MovieChat Forums > Flowers in the Attic (2014) Discussion > Likes and dislikes of remake

Likes and dislikes of remake

posted 11 years ago by Clwsfan864-608-645776
42 replies | jump to latest

What are your likes and dislikes of the movie?
Mine are
Likes:
1) stayed pretty true to the book
2) Chris & Cathy didn't look 25 like in the original movie
3) they introduced Bart (but I don't think he showed up until the second book. I haven't read the books in a while)
4) the Christmas party! It was one of my favorite moments in the book
5) The Foxworth Mansion. It wasn't as big as I pictured when I read the book, or in the first movie but I love old houses so I still loved it!
Dislikes
1) Grandmother was soft. I love Ellen Burstyn (she was terrifying in Requierm for a dream) but I felt like her version was too soft. Maybe it was the writers fault but the way Louise Fletcher portrayed her was how I saw her in the book. Her performance was haunting but Burstyn didn't do it for me.
2) I wish the mansion was bigger and had a more haunting feel to it. Like I said, I did love the house in general but it did feel Foxworth worthy
3) I felt Bart and John were too young. At least I think that butler was John, I never heard the name (family wouldn't shut up) I love Dylan Bruce in Orphan Black (highly recommend!) but in my mind he looked a bit older. Kind of like the doctor Monica dated in Friends but with a little smoother skin
4) No friggin Henny at the end! At least I think that was her name, the woman the kids met on the train but maybe that was in the second book.
Overall I actually enjoyed it, and I'm excited to see the sequel!

[–] slytherinprincess31 11 years ago

I agree except for the grandmother part. If it wasn't for garden of shadows I'd agree but I think she felt for the children. She was still horrible to them just a little conflicted. And that wasn't John at the end but I think it was him in the library where Chris heard about thegrandfather. The movie felt a little rushed but all in all I enjoyed it.

[–] Tracey73 11 years ago

I agree except for the grandmother part. If it wasn't for garden of shadows I'd agree but I think she felt for the children. She was still horrible to them just a little conflicted.

^^This^^ I've read the series several times and always got the impression that the grandmother struggled with developing feelings towards her grandchildren. She was extremely harsh and mean towards them, but I always thought there were times where she struggled with seeing them as the spawn of the devil (only term I could think of lol) instead of her grandchildren. I though Ellen portrayed this confliction perfectly.

I'm an automatic steeple for depressed and lonely people. ~ Blue October

[–] mdnightwnd 11 years ago

Spoilers be below. Read at your own risk.

Unfortunately my list of likes is much shorter than dislikes.

Likes

1) Stayed more true to the book than the movie - used a lot of quotes from the book
2) The children looked age appropriate
3) Corrine actually looked the part. In the movie, I didn't think Victoria Tennant was pretty enough to play someone who was supposed to be beautiful

Dislikes

1) Ellen Burstyn - I'm sorry, but I HATED the way she played The Grandmother. She was too soft in some cases and too over the top in the rest of them. Louise Fletcher did SO much better.
2) The ENDING. An electric fence, John with a gun letting them leave, The Grandmother in the closet whining and crying. Seriously??
2) Some of the other additions to the movie - like when The Grandmother took Cathy's ring right after they got there. What was the point of that? It wasn't in the book and didn't really add anything.
3) Corrine's party dress - It was supposed to be green!! Yeah, I understand that this didn't change anything in the story, but it's a detail that they could have easily added.
4) The mansion/sets were so SMALL. Foxworth Hall was supposed to be huge and the attic was immense, yet in the movie it's all crammed into one little area
5) Everything is so rushed. I understand that it's difficult to cram the entire book into such a small time frame, but it seems like time was wasted in areas that weren't very important.
6) The CGI exterior shots! Seriously... they couldn't find a house to use for the outside??

I could keep going, but I'll leave it at that for now.

