyone).The acting in the movie was amazing I think, and was definitely the right choice for everyone. There is so much emotion in the film and moods to convey, so it would be a difficult job for anyone to play the children, mother or the harsh grandmother, but everyone portrayed their part fantastically.This is definitely a must-see film for anybody.

    • eric
      Eric

      Anette, I love your comment! I also find this story very sad(in the book AND in the movie.) Unlike you, however, I DID also find the story frightening. There are much scarier 80s movies(and books, thanks to Stephen King and Dean Koontz, among others), but this was creepy! Still, I loved nearly everything about your comment! Agree with ALL of it!

      • eric
        Eric

        Sorry I mispelled your name, Annette! lol

  • teofil-mocanu
    teofil mocanu

    Bears almost no resemblance to the book (unfortunately). Two of these kids are big enough to have jumped the grandmother AND the butler and gotten the hell out of there. They wander around like meek little mice and refuse to question their mothers sanity. They make half-hearted attempts to escape but not really. The boy is the worst when it comes to standing up for the kids. They let this bible-thumping crazy grandmother reek havoc on their lives and their mothers (who’s already nuts). She’s (the mother) already allowed the grandmother to pay her back for what she considers 17 years of sin. It just goes on and on till the writer and director have decided they’re never going to get the book on film. They shrug their shoulders and walk away from the film at the end. This might be a great re-make in a few years with a well-thought-out script, a good director and especially a good cast.

  • anneli-kutt
    anneli kutt

    I saw this movie when it was first released and I was so excited about it because of the profound effect the books had had on me. Unfortunately, the movie was an absolute travesty and whoever passed the script as OK should be ashamed of themselves. It’s the worst adaptation of a book I’ve ever seen! The only thing I really liked about the movie were the sets. The bedroom looked just as I imagined it would! However I felt that the movie had been totally miscast and the storyline had been butchered. I don’t know whether I’d like a re-make or not – what if it was even worse? Just as an aside, one of my exam questions years ago was to compare a book and a movie adaptation and I chose this one because I felt so strongly about it. Just wish I had a copy of the essay lol – I’m sure it was a masterpiece 😀

  • konovalov-platon-avdeevich
    konovalov platon avdeevich

    basically, the film is a terrible interpretation of the book, there are changes which should have been left as they were, and even though Kristy Swanson was probably the best girl for the role of Cathy, the lines by jeffery bloom were not the best. I wanted to see more of the relationship between them, more about the flowers, and the way Cathy descibed things so beautifully using colours and description in the book. The good thing about this film is the music, Christopher Young truly captures the sad existence of the children in it.although i have negative thoughts above, the video and soundtrack are on my shelf and i watch and listen to them both on a regular basis.i only recommend this if you are a vca fan, or have read the book.

  • beliaev-karl-avdeevich
    beliaev karl avdeevich

    i think this is a very effective horror movie,but without blood and guts.the movie is filled with an air of dread and depression,and i found it hard to watch,but i did manage to get through it.the last time i tried to watch it,i had to stop it after about 15 minutes.to me,Louise Fletcher is absolutely terrifying as the wicked,evil grandmother.the movie doesn’t go into as much depth as the novel(by V.C Andrews) on which it is based,but i think that would take at least a 2 part mini series.i wouldn’t recommend this movie if you are feeling down.also just keep in my mind that they did leave quite a bit out compared to the novel.otherwise,i would recommend it,especially if you like Gothic style horror,which i think this is.for me,”Flowers in the Attic” is a 3.5/5

  • aleksei-kudrjavtsev
    aleksei kudrjavtsev

    I read the book back when I was in college. It was trash but it was GOOD trash. It involves a happy family–a mom, a dad and four kids. The father dies and the mother rapidly runs out of money. She has no choice to ask her parents (who disapproved of the marriage) for help. Her mother agrees but tells her that her children must stay up in the attic–her father doesn’t know about them and, if he did, he wouldn’t help her. The kids are in the attic for THREE YEARS. And, over time, one of the brothers “discovers” his sister…and the grandmother tortures them almost daily. Those were the big selling points of the book…the incest and kids being tortured. It does have a happy ending though (sort of).I was one of the “lucky” ones who actually saw this at a theatre back in 1987. The studio snuck it out quietly–I found out why. First, the story was changed. They wanted a PG-13 rating so there’s no incest at all–not even suggested. The tortures their grandmother puts them through were softened or eliminated entirely. They aren’t up there for three years. And they completely changed the ending (although it WAS great to see the mother get it at the end). All the changes drained the story of any impact it might have had. Acting didn’t help–Louise Fletcher is LOUSY as the evil grandmother; Victoria Tennant was even worse as the mother; Kristy Swanson as the oldest daughter overplayed her role a LOT. Only Jeb Stuart Adams as her brother gave a halfway good performance. It was no great piece of acting but pretty OK.To be fair to the movie, a faithful adaptation of the book would probably be way too grim for a movie (and get an NC-17 rating) but diluting it completely AND adding lousy acting isn’t the way to go! Boring, stupid, illogical…a total waste. This deserves a 0. I’m really surprised that some people LIKE this movie!

