The film has no idea and no positive hero. A film about mentally ill people.
This book is based on the book by Virginia Andrews. The writer spent much of her life in a wheelchair, which largely explains the themes she uses in her works. Her unrealized life, fears, depression and moral instability due to illness - all this spilled one big negative on paper.
The essence of the story is that four children live locked in the attic, not seeing the sun for more than one year.
They are locked up there by their crazy mother, who pretends to love them, but the hair turns on end when you watch these grown children do not even try to resist it.
In the film there is no sense and logic, there is no balance, all the emotions of the viewer go into complete denial.
All the characters are in complete mental inadequacy, it is unpleasant to look at absolutely all the characters, since everyone has a clear mental deviation.
Unpleasant residue after watching. .
I read reviews for the film and was, frankly, extremely surprised by the large number of negative ones, because people who scold this film adaptation, apparently, clearly did not watch its predecessor, shot in 1987. That was a nightmare, really. But everything in order.
Actors.
Here many scold poorly selected cast. In my opinion, it's a matter of taste. Personally, I have nothing against Kiernan Shipk and Mason Dye. In my opinion, they looked very good, I personally have no complaints about the game. And purely visually, I was much more enjoyable to look at them than at Christie Swanson and Jeb Stuart Adams. At least to those images that I imagined reading the book, much closer images created in the film adaptation of 2013.
Regarding Heather Graham and Ellen Burstyn, even words are superfluous, everything is at the highest level, talented actresses talentedly embody any role. Here they brilliantly played a mercantile malaise and a devout grandmother who hates her daughter and grandchildren. Bravo!
Plot.
The plot is much closer to the book than in the film adaptation of 1987, if only because there is a main storyline - the theme of incest. In the old version, for absolutely incomprehensible reasons, this topic was simply omitted, and for this reason, in fact, no sequels were removed - there is nothing to continue, since the central storyline was bluntly merged, and the whole series of books is based, among other things, on the problem of incest and all the consequences that follow from it (who read the sequel, he will understand).
In this film adaptation, everything is presented somewhat crumpled, but here the small timekeeping of the film played a more important role - it was simply physically impossible to convey the entire atmosphere and sequence of the development of brother and sister relationships, who are in the same room for more than 3 years in an hour and a half. Also smoothed and romanticized the climax (sex scene). But despite all these shortcomings, I liked the remake much more than its predecessor. We'd have made timekeeping more, and it would have been candy, and so slightly did not last.
In general, if you sum up a certain result, then, of course, it would be better to shoot, but choosing between two screen adaptations, I definitely prefer this one. Perhaps there will be more attempts to bring to the screens the heartbreaking story written by the talented Virginia Andrews, but so far, for lack of a better, my opinion: the remake is better.
7 out of 10
I confess I haven't read a novel. I started with a film adaptation. This is a good strategy for any book lover. First look, then deepen the knowledge-impressions from what you see. In the near future I am going to get acquainted with the book.
However, it may well be enough screening. The story itself is interesting and original. This is not a saga of incest, despite the screams of woeful film critics. This is the story of a not quite adequate family, where some special laws of being are actualized. At first glance, everything is clear: a wealthy uncle before leaving for the other world thought about a will. His only heiress - daughter - enters into incest, which gives birth to surprisingly cute and healthy children. The family adheres to the traditions characteristic of the world of tribal riches, the situation is complicated by the religiously obsessed mother of the family. So the heiress was shown a big fig. However, the girl is not discouraged, she marries a brother who becomes a successful man. Two raise beautiful offspring, which in the family are considered “devil offspring”. It would seem that you can live without a paternal inheritance, but fate disposes so that the life of the heiress is turned upside down in one day, when a consanguineous spouse dies in a car crash. Now the mother of many children needs to survive. And she decides to return to her father’s home, reconcile with her father, so that he again began to look at her as an heiress. What about the four devils? Of course, you should take it with you. But with one condition: children should not be seen by a dying grandfather. They are temporarily placed in the attic. No one knew that the stay of children in the attic will be prolonged, and the situation will gradually become dangerous.
