(br) wrote: Unfamiliar characters, environment or atmosphere at first, will make you think this will only be another visual effects treating animated film. But Disney and Pixar's work on story is mostly twisty and grand and imaginative. Monsters, Inc. is a fun-filled fantasy film that really turns those stranger monsters you've seen at the beginning of the film into the ones who you tend to love and care through the film, and therefore, will make you cry at the very sad and then, happy ending. This is, in my opinion, one of the best Disney?Pixar films, of all time.
(jp) wrote: I read Flowers in the Attic and I very much enjoyed it, and I had an idea to one day adapt it into a movie if I were to ever become a successful film director. However, it turns out Jeffrey Bloom beat me to the punch with a poor adaptation of the story, so watching it would encourage me further.Within seconds of watching Flowers in the Attic, it became clear that the film omitted much of the drama Cathy faces as a young girl growing up and gaining younger twin siblings which gave her an inner turmoil.It also becomes quickly apparent that Jeffrey Bloom has chosen to have his adaptation embody an 80's film atmosphere rather than the more sophisticated one that V.C. Andrews' novel followed with its approach to a young girl's mind, as well as a change of setting from 1957 to 1987.The story also fails to give enough time or depth into what's thing on in the minds of the characters after their father dies, so the film is laregly set up to be emotionally shallow.Also, the script doesn't give the best direction to the cast because it characterizes Cathy as a whiny teenage girl trying to achieve perfection rather than a girl determined to do her best, and it's clear that she's significantly older than her character was in the original novel. Kristy Swanson's performance doesn't add anything to it either and furthers this characterization to a point where sympathizing with her becomes harder than what she's forced to go through with her siblings, and she just isn't right for the role and doesn't have the knowledge of how to use her ability to cry on command at the right time. The problem is that she's overconfident for the role and isn't actually good for it, while across the room is a performance from the unknown Jeb Stuart Adams who doesn't have any confidence, or any fame now as obvious by his low-profile career in poor quality films like this, and both actors' chemistry is worse than Natalie Portman and Hayden Christiansen's in Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones. Even the little kids whose names i can't be bothered to isolate for this review are so poor at attempting to mix annoying childish behaviour with the cute kind that in the end I was practically siding more with Corrine and her decision to ignore the children and do what she did. Although in this case I would again blame Jeffrey Bloom for giving them direction that required them to play two stereotypical children personas each, and without a balance or proper coaching it comes off as tedious.And all these aforementioned criticisms became apparent to me before I was even 10 minutes into the film, and continued throughout even after I made these assumptions, so what does that tell you?Lastly, Victoria Tennant was so unconvincing as a mother that the theme of disbelief at what she did in the novel is omitted and predictable in the film which is just digging up a dead body to have sex with it, and there is literally no better metaphor than that.After that involved a sequence where the dark grandmother Olivia Foxworth intimidates the children with her beliefs and rules, while in the book the moment is strong and intense except in the film the characters look like they're sitting through a lecture at university about acting but can't quite learn anything from it or pretend to look scared. Later on when the children attack her and she fights back, Olivia exclaims "Corrine, control your children...." And it's obvious that they couldn't be more controlled because the fake news of the scene makes me want to get far away from this film.The symbolism in Flowers on the Attic is bereft in its film adaptation and its questionable why Cathy is crying because Olivia cut her hair, and this was explained in the book but seemingly stupid as hell in the film due to lack of explanation as to the importance Cathy's hair has to who she is. The scene is also a lot less savage because in the book her hair is tarred but in the film it's cut with scissors in a poorly edited scene, and so the execution is terrible like the execution of the majority of the film's scenes.Also, the atmosphere of the film is predominantly that of a thriller when in the book the thrilling tone took place at certain moments in the film without being consistent and it was a drama as a whole, while this thriller is merely rudimentary as a whole. To make things worse, the atmosphere is empty. There is a terrible use of silence and minimal dialogue which could be used to assist characterizations of Cathy, Christopher or the twins, but instead it's used to bore the audience to death slower than getting poisoned but arsenic cookies, or preferably doughnuts the way V.C. Andrews intended.And the musical score intends to make the atmosphere chilling and fantastical, but instead it deviates away from the realism of the story and makes it a strange dark fantasy without a hint of the theme of innocence which made the novel compelling, but rather a slow and boring story that attempts to convey the horror of being trapped but rather forays into the horror of Jeffrey Bloom as a director or screenwriter.The lighting was also crap.But what sucks about Flowers in the Attic is the way that since the producers were disturbed by Wes Craven's approach to an incest-laden story, they hired Jeffrey Bloom who deviated so far away from it that it barely deserves to be used in the same sentence as the book, and that was the single most important theme in the book that since the film omits it has it rendered invalid as a film.And essentially, there isn't even a reason the characters should be scared aside from the dogs on the ground which weren't even part of the book, because there's no fear in the story and no acting that appears scared. It's about as scary as an episode of The Flinstones, and the characters on that show have chemistry streets ahead of the characters in this disgrace to the novel, so I would recommend anything vaguely related to The Flinstones over this 93-minute empty waste of V.C. Andrews material. And if you haven't read the book, you're odds of liking it aren't any bigger.The only real visual benefit it the sight of Kristy Swanson slowly stroking her long wet legs in the bathtub which may have had the benefit of installing erections in testosterone-fueled teenagers of the late 1980's.Also, although miscast for the role due to bring an Oscar-Winner for playing manipulative villains as opposed to up-front intimidating ones such as the one portrayed here, Louise Fletcher does what she does best mildly well in Flowers in the Attic even though she isn't provided with enough material to have her characterize Olivia Foxworth properly.But all in all, Jeffrey Bloom's lack of directional talent and ignorant producers who wouldn't accept whatever Wes Craven could have created destroyed Flowers in the Attic from the beginning and whatever sequels could have come after it, and the ending to the film is the most destructive scene which leaves the intended sequels to be savaged in a similar manner, but luckily since this is one of the worst movies of all time and many critics realize its poor quality, it may be up to me one day to make a good film from the good source material that the makers of this film attempted to destroy.