  • gary-walters
    gary walters

    “Morons In The Attic”. One of the all-time dumbest films. I have no idea what the novel is like, but if it’s anything like this movie then it should have been burnt – with fanfare – before it got the chance to go into publishing.I’ve always hated the prisoners-in-the-house sub-genre of thriller (or drama, in this case) and some of the worst movies ever made stem from this type of film, and this film is yet another example why those movies shouldn’t be made. Even worse, while in other movies of this sub-genre the prisoner(s) can’t leave because they are well guarded, in this story the four kids could have left any time! And they don’t, in spite of starvation, boredom, decreasing health and the hatred of the grandmother – all because they implicitly trust their mother and her “plans”. They are just oh-so naive… Their mother, without any explanation, becomes a psychopath who poisons her own children! This piece of garbage would have us believe that four “beautiful” children can be the result of a marriage between a woman and her blood-uncle! And then there is all that total naivety and innocence that this unrealistic foursome ooze out of their every pore – as if the two older ones had been raised in an attic before they ended up in the house of their grandmother/great-aunt. With every minute this piece of c*** gets worse, until the finale which is just too stupid for words.

  • beatrike-koulokhere
    beatrike koulokhere

    I was so disappointed when i saw this movie. I had just read the book, and thought it portrayed the characters so well, and showed the bad sides of human nature. In this movie the acting was horrible. There was no emotion, and so much drama over too little drama..if that makes sense The movie also seemed like it was over the span of a couple months, rather than three years. It did not touch on a major issue of the book, how the brother and sister fell in love, which took up a lot of the actual story. It also added in a lot of weird characters and it had little or no detail in the scenes, making the kids seem like total brats. It seemed like everything happened for no reason. If you have read the book, don’t watch the movie because you will be disappointed. I hope they make another adaptation, because I think flowers in the attic could be a great movie.

  • lourdes-varela
    lourdes varela

    My mom had been wanting me to watch this movie ever since she had heard that I had never seen it. It seemed interesting enough and one day when it came on TV I recorded it and decided to watch it later that night. Now, maybe I was just not expecting much from it, but I absolutely loved it the first time I watched it. Then, I realized it was based on a book. Not long ago I finished the book, and when I look back this movie kind of did not do it justice at all. There was tons of material that was left out and though I like the ending in the movie better than the ending in the book, I thought the book was much more mystifying and eerie. The thing about the movie though is it’s entertaining enough on it’s own to where I still really enjoy it and the characters are well adapted and played out by the actors and actresses. The movie maintains some eeriness and has a nice, creepy atmosphere, but now I just wish that there was so much more they would’ve done with the movie.I guess since I’m not a huge fan of the book, it doesn’t really upset me that the movie fails to do it justice, but I really do wish there would be another movie adaptation where it’s rated R and they include tons of more important material. In any matter, Flowers in the Attic is enjoyable, entertaining and well executed. It’s nothing like the book, so don’t expect it to be if you haven’t seen it and think you might like to.

  • antonin-vanek
    antonin vanek

    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.

  • maqvala-vasaze
    maqvala vasaze

    As a young child I remember my mother watching this movie and having the titles in book form. V.C. Andrews book, when I read it myself wasn’t that bad, actually it was very good! Sadly as in most cases the movie just wasn’t as good as the book.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.