It should be noted that the film looks literally in one breath. Very carefully revealed characters, there are no superfluous and clearly not folding puzzles. Heather Graham overplays, she is weakly believed, and throughout the film, at all stages of her transformation from a loving mother into an outspoken prank. Separately, I want to note the magnificent game of E. Burstin and K. Shipka.
I cannot judge how the film adaptation went, since I was not previously familiar with the story as presented by V. S. Andrews. However, you can conclude about the quality by whether you want to read the book. If there is such a desire, the film adaptation was very interesting. I had this desire right after watching.
The book in which this film is made is simply delightful, and it is in no way comparable to this unfinished film. In general, before us is not the only adaptation of the novel "Flowers in the attic". There’s a nice, atmospheric 1987 drama starring Louise Fletcher, and I like that movie, Flowers in the Attic. That picture turned out to be strong, and closer to the opening of the book.
Before us is a TV remake of "Flowers in the attic" and the second adaptation of this shocking novel. Since I love the book and the first film, I was excited to watch this TV product. I wanted to see the old story in fresh processing, to see the reboot of this story. I was disappointed because I didn’t like the movie. It turned out to be something murky and unfinished. I will try to explain why.
We see the story of a woman who was left alone with four children. Her husband is dead, and she can't make ends meet. She returns to her home, where her wealthy parents live: a despotic mother and a sick father. In this big and cold house, four children learn the terrible secrets of their mother, and who they really are.
The story of “Flowers in the Attic” always seemed to me extremely shocking. The young heroes were very sorry, and they went through hell. It’s a pity that the creators of this TV movie didn’t capture the drama and power of the story. The movie looked very dry, murky and in places not interesting. I didn’t like a lot about this picture.
First, Deborah Chow’s direction was extremely weak, and the story slipped out of her hands, something failed. She missed the very essence of the story and made many mistakes, you had to follow the details of the book and the film would have looked different.
Secondly, the atmosphere and surroundings in the background were often fake. I did not believe in what was happening, there was a shade of falsehood, so the movie looked with strain.
And thirdly, the young actors were chosen for the role of four children. It was a complete failure, and a big mistake for the film as a whole. Young actors played poorly, and some of them overplayed. Something was even repulsive, so I think it was a big mistake.
The roles of grandmother and mother went to such famous American actresses as Ellen Burstyn and Heather Graham. As for Graham, she is quite suitable for the role of the heroine of the mother, which the word “mother” is even difficult to call. Her character was a real scumbag, not worthy to wear the words “mother”. This was her role, and it looked like Graham in her convincing.
But the respected actress, winner of the Academy Award for Best Actress and other awards and nominations, the star of the cult film for all time “The Exorcist” Miss Ellen Burstyn did not fit into her negative role. Her role was the most important, the foundation of this film. In the 1987 film adaptation of "Flowers in the attic", this role was played by Louise Fletcher and played simply amazing. The character was revealed as in the book: a cold, angry, despotic, possessed, religious woman who considers incest a terrible sin. Fletcher played this role so coolly that Burstyn’s sluggish performance disappointed me. Ellen Burstyn awarded her negative heroine with something heartfelt and warm, and the character lost himself, everything looked as it should.
Flowers in the Attic is a 2013 television drama and the second adaptation of the book of the same name. The idea of a fresh remake was promising, but the picture failed and puts pressure on the viewer with something fake and fake. I didn’t like this movie and I said no.
Read the book.
This is a very touching, tragic and romantic story of the relationship of four children with each other, as well as with their older generations. However, in my opinion, the film is very poorly adapted to the book. Too bad. If you have already read the novel by Virginia Andrews, then it is better not to waste time watching this film adaptation.
Activity
It was a bad one. It is as unfortunate as the main characters play disgustingly (yes, Stanislavsky has settled in me). The only one who made me believe the role was Ellen Burstyn. Apparently, the talent of the actress can not hide the unsuccessful film and its small budget.
The one who really disappointed me was Heather Graham. She doesn’t know who she’s playing or what she’s doing. Was it difficult for her to read the book before filming began? Her role is very unconvincing and weak for an actress with such experience.
The role of Katie could be given to a more attractive and talented actress, which I cannot say about Kiernan Shipke. Where is her incredible attractiveness and luxurious hair, about which so much is written in the book?