OP, regarding your comments on Bart - he was introduced in the first book. Henny wasn't introduced until Petals on the Wind.

[–] ancl5875 11 years ago

Likes 1. Closely followed the book/some direct quotes 2. Loved Corinne's look and costumes 3. It was set in the 50s as supposed to be 4. Even though they changed the ending a bit it was still better than the '87 ending 5. Loved the beginning with the house shots and the voice over with direct quotes 6. I liked Ellen's portrayel of the Grandmother... Yes she played some of it soft but as we learn in Garden of Shadows Oliva mentions she will have to "steel herself not to love them" 7.They included the incest. This was a major plot point that was glaringly missing last time around. Dislikes 1. No one was beautiful enough to be the Dresden Dolls. The kids were all cute but nothing special. Chris Sr. should have been much hotter. Cathy should have been stunning with hair to her waist. 2. Cathy should have been more spirited and firey. She was always screaming and being dramatic in the book. 3. Foxworth Hall was not nearly grand enough. Where was the double curved staircase? The huge foyer they used as a ballroom? The immense attic? The first movie got that better. 4. The music and general Gothic feeling was not as strong in this one 5. Too much crammed into 2 hours. With a half hour left there were still several plot points that had yet to happen. All that being said, I enjoyed this for what is was and as a huge fan of the book I'm glad they remade this.

[–] Tracey73 11 years ago

ancl, I think you summed it up fine, at least regarding my likes and dislikes. I am too lazy to type them all out lol. The length of Cathy's hair bugged me because that was the one thing which made her so "beautiful" in the books. It was her pride IIRC. Someone also mentioned the swan bed. I was so disappointed (as I was in the original) because it was not extravagant like it was described in the book.

One more thing - the twins did not appear to be extremely thin and unhealthy looking towards the end like in the book. I wished this were a 2 part mini-series, so it would not have felt so rushed. I enjoyed the movie a lot, but I would've loved to have had more time with it.

I'm an automatic steeple for depressed and lonely people. ~ Blue October

[–] Lisasimpsonfan 11 years ago

Likes:

1. It closely followed the book. You can't expect the writers and director to get every detail from a book into a 2 hour movie but they got most of the major ones.
2. Foxworth Hall was incredible. It was just like I imagined.
3. I liked the softness and vulnerability that Grandmother had. It humanized her. I also like that they included something about how the donuts were from their Mother and how they shouldn't eat them. It shows how low Corrine had fallen and just how low she would go for her Daddy's Money.
4. Cathy and Chris' performance was spot on. Yeah they didn't look exactly like the book characters but they both captured the essence of the characters and did a great job.

Dislikes:

1. The swan bed. It was such a huge deal in the books and one of my personal favorites. I would have rather them not add it instead of putting in a simple sleigh bed with a swan headboard. For those who don't remember it in the books the swan bed was huge with a ruby eye and the wings curved around into a canopy to hold back the side curtains. It was the perfect way to show the life Corrine was living while her children were living with so little.
2. The Christmas party. In the books Corrine wears this special green gown. It's important because Cathy has the gown remade in one of the later books for another Christmas Party. I believe it's when she steals Bart from her mother.
3. It felt rushed at spots but it was a lot of book to cram into a 2 hour movie so I can understand it.

Over all I really liked the remake and can't wait for the next movie.

[–] ancl5875 11 years ago

Oh yes, I have to agree with you on the swan bed and the green dress. Cathy in the green dress at the Christmas party in Petals is one of my favorite parts in the entire series. They just won't be able to achieve the same dramatic effect if they use the simple cream dress Corinne wore in this version in the follow-up movie. And that part is such an integral part of Cathy's revenge scheme I feel they have to include it. As for the swan bed, it and the entire room for that matter was not nearly grand enough. It was a symbol of everything Corinne had that her children did not. She told them life was not easy for her downstairs but she was cleary living the high life. As they say in the book, she must "feel like a princess sleeping there". This movie missed the mark on the bed. They should have shown her safe and all her jewels too.

