1987 Movie vs 2014 Movie
Both movies were heavy on the melodrama and played like one of those old soapy TV mini-series that used to air in the 1980s. The saving grace of the original FLOWERS is the great performance by Louise Fletcher. She anchored what was a very dull movie that removed all of the envelope pushing that made the V.C. Andrews novel such a sensation.
The remake tries to add more dimension to The Grandmother character by showing fleeting moments of caring and giving her the weakness of claustrophobia. Those changes were ill-advised with Burstyn in the role because she already was less than formidable just based on her age and physical demeanor. Fletcher was a statuesque harridan…Burstyn looked like your favorite meemaw.
The one area that the remake totally trumps the original is that it actually kept in the incest storyline. That was a major part in the book series with generational incest being
one of the primary themes throughout the series. The remake handled it as reserved and tastefully as they can even though it did come across a bit like the romance on one of those ABC Family teen dramas but at least they didn’t punk out like the original did.
I do give the original points for a better ending than the remake. While ti was a bit farfetched in the way it played out, having Cathy confront her mother and seeing Corrine get her comeuppance was necessary to make the movie feel complete. The remake seemed to have been made with the idea of future installments based on the other books in the series so the ending was a bit of an anticlimax and left things far too vague.
Advantage: FLOWERS ’14
It's Latin For Cookies 
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