Output
To be honest, I did not see the first adaptation of this novel, but I do not advise anyone to watch this book, it is better to read it - it is more interesting and colorful than what you can see on the screen.
The sadly shallow and flat dummy film, which does not reveal the tragedy of the family at all, does not show the abyss into which the mother flies and which eventually separates her and the children. It feels like a sketch of a cartoon, where the pictures incoherently change each other and lead to nothing.
Why did they twist a story that was already glaring and dramatic? Katie's haircut, a scene with a deer, a key, a fence, a donut and a mouse, an escape - in the book version everything is described quite plausibly and consistently. By the way, the website of the author of the novel Virginia Andrews published family statements that the story is partly based on real events.
As for the actors and scenery, the attic and the room were depicted in accordance with their description, the attic I even liked, although it was not disgusting and scary enough for children's souls, forced to spend three and a half years there in the dust and despair, male actors are not good at all, the image of the boy-Chris, an optimist and clever woman, is not revealed at all. But surprisingly, my mother (Heather Graham) and grandmother (Ellen Burstyn) were just like that.
In any case, without details, fragments that convey the despair and death of childhood hopes, revealing the identity of each child (not a word about the fact that Corey was a talented musician, Carrie is a wayward mischiefmaker who has everything in her opinion, about Chris’ impressive knowledge of everything in the world and his ability to instantly navigate the situation and find a way out), the viewer, with all his desire, can not understand the scale of the tragedy and follow the thread of death & #39; Dresden dolls' which were once called the family by envious neighbors. The extent of the mother’s fall, how she distanced herself day after day from her children, choosing money and a cursed inheritance, as well as entertainment, trinkets, outfits and new husbands, are also not disclosed.
To understand this film, you need to read a book. The book is amazing and in comparison with the book the film is very losing. One of the main reasons is the selection of actors. Especially did not like the selection of actresses for the role of Katie and Corrine Foxworth.
Heather Graham gives the impression of some twitchy and nervous lady, when Corrine was a sophisticated, self-confident mannered aristocrat who knows her own value and knows how to manipulate people. And by appearance, Heather Graham is not as beautiful as Corrine according to the description in the book.
The actress chosen for the role of Katie... I don’t know what guided the director by the selection of this actress, but at least take the appearance. Katie was an incredibly beautiful blue-eyed blonde with a long stream of thick wavy hair. It’s not like the flow, even Grandma had nowhere to pour resin, if only on rat tails, which are the hair of the actress. Couldn't you have put her hair on longer, so why are those bits? But it was Katie’s hair that awakened her first sexuality, caused envy in a cruel grandmother and excited the imagination of Chris, causing him the first vague desire. It's not pleasant to see actors not matching the role.
Many important points from the book are missing. Very little is revealed about the love line between brother and sister. The one violent sex scene between Katie and Chris is described in the book as something incredible, crazy, vicious and profound. And in the film, everything is amorphous.
The film is not disclosed, just shot in a row the main events of the book. And a lot of subtle details are missing that make this story unusual.
It is only when you become hostage to a situation that you begin to understand where the real feelings are, such as love, loyalty, motherhood. Four young creatures after the death of their father are practically hostages in the Gothic castle of their native grandmother and her daughter. The attic for them became a place where they matured and learned that the world is not so perfect and even the closest and most loving people are capable of monstrous deeds.
There is always a way out in any situation, but not for their mother, who chose luxury and wealth over the most precious thing she had. Flowers can be symbolically attributed to children who, no matter what, until the very end believed in the lies of their loved ones. Days were followed by days of long years, and hope was replaced by bitter disappointment. For Ketty and Christopher, except for caring for their younger twins, there is an attempt not to succumb to despair and temptation. After all, for them the world has only just begun to open its embrace, and they have only now begun to know the world of adults.
Dresden dolls, as they used to be called by envious neighbors for their impeccable beauty, which their grandmother called the curse of the family. But behind the childish naivety comes a bitter realization of deception and lies, flowers, even the most beautiful, simply wither in a dusty and gloomy attic. And now it is not small children trying to play adult games, self-knowledge of the world occurs for them in the microsociety of the mansion, gloomy, full of secrets. The sins of parents are never in the past, and innocent souls of children sometimes have to pay for them. The saga does not end there, as we should expect it to continue. But that’s another story altogether.