[–] LadyDi4476 11 years ago

Likes:

-The opening sequence of Foxworth Hall and the attic showing "Cathy was here". That was very cool.
-The ages of Christopher and Cathy were much more accurate, as well as Corrine who was young and vibrant.
-the 50s era, the clothes, the house, etc.
-the incestuous relationship between Cathy & Christopher although not handled exactly as it was in the book.
-the ending was almost spot on minus the grandmother flipping out on the attic stairs.

Dislikes:
-Ellen Burstyn played the grandmother much too sympathetic and soft. I will agree Louise Fletcher was much more of a frightening presence.
-it felt very rushed. I didn't get a sense they had been locked away for 2 years.
-I wish there had been more time spent on the growing parental relationship Chris & Cathy developed with the twins.
-the grandmother taking Cathy's ring when they first arrived was totally unnecessary.
-the acting wasn't nearly as good especially between Corrine and Cathy. There was so much animosity between them in the novel.
-Cathy and Christopher's sexual relationship was too romanticized. He nearly raped her in the novel and swore to never do it again. He became enraged at the thought of her kissing Bart Winslow. They never just casually made out in the bathroom.

Overall I liked the remake because it stuck to the story and didn't have that ridiculous ending from the 1987 film. That being said this would have worked better as a miniseries or at least two parts.

The book remains the best source of this story.

-Di

[–] shoppermom26 11 years ago

The ending was far from spot on. As you mentioned the attack scene and subsequent freak out in the closet leading to the attic by the grandmother. Sorry but WHAT?! And then I think it was John Amos pointing a gun at them and then letting them go when he found out who they were? I repeat Sorry but WHAT?!?! And the whole electrified fence thing. Why even put that in?

This book was told with such chilling, point blank exposition. It is not easy to pull off first person and Flowers did it beautifully. This movie and the '87 version just did not capture the heart of the story.

[–] TracesOfLove 11 years ago

"The ending was far from spot on. As you mentioned the attack scene and subsequent freak out in the closet leading to the attic by the grandmother. Sorry but WHAT?! And then I think it was John Amos pointing a gun at them and then letting them go when he found out who they were? I repeat Sorry but WHAT?!?! And the whole electrified fence thing. Why even put that in?"

As much as I found that odd, I did have to laugh when Cathy was all "We're Corrine's children." And dude is like, "Say no more." Like he's been around long enough to know how whacked these people are!

SPRING BREAK FOREVER BITCHES!

[–] Tracey73 11 years ago

The swan bed. It was such a huge deal in the books and one of my personal favorites. I would have rather them not add it instead of putting in a simple sleigh bed with a swan headboard. For those who don't remember it in the books the swan bed was huge with a ruby eye and the wings curved around into a canopy to hold back the side curtains. It was the perfect way to show the life Corrine was living while her children were living with so little.

I was so disappointed when they showed the swan bed! (Now that I think of it, I was disappointed in the original movie lol.) Every time I read the book, I imagined so much more.

I wished they would've made this a 2 part mini-series so it would not have felt so rushed.

I'm an automatic steeple for depressed and lonely people. ~ Blue October

[–] LadySabrinaLongworth 11 years ago

I was so disappointed when they showed the swan bed! (Now that I think of it, I was disappointed in the original movie lol.) Every time I read the book, I imagined so much more.

I agree. In the book, the swan bed seemed so luxurious and grand. At least the 1987 movie made an attempt at the look by having the outspread wings (as the headboard) with the sheer curtains and the infant swan bed across the foot of the bed.

[–] Tuppance76 11 years ago

Tracey73 said:

I wish they would've made this a 2 part mini-series so it would not have felt so rushed

________________________________________________________________________________
^^^^This

Dislikes: The casting. Dresden dolls, they were not. I pictured Christopher Sr looking really handsome. Someone more of a Paul Walker type. Bart I always pictured looking like Matt Bomer from White Collar.

