MovieChat Forums > Flowers in the Attic (2014) Discussion > FITA Remake - A rather sad bit of a yawn

FITA Remake - A rather sad bit of a yawn

posted 8 years ago by villagevicarage-1
8 replies | jump to latest

I hadn't seen Flowers since it was first launched in the late eighties....and I only saw it then because some of my friends cajoled me into going; saying the film featured "my mother." Of course, that piqued my interest. My mum wasn't a very nice person, so off I went.

At the time I hadn't even read any of the books. Having seen Louise Fletcher's incomparable acting, (almost to the point of a typecast), I even read the book.

So, to see the film advertised in my electronic Telly Guide here in England (Digiguide), I was rather looking forward to watching it again. I can't say how disappointed I was when I discovered immediately that this was a 2014 re-make for the american television market. (Shame on Digiguide for misleading!).

I was shocked to see how mechanical, stiff, and almost absent of character Heather Graham was in her acting. In fact, I became so blasé at one point I simply lost interest and picked up a book and began reading - thinking, or hoping, that perhaps I'd hear something in the dialogue that would catch my interest. Sadly, this simply did not happen.

Perhaps one of our many television services will run the original. I would like to see it again.

But for anyone interested in the first film I'm afraid this remake simply falls into the pit of detritus of countless other remakes contained mediocre acting and countless slots for the insertion of advertising.

Truly a pity!

No one can beat Nurse Ratched (Louise Fletcher), when it comes to neurotic nastiness!

Fr B+

[–] bluepawz2 8 years ago

Buy the original on ebay

[–] eskimogeisha 8 years ago

The 1987 movie was HORRIBLE. I hated the stupid ending and everything that came before it.

The reboot was pretty good, I felt. A mini-series-length format would suit the material better as the book is quite episodic and would fall nicely into, say, 6 episodes.

[–] pndpuppy82 8 years ago

I have to agree with the original poster, the 1980's version with Kristy Swanson is much better. It's been a while since I've seen it (and I do own a copy) so I don't remember everything but I did feel like it did a pretty good job of capturing the essence of the book (actually I read the whole series). I was looking through the filmography of the actress of Rose McIver and saw that she was in the sequel to FITA and decided to just buy it without viewing it first (it's yet to arrive) and I figured that it might be interesting to see the 2014 remake. Luckily they had a digital copy to purchase on Amazon for only $4.99. Not a huge expense however after watching it I was a little let down. I've seen so many comments on this board about how the 80's version sucked but did any of these people read the books? It's definitely a fu***d up situation but the original showed the story without it being too much. I guess what I actually mean is that the books and the content were pretty intense and even though the 80's version didn't go all the way there it painted a very good picture of what was going on. In the books you start to really resent the mom for abandoning her children in the attic and it's much clearer that she's not making any effort to see her children just like the original film. The new film the mom just seems like a space cadet rather than being emotionally withdrawn from the kids (just like the book). In the original film you see the gradual poisoning of the children and their health clearly diminishing over time but this is not the case in the 2014 remake. If I remember correctly in the book and the 80's version they find Cory dead (and they show it in the film too) but in the remake they just send him away to the hospital never to be heard from again. And then there's the incestuous relationship between Cathy and Christopher. In the 80's version of the film there was much more emphasis of attraction between Christopher and Cathy. The new version just had the two of each other smiling at each other. I just need to dig out my copy of the original version and rewatch it. But seriously, to those who have seen both versions and read the book can you really say that the new version holds true to the book?

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Elphie_Tiggular 8 years ago

Personally, I love both versions of the story and so I can totally appreciate your post, however...

If I remember correctly in the book and the 80's version they find Cory dead (and they show it in the film too) but in the remake they just send him away to the hospital never to be heard from again.

Actually, this is exactly as happens within the original film (and the novel)...they never find Cory dead (he's very poorly but still alive when removed from the room) - before Corrine (all versions) returns to tell the others that Cory has died at the hospital.😖

The new version just had the two of each other smiling at each other.

Really? Most of the incest storyline was removed from the original film...whereas the remake blatantly alluded to the sex between Christopher and Cathy. Okay, somewhat differently from the novel (which plays with themes of rape)...but still certainly a bit more that merely a smile between the two! 😝

But seriously, to those who have seen both versions and read the book can you really say that the new version holds true to the book?

Definitely, yes. I do have to say, regardless of the questionable acting and performances, the remake definitely has closer references to the series of novels and certainly refers to scenes from the novel with more accuracy than the original film. And at least this latest version didn't have an entirely altered finale. Seriously, the whole 'Eat the Cookie!' scene couldn't have been any further from the novel! 😲

But I will say, despite the fact that I love both versions equally, there's still plenty to criticise with both films (with regards to the novel). Personally, I feel that what one version gets right...the other one fails to do. And vice versa. And so I do love both equally, but for different reasons. 😕

ELPHABA: Eleka Nahmen Nahmen Ah Tum Ah Tum Eleka Nahmen.

[–] RhaechyllTargaryen 8 years ago

I think both versions were terrible. Maybe the remake was a tiny bit better but I don't think either adaptation captured the essence of the book. I think to do it properly it would have to be a miniseries and the characters would actually have to be developed. They would also have to do better job with casting.

Kiernan is a great actress IMO but she wasn't the right person to play Cathy. She wasn't even semi believable as a dancer and looks wise she was all wrong. Kristy wasn't right either. They should have gone for an unknown and we should have seen a little more of Corrine. Heather Graham was not the right choice. Victoria Tennant was a little better but I don't think either actress was convincing as being the kind of woman who has most men falling at her feet. Heather Graham is so wild eyed and unhinged looking even in the beginning it's hard to not see the performance as anything but campy.

Neither Foxworth Hall feels impressive enough, the attic isn't explored enough and it's because there isn't enough time. They also don't address the rape in either version and that's one of the key moments in the book.

I think the story could be well told in six episodes. The Petals adaptation suffered from the same problem in terms of not taking enough time to tell the story and being off with the casting. They skipped over so much of the development of the characters of Cathy and Chris and managed to make the movie as boring as possible. Seeds of Yesterday sucked but at least it wasn't boring.

Oh--why can't either version do a decent swan bed? This thing is supposed to be totally OTT.

[–] Noirdame79 (99) 10 months ago

The Crane mansion is closer to the description Cathy gives of Foxworth Hall in Petals On The Wind. The interiors were pretty close too.

[–] b-lewis4072 8 years ago

I think the remake was better which is a surprise because I always hate the reboots.