Horrible

The only actor who was even passable was Dye as Chris.

I know some people might have preferred a harsher more frightening approach to the role but I certainly think Ellen Burstyn was "passable"!

Also, why cast an ugly actress as Cathy? She's supposed to be beautiful and enticing. Same for Graham, no beauty there.

I think they both are beautiful. Obviously the more time Cathy spent in the attic the worse she looked (more pale and a bit sickly) and the haircut did nothing for her. But Kiernan Shipka looks like a young Cathy (as described in the novel) in many ways:
http://kiernan-shipka.com/Gallery/albums/userpics/10001/FITSPromo_006. jpg
http://kiernan-shipka.com/Gallery/albums/userpics/10001/TCATour_017.jp g
Blonde hair, fair skin, slim build. Remember that she's supposed to be 12 when this starts. Kiernan is now 14 (she was 13 when it was filmed) Very few people look like glamorous beauties at that age. Even if they grow up to be stunning later. A bit of awkwardness goes with the territory. Kiernan looks like a very pretty young girl (with perhaps a touch of adolescent awkwardness) who will grow up into a beauty.

Heather Graham is generally considered a beauty, and she fits Corrine very well physically. Blonde hair, fair skin, slim build and a hint of something cold and hard.
http://heather-graham.org/photos/albums/movies/2014_flowers-in-the-att ic/stills-promos/still_002.jpg
http://heather-graham.org/photos/albums/movies/2014_flowers-in-the-att ic/stills-promos/still_009.jpg

In the original film Cathy was played by 18 year old Kristy Swanson. Yes they avoided that pre-adolescent awkwardness, but they also sacrificed some of the disturbing nature of the character's sexuality. She seems older and therefore her sexualization isn't as inappropriate as it was in this film where the grandmother was essentially concerned about a 12 year old girl having sex.

Also I thought that Victoria Tennant, who played Corrine in the original was a lot less beautiful than Heather Graham. Not that she was unattractive. But she didn't have the ability to walk into a room an own it in the same way that Heather Graham's Corrine did:
http://www.cinemorgue.com/victoriatennant1.jpg
http://cineplex.media.baselineresearch.com/images/304816/304816_full.j pg

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Seriously, you must be joking!

The casting was great. Everyone looked the part from the book's description of them. The only person I can think of I prefer from the original was the grandfather, but mostly because he looked more cruel. The original seemed to completely forget about ages...Jeb was in his mid-20's and Swanson was much too old to play Cathy as well....Tenant looked to be mid to late 40's when Corrine is supposed to be a mere 38.




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

reply share

add reply

formatting help

This movie was definitely NOT "horrible;" not by a long shot. It had quite beautiful sets and all around production values. The wardrobe people did a fine job, and the way the movie is shot and the lighting is really gorgeous. The performances were good enough for what was required, and to say that the actress who played Cathy was "ugly" isn't really a valid point. She isn't as flawlessly beautiful as the way Cathy is described in the book; but think about that description..where could they find any young actress THAT outrageously perfect? That's just not reasonable. Anyway the beauty of an actor doesn't determine whether a film is good or bad. As for Heather Graham; no, she was never a strong actress, but she happens to be gorgeous. I also read/loved these books growing up, and I am really thrilled that they are being developed into movies. "Flowers In the Attic" was a fine looking film, and i hope they maintain those standards for the next 3 installments. I'm especially looking forward to seeing the final 2 books as films..

"IMdB; where 14 year olds can act like jaded 40 year old critics...'

reply share

add reply

formatting help

[deleted]