Creepy Family Drama, Flowers In The Attic Underwelms!

The Good: Generally good acting, Moments of mood
The Bad: Impossible to suspend disbelief, Lousy character development, Ridiculous plot, Predictably bad young child acting
The Basics: The classic “suspense” film Flowers In The Attic is a pulpy movie that fails to deliver a movie of lasting significance or any true greatness.


It sometimes astonishes me the movies my wife likes but that I see through a more objective lens. I know she was shocked when, on our first date, I shared the movie Magnolia (reviewed here!) with her and I was surprised we were so compatible when she declared Knocked Up (reviewed here!) as one of her favorites (along with virtually every Will Ferrell movie). Now that we have been married for almost five years, though, there are very few surprises like that left. However, recently she surprised me by having us sit down and watch another of her favorite movies from her past, Flowers In The Attic.

Flowers In The Attic is a slow drama movie that features what has to be one of the worst mothers in cinematic history and a quasi-incestuous relationship between a brother and sister. The high point has to be the fact that Louise Fletcher is in the movie, though her character is hardly significantly differentiated from her iconic portrayal of Nurse Ratched in One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest (reviewed here!). In Flowers In The Attic, director Jeffrey Bloom used good casting, but not terrific acting.

When her father dies, Cathy (his beloved daughter) goes into shock. Soon thereafter, her mother loses everything and Cathy, her brother Chris, and her young twin siblings Cory and Carrie are destitute and forced to move in with their Grandmother. Upon arriving at the palatial estate of her grandmother, Cathy and her siblings are told that her mother was disinherited by her grandfather because her mother and father were actually related. When Cathy’s mother married her uncle, her father left her penniless and now that she is broke again, her mother now wants to get back into the will. Cathy, Chris, Cory and Carrie are locked into a room in the grandmother’s house while their mother tries to get back into the good graces of her father.

As the days, weeks, and months go by, Cathy and her siblings struggle to survive. They are able to leave their room only to go up into the massive attic, which Cory and Carrie use to escape reality. Cathy pushes back against her mother and grandmother and, as a result, the grandmother stops feeding her prisoners. The lack of adequate nutrition leaves Cory sick and an escape attempt by Cathy and Chris fails utterly. When Cathy and Chris learn that their mother is not rescuing the children after her father finally dies, they discover the truth of their incarceration and the deeper horror of their situation.

Flowers In The Attic is a movie that takes a long time to get going and when it finally does, it goes someplace exceptionally dull for the longest time. While it is classified as a suspense film, there is truly only one moment of real suspense in the movie (when Cathy and Chris try to escape through the bars in the attic). Outside that incident, much of the movie is just waiting. There is a mild mystery – how Cory gets weak and who is actually putting him in real peril – but the “mystery” is virtually inconsequential. It does not matter if the mother, grandmother, or butler is powdering the doughnuts that Chris eventually realizes contain arsenic. Which one of the captors is the worst is minutiae; all the people in the house who know the children are being kept prisoner are reprehensible.

The film lacks a sense of subtlety in everything but the incestuous sibling subplot. While this review is solely of the film Flowers In The Attic, my wife read the book and mentioned that in the novel, the older two siblings do initiate a sexual relationship. In the film, there are moments of implication that they have more than just a familial relationship, but it is never fully realized. However, when the grandmother catches Cathy and Chris sleeping in the same bed and Chris talking to Cathy while she is in the bathtub, a full sexual relationship is not executed in the movie. The undertone, however, is plenty creepy.

But the undertone is enough to question much of the basic premise of Flowers In The Attic. If the grandmother has such a serious bugaboo about the incest in her own family, why would she put two pubescent teenagers together, locked away from the world with no one to depend upon but one another?! She’s pretty much tempting bad fate and then punishing them for relying upon one another (because in the film, that’s all they actually do explicitly).

The acting in Flowers In The Attic is fine, but nothing at all impressive. Jeb Stuart Adams is good as Chris and Kristy Swanson is fine as Cathy. Victoria Tennant is monstrous as their mother, but the monolithic nature of her performance makes the character make much less sense. Tennant illustrates absolutely no affection for any of her children; so why she bothers to bring them to her mother’s estate to dispose of them makes no real sense. If she wanted to start a new life, why bring the kids at all?

