MovieChat Forums > Flowers in the Attic (2014) Discussion > Things the first movie did Better

Things the first movie did Better

posted 11 years ago by zoogfan1492
15 replies | jump to latest

I recently had the pleasure of rereading the book. I also recently (just now to be more specific) had the terror of re-watching the 80s version of the movie.

Since the premier of the Lifetime movie, I thought it was absurd that some people were claiming the original was better, and that was because I hadn't seen it in years. But now that I wave watched it again...
NO. just no.
That said, there were a few things I did like better about the original.

- The music. I think everyone agrees the original score was much more haunting and fitting in the original
- The feeling of claustrophobia. I got a better feel for how "stuck" the kids were in the attic
- Chris cleaning Corrine's back after the wiping. It further showed how hr trusted and adored her
- Corrine's whip marks. The ones in the new movie looked laughable. Not believable at all
- Though Chris never attacked the grandmother in the book, I found it hard to believe, both when reading and in the new movie, that the kids would never get to the point of just knocking her upside the head and running down stairs once they had all agreed to escape.

Other than those things, most of which were minor, the remake is MUCH better. I am aware the acting is not flawless in the remake, but it is oscar worthy compared to the acting in the original. The twins line delivery was pretty bad at times in the remake, but again, much better than the acting by the twins (who were kinda creepy looking) acting in the original.
I just could not get past how Chris looked 21 and Cathy looked 18. Even if they were supposed to be older than in the book, I don't think anyone would believe he was just learning about sexuality and she had no idea what sex was. (we now know for sure incest was indeed filmed and intended to be in the first movie, but was edited out. Therefore, Cathy had to have been sexually unaware in the original script.)

Here are two SARCASTIC things I liked about the Origional

- "Eat it! EAT THE COOKIE" *Corrine falls of balcony and is hung by her veil* I could watch that laughingly bad scene over and over... Link below
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfF5jBNTjpw

- Chris is his booty shorts. Though it was not appealing on the actor in the original, I would have happily watched Chris in the remake walk around in nothing but those tiny shorts

"BOOM! bazooka joe." -Randy Barry of The Real World: San Diego

[–] Barb67 11 years ago

You forgot the Emerald Green Gown and Jewels! OMG Even that halfassed crap 87 movie got THAT right!!!

You NEED it for Petals, because unless they plan to destroy the entire confrontation scene, it was a MAJOR part of that, Bart BELIEVES Cathy BECAUSE her dress is identical to the one he remembers Corrine wore.

[–] zoogfan1492 11 years ago

You NEED it for Petals, because unless they plan to destroy the entire confrontation scene, it was a MAJOR part of that, Bart BELIEVES Cathy BECAUSE her dress is identical to the one he remembers Corrine wore.

Yes, it was a major part. But because whats done is done, they can still have Cathy wear a dress identical to the one Corrine wore, but just use a dress identical to the one Corrine wore in the petals MOVIE, as that movie is a follow up to the Flowers movie, not the petals book.

"BOOM! bazooka joe." -Randy Barry of The Real World: San Diego

[–] DCompton86 11 years ago

I don't see how this is ruined. POTW is just using the gold dress that Corrine wears in the FITA movie.

Corrine in FITA: http://www.imdb.com/media/rm654300672/tt3074694?ref_=ttmi_mi_all_sf_14

Cathy in POTW: http://www.imdb.com/media/rm147508736/tt3496892?ref_=tt_pv_md_2

"It's better to be hated for who you are than be loved for who you aren't."

[–] Barb67 9 years ago

No... Just NO.

The dress AND the Jewels were huge... Cathy made it a point to have the dress done exactly, and then she goes up to Corrinnes room to go get the same jewels to prove her point. That was a big part... How silly Corrine was still using her birthday numbers for the combination to the safe and all that...

I did miss that part a lot.

[–] jird 11 years ago

The house and the grounds were way better in the first one.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ReidKD 9 years ago

And Louise Fletcher. She was perfect as Olivia Foxworth. Ellen Burstyn is a great actress, but hardly intimidating (too short and too fragile for the part). Seriously, the two older kids could have easily beaten the crap out of her. Even the younger ones could have over taken her. But who would mess with Louise Fletcher? Um, no one.

[–] Barb67 9 years ago

Oh I KNOW! Louise was amazing! I think that was the first role I saw her in and I've loved her stuff ever since.

Wish they could have gotten her for it again, but I guess she aged too much. I kind of hate Ellen... She was menacing but not the same way Louise was.

[–] Faridah (1363) 4 years ago

Yes! Louise Fletcher was perfect for the grandmother! Her voice and the way she moved as she spoke were frightening. The book explains how grandmother towers over the children. The grandmother in this one doesn’t do that.

[–] Goodgirl1980 (22) 3 years ago

I have to disagree....Lousie Fletcher was defiantly creepy and terrifying ...but Ellen Burstyn was actually very imitating and more violet as well in the remake than the first one! Remember how much she kept threating the children and had a very cruel abusive vibe.
I thought they both did well , in different ways .

[–] Noirdame79 8 years ago

It should be mentioned that the original script and the original director's cut of the 1987 film did expand on the relationship between Cathy and Chris, and featured a different ending, not the same as in the book, but by the sounds of it, it probably came of better than the re-shot ending (which was filmed by a different director) that appears in the theatrical release. It would be interesting to see the deleted footage.

The Lifetime version was okay, and for obvious reasons was able to contain more of the novel's themes, but it just felt hollow to me. As flawed as the 1987 movie is, it feels more authentic in terms of location and sets, where this later adaptation used far too much CGI.

[–] Stringey (260) 7 years ago

Someone mentioned the twins in the 87 movie looked creepy and I agree. Not so much the girl actually but the boy did. As a matter of fact for those that watch American horror story he looked like one of the blond vampire kids from the Hotel season. However having the boy in the 87 film look pale and creepy works. Notice that the artwork on the books always depicted the characters looking super blond and almost sinister looking. In fact in the remake the twins did not look creepy enough.

[–] Goodgirl1980 (22) 3 years ago

But in the book, they are all supposed to be very beautiful children like dolls. The remake was a lot closer to how they were supposed to look.
They looked creepy in the 1st one, well mainly Cory the boy . not like a beautiful doll at all !