Grandmother (Louise Fletcher) vs Grandmother (Ellen Burstyn)
Louise Fletcher was frightening in this role. her Grandmother was a cold, ruthlessly pious monster of a woman with not one maternal bone in her body. She was like a black clad, buttoned-up force of evil nature and it made perfect sense for everyone she came across to be scared shitless of this woman.
Ellen Burstyn was very game and she tried mightily to impart a few shades to the character that were not present in the original film by showing that as horrible as “The Grandmother” was she was not without a bit of a conscience. However she never came off as being convincing as someone that anyone would be intimated by. At a certain point very early in the film I kept wondering why one of the children didn’t open up a can of whoop ass on this octogenarian and put the fear of a ungodly beat down in her the first time she threatened to whip one of them.
Advantage: FLOWERS ’87
Crustula 
worst review ever
LikeLike
My heart breaks at your negative review of my review.
LikeLike
You can’t say that just because he said that the new was better.
LikeLike
You can’t say that just because he liked the new one better.
LikeLike
I agree it is a horrible review
LikeLike
Care to elaborate?
LikeLike
AWFUL review, EVERYONE in 87 did a better job than the cast of 2014 and not to be rude but I found the 2014 adaption to be very hard to sit through as the movie was not good AT ALL!!!
LikeLike
That’s an opinion, you can’t say it’s a terrible review just because your opinion differs..
LikeLike
This is a good review, even though I disagree with several things. In the original film, they actually DID try to add the incest, but it didn’t get past the censors. As far as Kristy Swanson, VC Andrews herself said that Kristy embodied exactly what she thought Cathy should look like and I agree. Kiernan Shipka was okay but, in my opinion, miscast. I think all the other kids were better in the original version as well, including Chris. Cory was EXACTLY as described in the book, curly hair and all. I absolutely agree about Louise Fletcher being much more terrifying than Ellen Burstyn and Heather Graham was much better than Victoria Tenant, based on her looks alone, even though I liked her acting as well. The book describes Corrine as being a very attractive blonde and Heather definitely fit that. With that being said, even though the incest is an important part of the story, the original didn’t need that to be the better movie, at least for me. The original is darker, more gothic, has better music, a scarier grandmother, and you actually felt for those kids. The remake doesn’t seem as sad or creepy, doesn’t have the great ending of the original (whether it was in the book or not) and the kids were miscast.
LikeLike
Thank you for actually giving a strong critique and remembering what made the original so great!
LikeLike
I think the original flowers in the attic is butter then the remake
LikeLike
I can see why you would think so. I thought it was very close with the remake taking the nod but not by much.
LikeLike
Don’t pay any attention to all the negative comments. I agree with your review whole heartedly. The protagonists were far better in the new and the antagonists were far better in the old.
LikeLike
Just ignore all these means comments. You brought up great points in your review! It’s wonderful!
LikeLike
Sorry, I have to disagree. The 1987 edition felt real – the horror of the situation and the helplessness of the kids could bring out the cruelty of the mother and her family. The new one, although not bad, doesn’t give the same feeling. The sexual attraction between the brother and sister in the newer edition takes away some of the gravity of the situation (though I know it is more true to the material).
LikeLike