Outside lacking a credible plot, genuine suspense or characters one really empathizes with, Flowers In The Attic is fine. Sadly, that does not leave the movie with enough to recommend it.

For other works with uncomfortable familial relationships, please check out my reviews of:
Tideland
White Oleander
Arrested Development

3/10

For other film reviews, please visit my Movie Review Index Page for an organized listing!

© 2013 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Bubblegum For Stoners, A Science Fiction Comedy: Dude, Where’s My Car?

The Good: It's ALWAYS nice to see Jennifer Garner and Marla Sokoloff, Convincing acting
The Bad: This is a largely dumb movie
The Basics: With mild entertainment value, Dude, Where’s My Car? is a science fiction comedy that is largely a witless trek around to find a lost car while two stoners are hunted by smarter people and aliens.


For years there was someone in my life trying to convince me that the seminal American movie was Dude Where’s My Car? so last night, I finally broke down and watched it. I now have one less holiday card to send out. Even recognizing Dude Where’s My Car? as a stupid, teen-oriented stoner flick, this movie manages to be lousy.

Best friends Jesse and Chester wake up from a night of being stoned and/or heavy drinking on their anniversary to their girlfriends (who are twins) to discover they have lost the previous night and Jesse's car. As they search for their car to get to their girlfriends, they find themselves hunted by a transsexual, a cadre of "hot chicks," two muscly men and a cult focused on entering outer space. As Jesse and Chester are manipulated for the whereabouts of a device they supposedly possess, they reconstruct the outrageous night they had the night before.

First, what works. At the end of the day, Dude Where’s My Car? is a science fiction comedy. In my book, there are too few of those. Dude Where’s My Car? is, in part, a dimwitted science fiction comedy about two people who stumble upon a device that could destroy the universe and the forces that hunt them to insure that will not happen. As a drama, this is a compelling plot. As a comedy, it has the elements to be very funny.

The problem is in the execution. What might have been an excellent situation for a farce or satire or even a referential comedy quickly becomes a stoner movie. Lacking any of the intelligence in dialogue of a Kevin Smith movie - the average joke in Dude Where’s My Car? involves repetition - this simply becomes a stoner comedy about two slackers who try to be funny.

The other thing that works, though, in this movie, is the acting. Yup, the acting. Ashton Kutcher and Seann William Scott are utterly convincing as stoners who are clueless and out of control. Kutcher has the ability to make his face go slack with stupidity that no other young actor can master. Seann William Scott plays an adequate sidekick who seems just functional enough to perform his plot-dictated roles.

Sadly, this is a waste of the talents of Jennifer Garner and Marla Sokoloff, who are usually worth the price of admission for me. Garner and Sokoloff play the twins Wanda and Wilma and the final joke of the movie is insulting to these two professionals and the viewers alike. Strangely, two of the better names who appear in the movie are not even credited. Brent Spiner ("Data" on Star Trek The Next Generation) and Andy Dick appear midway through the movie for a scene.

There's not much to say about this movie. Minutes are spent with Jesse fighting with a speakerbox while ordering Chinese food. Similarly, a portion of time is spent with Jesse and Chester reading each other's tattooed backs and mistaking "Dude" and "Sweet" for terms of affection as opposed to what the tattoos say. And there's a requisite number of oral sex jokes and jokes based on secondary sex characteristics that could only be found amusing by high school dropouts and preteens.

What sinks Dude Where’s My Car? ultimately is that it's not funny. I was amused by the movie, but there was little to actually laugh at. I did find the movie refreshingly direct; the characters are witlessly looking for their car. If you want a movie smarter than that, this is certainly telling the viewer off the bat, it is not it.

For other science fiction comedies, be sure to visit my reviews of:
Men In Black 3
The Back To The Future Trilogy
Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home

5/10

For other movie reviews, check out my Movie Review Index Page for an organized listing of all the films I have reviewed!

