This movie is the proof that the world is becoming a sick and dumb place

One of my all time favorites.

The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

I first read the novel when i was in my early teens, and I've loved everything about the whole series ever since. The 1987 film always disappointed me, in casting and execution. I was pleased to see that the cast was much more how I imagined the characters as I read. However, the movie was awfully executed. The characters at times felt so scripted (when Chris confronted Cathy after kissing Bart, I cringed), and the whole thing felt rushed. At the point in the movie where I thought it had been a few weeks in the attic, Cathy hit us with two years. Small details were left out too. The swan bed was nothing as described, the doll house had 4 rooms even though it was supposed to be based on the grandmothers childhood mansion, the tar in Cathy's hair was supposed to come out, but leaving the hair weak, which I always thought was symbolic. The starvation period always felt like a huge crux of the book to me, but it was all but completely left out. Cathy's tantrums were overlooked, and she did ballet once. Was Chris even a doctor-to-be in the movie? I feel like an accurate and good quality film that stuck to the books would have to be two or three movies long. The book was divided into two parts, the movie should do the same, rather than skipping half of the plot and leaving major themes unexplored.

she saves the movie from a script who has not science to drive a spectacular story. because , if you do not know the original adaptation or the book, it is not easy to understand a ball of events, dialogs and decisions in the right light. the desire to make an easy horror is not the most inspired option in the case of Flowers in Attic. because the result is only a stinky improvisation. because the good intentions of the actors is obstruction by a scriptwriter and a director with the desire to transform a superb story in a kilt of mist. and that is the fact for who the best choice in that case is Ellen Bustyn who gives a decent dose of credibility to a chaotic project.

I really don't see the need for remakes, especially when they're done so badly. Carrie, Robocop, Psycho, were all classic films and if not perfect, pretty darn close in their own right. Whenever they remake films like this, they ruin it with overdone effects, veering too far away from a story, or repeating the script almost word for word. Those films were classics for a reason. Flowers is no exception. In the original, the children were shiny and beautiful when they arrived. By the time they left, they looked so miserable, malnourished and waif-like, you believed they'd been stuck up there in that attic for years. The attic was an oppressive and claustrophobic place, even though the kids tried to make it more pleasant. In the remake, there are real flowers and sunlight, and it's quite a pretty and joyous space. Whilst I adore Ellen Burstyn and her legendary acting ability, her character showed too much compassion for the children and there were times when I thought she would scoop them up and give them a hug. Louise Fletcher nailed the part. She was cold, detached and totally intimidating. The role was written perfectly for her, so Ellen cannot be blamed for the new version. She did the best with what she was given. The acting otherwise was meh (apart from Carrie's reaction to the news about Corey), but they're kids, so once again, can be forgiven. But don't even get me started on Heather's acting. How does she get work? She sounded like she was reading her lines off the back of her hand, and she was completely wrong for the part. Victoria Tennant had substance. When she slapped Cathy, you really believed she hated her. The original may not have been true to the books 100%, but it was entertaining, believable, and the acting was good. And if it ain't broke, why try and fix it?

As I just finished the book I just had to watch the film, which was to my disappointment. Here is why:It was way too short, especially the development of the relationship between Cathy and Chris, as well as the growing distance between the children and their mother. Very important details were missing for example, the movie didn't portray the attachment of Corrie and Carrie to each other, the grandmother wasn't as evil as in the books, etc. I also feel like there were many mistakes in the movie that made it less realistic, e.g. Cathys hair didn't grow after the cut as well as Chris' hair, which seemed always as if he just went to the hairdresser and generally, you couldn't tell that two years have passed if they wouldn't have shown the calendar. Of course a few things were changed such as John seeing them outside when they were escaping, etc. What made the book so special is the well-described development of the relationships of the main characters over the course of three years, which the movie is clearly missing. Another point would be that the characters were'nt developed at all! Sure, Cathys stubbornness was shown, but their hobbies and interests, the way they talk to each other was totally missing! Corries musical talent, Cathys dancing and Chris' obsession with being a doctor, them reading all of these books, and so on. Comparing the desprictions of the book to the movie, the house in general and especially the attic and Corinne's room seemed not as gigantic and unbelievable, which made the movie - again- less special and rather boring. To be honest, I didn't like the acting either, it seemed very stiff to me.I think the movie makers didn't interpret the book as grand as I did, hence my disappointment. Luckily I read the book first, because if I did otherwise, Im sure I wouldn't have read it based on my impressions of that movie!!