“There are mothers who just can’t be loved because they don’t want to be loved.” – Virginia Andrews
It is surprising that a book with such a huge cinematic potential has only two adaptations, but it is true - one belongs to the authorship of Jeffrey Bloom, and the second is directed by Deborah Chow, and the latter turned out to be surprisingly uncompromising and could be really great if not for the film.
If not. When it comes to books like Flowers in the Attic, it’s incredible to imagine a film that would strike half as much in the heart as a paper original. It seems that if you taste the pages of the book, you will feel the bitterness that oozes every word written by the narrator. Cinema is great, but not omnipotent – at least there was no miracle, and the atmosphere was not so terrifying. However, the picture has a number of advantages: it is quite accurate (excluding a few dramatic innovations) conveys the plot of the book, and the actresses for the role of Corrine and her mother are well selected. Heather Graham can hardly be called talented from God, but the paradox is that here she should radiate some falsehood. As for Ellen Burstyn, here the comments are superfluous - she even Louise Fletcher, playing on her field, pushes with ease.
Children, by and large, are also good, but it is impossible to abstract from the fact that they (Katie and Christopher) must be four or five years younger (and twins two or three). What is lacking is the process of their growing up, the dynamics of the relationships in their closed collective, all of which make up the best part of the book. Of course, it's not easy to convey, especially with timekeeping of an hour and a half - two and a little would be more appropriate. Remember Bergman’s family dramas and their slow pace: involuntarily draw a parallel with Fanny and Alexander, where in five hours of screen time the director said everything he had to say. There are stories that cannot be told with a gallop - they fade from this and lose all their eerie charm.
However, let’s return to the main advantage, which still makes the 2013 version preferable to the old one. Writer Kayla Elpert apparently didn’t think she was smarter than Virginia Andrews, and didn’t fill the plot with something like a “fair ending,” although – let’s be honest – after reading the book, we all dreamed a little about it. Unpunished evil always breeds frustration, but in this case, you need to feel this moment together with the heroes, to walk with this thorn in order to understand that the end should be exactly like this, and not “all the lovers together, all the bad ones died.”
Thus, the only significant disadvantage of the film is its swiftness, which does not give time for empathy. As a set of moving illustrations for the book, he is nevertheless quite good - he speaks briefly and essentially, retells the story as a gas collection of "War and Peace on Five Pages" for lazy schoolchildren, and does not invent new and obviously unnecessary details, whipping up mysticism and suspense. Ardent fans of the writer, as well as people who are indignantly blue at the word incest, it is better to bypass the tape, but fans of a tightly shot drama may like it.
Messages of all kinds and different were given a lot, so you have mysterious circumstances, so you have incomprehensible heroes, illogical actions and secrets-secrets-secrets. It’s pretty good, intrigued. But in the process of viewing, there was always something missing. That is, as if everything is clear, the puzzles converge, but somehow twisted was more worthy than opened. Not a single topic seems to be completed.
In my opinion, there is a lack of mentality. Maybe it's about acting.
Maybe I was expecting too much, but by the middle of the film everything began to irritate, and these children, and the fact that they change costumes 2 times a day, and the fact that they are 2 years locked up, but at least some unhealthy pallor, thinness or something like that there are no, other extremely unrealistic moments.
In general, some kind of semi-childish naivet mixed with incest.
Another film-drama directed by Deborah Chow. I'll tell you right away, it doesn't smell like a detective or a thriller. This is a purely psychological film that makes us think about family and morality. Comparing the two films, the first adaptation of Virginia S. Andrews’ 1979 book and the second of 2014, one can see that the first is the children’s stay in the attic, and the second is their feelings. There are fewer inconsistencies with the book in this film adaptation than in the first, and the end is completely consistent with the book. I like it a little bit more than that.
A positive feature of the film is the good acting of the actors. Most of all, I liked the play of the eldest daughter (Kirnan Shipka), mother (Heather Graham) and grandmother (Ellen Burstyn). The roles were ambiguous and convincing.
Negative is too faded (perhaps that’s how the director represents the 50s) and not too dramatic. If you add up the advantages of the first and second films, you will get a perfect adaptation of the book of an outstanding writer, with a great plot.