The Swan Bed

The green dress

I wish they would have shown the scene where the grandfather, in his sick delirium, thought Cathy was a young Corrine.

[–] kellykoop 11 years ago

The swan bed. It was such a huge deal in the books and one of my personal favorites. I would have rather them not add it instead of putting in a simple sleigh bed with a swan headboard. For those who don't remember it in the books the swan bed was huge with a ruby eye and the wings curved around into a canopy to hold back the side curtains. It was the perfect way to show the life Corrine was living while her children were living with so little.

Agree! The swan bed was a HUGE disappointment. I'd been looking forward to finally seeing it and was so disappointed.

The ending was off too, but at least Corrine wasn't killed nor did we have to hear Cathy screech "EAT THE COOKIE!!!"

Nick: Who was that?
Nora: Oh, you wouldn't know them, darling. They're respectable.

[–] razeldarling 11 years ago

Likes
1.) Stayed more true to the book
2.) The cast was pretty

Dislikes
1.) It felt like it skipped around to much and everything was rushed. It was hard to feel any emotion for the characters when we barely got to know them. I think it would have done better as a two part mini series airing over two nights.
2.) The grandmother was not scary. At no point did I feel the children were in any real danger.
3.) Heather Graham talked too fast
4.) The children weren't close enough.
5.) The swan bed.

[–] Falconeer 11 years ago

I loved this version, although i agree with a few of your points. Yes, Foxworth Hall could have been larger, and more imposing; the house used in the 1987 version was more accurate. But you must consider the budget of this version probably didn't allow for such gigantic sets. And yes, at first I was taken aback by Burstyn's "more sensitive" portrayal of the Grandmother...at first. Then I realized that Ellen Burston was simply giving her character more depth; and that is what great actors do. Her performance was more believable than the scenery chewing one of Louise Fletcher. The audience can't really relate to a character that one dimensional. As far as Bart Winslow; yes he was in the first book, quite a bit. And in the book he was a young and handsome attorney that was having an affair with Corrine. The scene where Cathy sneaks into her mothers room and kisses Bart is lifted right from the book. i thought he was perfect. Also the woman the kids meet on the train at the end, happens in "Petals On the Wind."
i think this film is a really fine adaptation of the book. My only two (slight) disappointments were
1. When Cathy's father fails to give Cathy the music box. i don't know why they left that out..the music box was a big part of the story, and
2. The passage where Chris lets Cory drink his blood when the Grandmother is starving them, was not in the movie. That was some of the books most powerful imagery, and showed how much Chris loved his brother. Maybe they thought showing a little kid drinking blood would be too much for a tv movie though..
but all in all, i can't complain about this one; i was thrilled to see how good it was!

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

[–] troncatch 11 years ago

Seeing as how they're supposedly going to make Petals on Wind, I think they probably should have included more of Cathy's dancing. I don't think I heard "prima ballerina" once in this, and her passion for dancing was a pretty big deal in the book. Wasn't her goal to become a famous dancer as a kind of giant *beep* you to her mother? I believe in Petals on the Wind she sends her mother and Bart tickets to a ballet she was starring in. It's also how Cathy meets Julian who's reasonably important to future plotlines.

[–] LadySabrinaLongworth 11 years ago

I believe in Petals on the Wind she sends her mother and Bart tickets to a ballet she was starring in.

In Petals on the Wind, Cathy doesn't send her mother tickets, although, Corrine attends every performance she can. Bart later tells Cathy he thinks Corrine had a little crush on Julian, Cathy's husband and ballet partner. (Cathy originally went to Bart, an attorney, for help with getting the insurance company to pay out on Julian's life insurance policy. That's when Bart mentioned his wife loved the ballet, but only attended performances in which Cathy and Julian danced)

I don't think this new version ever mentioned Christopher's desire to be a doctor, either.

