Which film is the most faithful to the book?
I'd like to see a film version but don't want to waste my time on a bad adaptation.
shareThe Remake was definitely closer to the book. The 1987 version was ok and fun to watch but was an insult to the book really. They left out the main part of the story and did not develop the relationship between the kids at all. Also, Chis and Cathy are way older then thy are supposed to be in the book.
If your looking for a film version close to the book go with the TV 2014 remake :)
V.C. Andrews approved the script for the 1987 movie. The incest was in the original cut (although it was not graphic), which was why Cathy and Chris were made slightly older - Cathy was 14, Chris was 16 - to make it less shocking. However, the test audience didn't like the incest or the original ending so it was removed before the film was released (leaving only small hints that Cathy and Chris were closer than siblings) and the ending was changed, without the director's approval. So, VCA felt that the director Jeffrey Bloom's script was the closest to her novel; if the studio had left it alone, it would have remained that way
Just because the 2014 version includes more from the book doesn't mean it's a better adaptation. The acting is flat, the story is rushed, the budget is small (and noticeably so) and the feeling of terror and dread is completely missing. Ellen Burstyn isn't scary the way Louise Fletcher was. And what was with that CGI-looking excuse for a grand estate? Ridiculous. How small was that attic? Pitiful. It's hard to feel anything for the characters when everything was crammed in so quickly that it took away the impact. Heather Graham was awful as Corrine. Granted, she got better in the sequels, but she was so robotic in this movie.
The 1987 movie has better acting, atmosphere, music, and chemistry. It also (deservedly) has a cult following.