MovieChat Forums > Little Shop of Horrors (1986) Discussion > Little Shop Of Horrors (1960) vs Little ...

Little Shop Of Horrors (1960) vs Little Shop Of Horrors (1986)


I wanted to start this discussion, because after viewing both film versions, I like Roger Corman's 1960 one better. I saw that one first, then I saw the 1986 musical version, which did not impress me one bit.
First of all, Roger Corman's version was much more of a horror movie; it had quite a Vincent Price/Henry Mancini style piece of music that was enough to create the creepy effects during the opening sequence and the bits with Audrey JR in it. Plus, the voice of Audrey JR was sinister enough. And there's the bit where Seymour is squeezing a human hand into the plant and singing Deck The Halls in a very emotional mood, which creates a feel that Seymour feels like he's being tortured. Plus the ending is very dark (spoiler!); when the town chases Seymour, he confronts his creation and kills both the plant and himself.
The musical version was nothing, but cliches and excuses to enjoy Broadway. You call that a horror movie? It wasn't even scary enough to be a horror movie. The parts where the plant sings killed the atmosphere. It falls in the same category as the Rocky Horror Picture Show, taking away the 'prepare to be scared' feel, same with the music video to Michael Jackson's Thriller. In fact, all the songs killed the whole aspect for a respectable horror movie. Plus, they are also forgettable. No offense Alan Menken, but your works with Disney were better. If you compare the dentist's death in both films, the 1960 film's scene was more heart pounding; it had Seymour and the dentist sword fencing and the dentist got stabbed. In the musical, oh god, they have to burst into a song! Plus, the ending (spoiler) is so cliched. The plant blows up and Seymour and Audrey live happily ever after. Yawn!
The Roger Corman version is so underrated, whereas the 1986 musical is so overrated.
That's my opinion. What do you guys think?

reply

The 1986 version is a comedy musical first and then a horror film. The 1960 version is just a horror film. To compare the two the way you have seems asinine. It's like comparing the original Reefer Madness with the musical version; where as the original was "serious" (at the time) it's laughable now (thus a cult classic) but to compare it to the musical version would be asinine. They have the same basic plots but that's basically it.

-Nam



I'm on the road less traveled...

reply

It's like comparing the Beatles and Verdi. Yeah it's music but it's completely different. I guess people like you are the reason the movie has a very low rating on imdb but nobody says this was a horror movie.

Personally I think both movies are great for obviously different reasons. Corman manages to bring something sinister in a very over the top movie.
The musical is a parody of the B-movies that were so prominent in that era. It's campy on purpose.

I'm not sure exactly what you were expecting but when you say the music is forgettable, you're out of your mind.

For every lie I unlearn I learn something new - Ani Difranco

reply

[deleted]

I like and respect them both for what they are. The old version was a typical 1960's horror. The new version was never meant to be flat out horror. It was a comedy horror.

Though I think the old version was comical too, just in a different way.

Create a society in which you would like to live, not knowing what you're going to come into it as.

reply

All I've seen the 86 musical. Which I like(d) and we did the music in the high school band. (boring tuba part... ) but was fun to play. But the overall tone for the movie was wierd. Yeah, it was a musical, and much of the killing was done 'off screen', but it still really disturbed me on a certain level. I need to see the original now... it might be on Netflix... Hmm...

3rd generation American from a long line of Gottscheers... it was Drandul, dude!

reply

[deleted]

I love both :) the Corman film is very underrated, and the 86 musical is hilarious and fun. Both are worth the watch :)






"Its time to kick ass and chew bubblegum, and I'm all outta gum."- Duke Nukem

reply

Agreed.

Poorly Lived and Poorly Died, Poorly Buried and No One Cried

reply

Its hard to pick one because they are such different genres and types of movies. I generally hate musicals but I actually liked this one a lot. The 1960 version was kind of poor quality and lighting and felt like a low budget movie to me, but I still enjoyed it a lot.

reply

You think the original was scary? Both movies were more comedy than horror. That said, I love both movies, but I like the 80s one just a little bit more than the 60s one only because I saw it as a kid and loved it so it has that nostalgic value for me.

Both are great though.

Poorly Lived and Poorly Died, Poorly Buried and No One Cried

reply