[–] phillindholm 11 years ago

Yes, Burstyn may have looked the part, but she wasn't strong enough. Louise Fletcher was perfect-and she left no room for improvement.

[–] Falconeer 11 years ago

Well at least they showed a bit of Cathy and her interest in ballet. I was more annoyed by the fact that they dropped the whole thing with Christopher wanting to be a doctor. In this film they made him an artist instead. i don't know where it's all going, but i won't believe they are making the other books into movies until i see real proof..

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

[–] ednalyn99 11 years ago

There were hints of Chris wanting to be a doctor.

Their Dad's gift to Chris in the opening scene was a stethoscope. In the scene where Corrine suddenly appears to announce that she just got married to Bart Winslow, you'll see Chris studying with a microscope.

But yes, no explicit mention of Chris wanting to be a doctor. They only highlighted his artistic abilities to justify his skill in carving a copy of the Grandmother's master key.

[–] Falconeer 11 years ago

Ok, I need to watch it again. It's just that in the book, becoming a doctor was such an obsession for Chris. Actually I'm surprised the movie got the "key in the soap" stuff right; it was a nice detail. Don't get me wrong; I love this movie. I even got it, to include in my movie collection. I think it is quite beautiful.

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

[–] ednalyn99 11 years ago

Ok, I need to watch it again. It's just that in the book, becoming a doctor was such an obsession for Chris.

I totally agree. They really should have emphasized it more instead of just putting very subtle hints which can be easily missed by the viewer. Becoming a doctor was a very important dream of Chris that it was the only other love of his life that could rival his love for Cathy.

I noticed that Chris could stay away from Cathy whenever it meant he was going to study to become a doctor. Cathy then would be sent into a panic or some drama because Chris was leaving. Whenever Chris leaves, Cathy somehow follows it up by making a really bad decision in her life. I guess she's correct in FITA that she is pretty unstable without Chris nearby.

I really hope they don't gloss over these details in the sequel since they play such an important role for Chris and Cathy's characters.

[–] Tracey73 11 years ago

And yes, at first I was taken aback by Burstyn's "more sensitive" portrayal of the Grandmother...at first. Then I realized that Ellen Burston was simply giving her character more depth; and that is what great actors do. Her performance was more believable than the scenery chewing one of Louise Fletcher.

^^This^^

I also agree with you on leaving the parts out of Cathy's dad giving her the music box and Chris letting Cory drink his blood while they were starving.

I'm an automatic steeple for depressed and lonely people. ~ Blue October

[–] LadySabrinaLongworth 11 years ago

and Chris letting Cory drink his blood while they were starving.

He made both twins drink his blood.

Then he was about to make another cut for Cathy to drink the blood, but she knocked the razor out of his hand. He ran downstairs to get something to re-sterilize the razor and found the picnic basket, so stuffed with food that the lids couldn't be closed. And that was when then first powdered sugar doughnuts showed up.

[–] amybeth68 11 years ago

Overall, this was definitely better than the travesty that was the 1987 theatrical fiasco...and I thought it was well cast...I just have some minor complaints that I don't understand why they couldn't have kept in.

*The whole sequence of events with the hair cutting/tarring.... in the book,Chris refused to cut her hair and the Grandmother left the scissors and the threat of starving them...that very night, she drugged Cathy and poured the hot tar on her head...it was WAY more traumatic in the book, esp when the twins saw her...Chris spends the day getting it out of her head, but he DOES get it out. Then they cut the front of her hair and wrap the rest in a towel so it looks like she is bald...but the grandmother still doesn't come back with food for almost two weeks...the suffering the children went was VERY underplayed here. Oh and when she does come back, that's when the first of the poisoned doughnuts appeared, and the children thought it might have been her convoluted way of apologizing to them

*Cathy became hysterical when Chris was being beaten and wound up being beaten even more brutally by the grandmother, including being whacked in the head with a huge hairbrush that makes her pass out. But beforehand she gets in a terrific speech about the revenge she will eventually seek...which was very powerfully remembered when she does confront the grandmother later in Petals on the Wind. None of that happened in this film.