  • michael-raymond
    michael raymond

    Flowers in the Attic (1987) was a weak attempt to translate the twisted V.C. Andrews southern Gothic horror novel into a made-to-teens movie. A film like this cannot be a P.G. film. If you even read a part of the book you’ll know why. That’s why today I’m going to give you a brief run down of the movie so you wont be tempted to watch this piece of garbage. A hot mom and her four bratty kids have to leave their suburban home because the bread winner (i.e. Pop’s) is killed in a traffic accident. Pop’s and the daughter have a very bizarre relationship (shown briefly with Mum spying on the two). Pop’s dies on his birthday leaving the family to fend for themselves. When the money runs out, the five of them move into a dreary mansion that’s ran by a cruel grandmother, a butler who resembles a young and spry Ronald W. Reagan and a basket case on wheels who looks like Mr. Steptoe. After being cleansed of her sins the ancient way (involving a scourging bull whip). The mother has to put her kids into an attic room while Mister Steptoe eh.. the Grandfather dies. While they wait, the children must live chaste lives and live out the days inside a musty and moldy attic. Chirs and Cathy (the older kids in their budding years) must fight temptation and (oops that’s the book) they must become the most stupid and obnoxious children they can become. Grandmother berates them and calls them sinners and what not. The youngest of the brood the twins Corey and Carrie are even more unsympathetic than the older sibs.Pretty soon the food stops coming and Mum only makes cameo appearances. The child have nothing to eat (expect when Chris plays Jesus and feeds the wee ones his blood. If you think the movie can’t get more ridiculous, it does. While the children starve, Mum courts a middle aged mullet wearing suitor. When she finally visits the kids, the ungrateful children lash out at their benefactor and she makes a hasty exit. The day of judgment comes when they learn three things, one Corey is dead, two Gramps is dead and three Mum’s gonna get married!After stealing enough money, the kids get the courage to leave their room in the attic. After Chris puts the smack down on grandma and avoid lurch err I mean Ronnie err the butler, they run right into the middle of the wedding ceremony. Daughter confronts the jealous mother and a brief chase turns into tragedy. Mum hangs herself with her long veil. How ironic she wore white. As the three leave the mansion, the narrator promises more to come!Thankfully this movie sank like the Bismark at the box office. No more book-to-film adaptations for V.C. Andrews (who died during the post production, probably due to watching the dailies whilst she was on the set). A shame about the movie because if it was done correctly, we could have saw the whole series on film. But when you cheap out and use a hack to write and direct, you get garbage on the screen.Not recommended.I wouldn’t watch this movie again on a dare or a bet. Well, maybe if it was worth my while.xxx

  • leah-hayes
    leah hayes

    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.

  • nicolas-descamps-perez
    nicolas descamps perez

    I saw this movie way back in like 1989 and LOVED it. So much that my mom purchased me a copy for Christmas one year. I can’t say how many times I’ve seen this film..at least 100…so much that my tape of it broke because the film inside was all worn out! Lol! I’m reading some of the posts and think that they are a bit harsh. I do understand that the movie wasn’t as outlined off the book as it could have been, however, what they taped still made for a GREAT film. Along with the music and acting, I thought it was awesome. I’m watching the movie right now in fact on HBO and I must say after all these years I still get chills off the music..AAHH, AHHH, AHHH, AHHH, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah…I actually learned to play this song on my keyboard!

  • jakob-znidarsic
    jakob znidarsic

    I read Flowers in the Attic (under the Finnish title Flowers of the darkness)) as a teenager. I did not know it was supposedly scandalous in USA for it’s content: violence was melodramatic instead of hardhittingly realistic and the romantic(ized) incest fantasy was just that: PG spice. There was no sleazy, trashy horror scum in this book – V C Andrews is not Jack Ketchum or even Stephen King – just Gothic romance melodrama. The movie kept the striking Old dark house setting and entertainingly villainous Christian fanatics, but took away the incest. Rats! Louise Fletcher, the depraved nurse torturing mentally ill in the socially critical One flew over cuckoo’s nest, was again the source of evil – in all Andrews books everybody over 25 was the necessary evil – and Kirsty Swanson was blonde enough to play the “innocent” heroine Cathy.

  • toth-i-ildiko
    toth i ildiko

    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.

  • troy-michael
    troy michael

    “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.