*The brother/sister shenanigans was NOT this flowery, romantic coming-of-age nonsense...it was very violent in the beginning (even if Cathy blamed herself, as sadly, many of the rape victims do in VC Andrews' novels) This is Lifetime...they normally do not shy away from violence and abuse, so I wonder why they did here?

*It wasn't made clear that the reason the mother poisoned them was because the grandfather wrote a codicil into his will that if it was ever proven that she had children she would lose everything. All of that was much too rushed in the ending.

Well, these might seem more than minor complaints now that I re-read this, lol, but I think mostly it was because of time constraints. This is a novel that begs to be made into a 2-part mini-series.

"What is it, Sebastian? I'm arranging matches..."

[–] LadySabrinaLongworth 11 years ago

I agree with your points. They also sort of downplayed things to make it seem as though the children were relatively comfortable in the room and attic.

The attic had no heat or electricity. They relied upon candles in the attic. In the winter, it was so brutally cold, they had to heavily bundle up in ski-wear to venture into the attic. Even their room was cold in the winter.

In the summer, it was unbelievably hot and stuffy in the attic and even in the bedroom, so they often just lounged around on the floor, the coolest spot in the room.

The two weeks or so in which they were starved was a terrible time, with all four children becoming very ill from starvation (with Chris eventually slashing his wrist to feed the twins his blood).

Cathy and Chris had to hand-wash all of their clothes in the bathtub (who knows where they hung the clothes to dry; that's never mentioned in the book).

Also, when they were starved for the two weeks, they ran out of toilet paper, so they used pages from books and magazines, causing the toilet to overflow and quit working. Chris used twisted coat-hangers to unclog it. They used old clothes from the trunks in the attic to sop up the mess, then hid the soiled, sopping clothes in a trunk in the attic.

But the movie made it look as they they were only slightly inconvenienced by being locked up.

[–] Sweet_T0209 11 years ago

Yes I remember reading the book. Both movies definitely underplayed what the children had to endure. You summarized what they went through just right.

[–] Felicia-Hardy 11 years ago

Likes:

1) It was incredible close to the book. Just that makes it a million times better than the 80s movie.
2) The children looked like children and not adults.
3) I loved the first scenes because it got to show the audience they were a loving normal family.
4) The grandma. In the other movie it was almost like a cartoon. In this movie it was a three dimensional character and I loved that they included some hints about Olivia's life.
5) Cathy & Chris relationship was developed slowly and the actors had chemistry. I was really wondering how they were going to do the incest.
5) I loved Heather Graham as Corinne. A lot of people in other sites critize her for the way she acted in this movie but I think people who haven't read the book don't understand Corinne is supposed to be weak, selfish and vapid.

Dislikes:
1) It was very rushed. I'm sure it's because they didn't have that much budget but I wish we could have had a longer movie.
2) The house didn't look big enough. But again I think it was probably a budget problem.
3) There wasn't much about Cathy's dancing and there was nothing about Chris reading medical books and wanted to become a doctor.
4) I didn't mind the last scene the kids had with the grandma but I hated the butler or whoever that was that helped them escaped.

[–] JCrewgirl 11 years ago

In addition to what was already said here are some dislikes I have:
Chris not telling Cathy the grandfather had died months ago
Cathy saying it doesn't matter anymore when the grandmother told her it was their mom poisoning them since throughout Petals half of what she thinks about is getting revenge.

"Don't they know they're making love to one already dead?!"

Love Les Miserables!!!

[–] mlbags 11 years ago

All good points and I am glad someone brought up the green dress......it was one of my favorite things from the books. I also agree that the swan bed and Foxworth Hall was much grander in my imagination.

Not looking this way, cupcake!