  • anezka-dolezalova
    anezka dolezalova

    I had been debating with myself for years about watching this movie. Having been an avid fan of the entire series of “Flowers in the Attic” books, I knew there was a strong possibility the film would do nothing but irritate me by way of poor acting and even poorer script-writing. What I didn’t realise, was how much of a massacre the film was going to make of such a beautifully written book.First off, and I’m sorry – but it is a shallow comment to make: Those kids; Chris, Cathy, Carrie and Cory are supposed to be stunning. “The Dresden dolls” because they are *that* striking. Whoever cast the film seemed to have sorted through the “Village of the Damned” rejects in order to find the two youngest (scariest looking couple of children I have ever seen) Chris was, I’m sorry – just nothing like the original character and while Kristy Swansen is very pretty – she just didn’t cut it as Cathy.Which brings me to my next point – Cathy’s thing is ballet – she’s an excellent dancer – and aside from a couple of pathetic scenes involving Swansen trying to get her leg higher than her hip-bone, they ignored the one thing that the entire character centres around.And just out of interest – where was the relationship between Cathy and Chris? I know having an incestuous relationship played out in film has got to be controversial – but don’t bother even picking up a pen to write a script for a story if you have absolutely no intention of keeping the central story-lines. And if you do, don’t have the audacity to pass it off as the film version of a highly acclaimed book just by giving it the same title.”Flowers in the Attic” was based on a true story. (As stated in the prologue of the copy I have anyway). How – HOW is it OK to just butcher such an awesome piece of work? It’s like passing Pokemon off as the Mona-Lisa; sick and entirely wrong. They have completely missed the point of the story: It wasn’t about 4 kids sitting in an attic waiting to die or be let out; it was about four children adapting to a situation wherein they have to become adults long before their time. It was about how the relationships between the siblings evolved, and the psychological consequences of losing one parent through death and another through greed.For anyone who has watched the film and is ready to dismiss the books because of it – seriously; don’t be fooled by such an obvious lacklustre attempt at a book adaptation. There are not enough words in the English language to explain how wrong this film is – how utterly and completely pathetic the script, setting, acting, casting, directing and the 101 other ways in which the movie sucks beyond belief.And just… just don’t get me started on the ending. Every time I think about it I just want to do nasty things involving pointy objects to the script-writer.Please tell me someone agrees with me?

  • taranci-sakarya
    taranci sakarya

    Every great story has its own essence. And when it is stripped off that, it becomes a story that easily you and me or any John Doe could write. “Flowers in the Attic”, written by Virginia Andrews, is a gripping tale of broken trust, betrayal, and complex human relationships that seem so natural under the circumstances, however forbidden they were to be. It’s such a pity that such a novel should fall in wrong hands for its screen adaptation. The movie horribly lacks the original soul of the story, its sinister twists, its surprises, its adventures in sociology.The story is like this: after their father dies accidentally, Corrine, the mother, takes pre-pubertal Chris, Cathy and little twins Cory and Carrie to her own wealthy parents hoping she would inherit from his dying father. But there’s a catch; her marriage had been earlier disapproved by the old man and he won’t let her a penny if he finds out she has children. So she and the equally cruel grandmother lock the kids up in the attic… until the fine moment comes when she’d win the old man’s heart back and tell her everything. But that day never comes while Corrine herself marries another man and eventually inherits the money… without telling her father about the children. In the meantime, Chris and Cathy grow up through teens and discover each other quite fruitfully, and eventually all four of them become a family, sharing a special bond made out of the feeling of being betrayed, and the longing to escape, which occurs not before three years.The movie changed a lot of it. Some I didn’t mind, but some are really outrageous. The account of mental and physical growth of the children during the course of time is largely left out. The movie shows Chris and Cathy in late teens right from the start, which ruined the basic message behind their relationship. In the book the twins played an enormous role in building up that relationship between their older siblings. The movie did not treat them as characters, to put it flatly. And how the movie ends, it may look dramatic in a rather happy-ending manner, but comparing to the book, it is overtly exaggerated, giving the whole thing a cheap smell. The book’s climax is not dramatic, yet far more thrilling than this crap about the kids meeting their new stepfather. And finally this sick hush-hush about the incest! Somebody who liked the movie considered the brilliant plot of the novel just an excuse to write about incest, and told me it’s good how the movie avoided the details. Nonsense! incest in this story comes as the most natural thing on earth. And how wonderfully indifferent Andrews is when she writes about it, the storyteller being Cathy. The movie blandly leaves a large part of it out, making the whole movie seem, well, infertile.For the casting, only Louis Fletcher made a great grandmother. She is right there in her Oscar-winning standard. But besides her, it’s all a bad casting throughout. Kristy Swanson as Cathy is just disgusting. How can she act so blunt when she’s the central character? Jeb Adams as Chris may not look like he’s described, but he acts not that bad. And Victoria Tennant as Corrine too, receives little screen time to be judged well.I wish there hadn’t been a movie. You cannot make an art movie through three years, and you can’t easily show a 13-year-old girl naked performing incest, both of which are absolutely necessary to make a good screen adaptation out of the story. But I don’t want this crap to be remembered as the only movie out of Andrews’ novel. I now want a remake, however controversial it may be, whatever ratings it may get.