© 2012, 2007 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Of All The Lousy Ways To Start, Buffy The Vampire Slayer The Movie Is Pure Camp!

The Good: Decent concept, Moments of witty dialogue
The Bad: Terrible acting, Lack of genuine character development, Not great DVD bonus features, Plot
The Basics: Completely disappointing - especially for fans of the television series - Buffy The Vampire Slayer presents the origin of the latest Slayer, who happens to be very much an L.A. teen!


"They" say you can't go back again, but every now and then, I suppose I give it the old college try! After all, technically, you can't go back to somewhere you have never been, right? What I mean by this is that having seen and reviewed all of the television series Buffy The Vampire Slayer (reviewed here!) and its spin-offs, I felt it was time to finally go back and watch the cinematic endeavor that started it all, Buffy The Vampire Slayer. Believe it or not, I had never seen the film! So, at long last, I sat down to watch it.

I suppose it is a good thing that I did not attempt to start at the beginning; the film version of Buffy The Vampire Slayer is so unrefined, poorly-acted and obvious in its plot and breakdown that I am certain it would have scared me away from the television series if I had started with that instead! Truth be told, I have an immense appreciation for the works of writer-director Joss Whedon and still it is almost impossible to recommend to fans and certainly to casual viewers that they subject themselves to this original film, which was written by Joss Whedon and directed by Fran Rubel Kuzui.

Buffy is a high school girl living in Los Angeles where she is a cheerleader, socialite and generally vacuous teen. While around her, there are a few strange disappearances, Buffy continues dating her boyfriend, judging her friends and avoiding freaks, like the loner rebel Pike. However, she soon finds herself unable to avoid all of the weirdness in Los Angeles when her parents leave town for a weekend and she finds herself stalked by the mysterious Merrick. Merrick, far from being the predator Buffy initially thinks he is, has actually arrived to help Buffy achieve her destiny.

As it turns out, Merrick is a mentor, of sorts, reborn constantly to train Slayers. Buffy, as it turns out, is a Slayer, a killer of vampires. Endowed with certain innate skills, Buffy follows in a long line of Slayers, though she is certainly the most annoying Merrick has had to train. While vampire king Lothos begins using his minions to build an army in Los Angeles, Buffy and Merrick train to stop them with Pike quickly realizing the truth and joining the fight against the vampires as well!

Buffy The Vampire Slayer is an unfortunate film that is, quite simply, pure camp. It is hokey - sometimes in a good way - but more often than not, it seems like a concept film that the participants are so unsure of that they do not know how to present it. The result is a movie that defies genre, not truly being funny for most of the film. Nor does it succeed in being truly terrifying or scary. Instead, it exists in a strange middle-ground limbo that is neither dramatic, comedic or horrific. And while some films can successfully defy such genre boundaries, Buffy The Vampire Slayer is executed in a way that leaves the viewer with the impression that it does not know what it wants to be and ultimately, it ends up being a remarkably unsatisfying teensploitation film.

This incarnation of Buffy The Vampire Slayer is all about laying out the foundations, building up the ideas of the Slayer mythos. So, the viewer is expected to believe in the existence of vampires and their presence in Los Angeles. These vampires have the ability to levitate, suck blood to reproduce, and fight with super strength. As well, they are unable to be killed, save by a stake through the heart or decapitation. Holy water burns their flesh and they are able to keep fighting even after their limbs are removed. Some of the more powerful - and ancient - ones have a hypnotic effect, like Lothos, who is able to hold Buffy in his thrall.

On the other side of this battle for the survival of humanity, there are the Slayers. Merrick describes the long line of Slayers, born into each generation, activated upon the death of the prior one. Slayers have great speed - tested by Merrick throwing a knife at Buffy's head, which she catches - as well as increased stamina and strength. As well, Slayers have a collective unconscious of their own which allows them to recall the history of the other Slayers in dreams, which begin to disturb Buffy. And had the film focused more on the Slayers, the history and execution of them, the film might have succeeded.

As it is, Buffy The Vampire Slayer is crippled by the way the film tremendously tips the balance toward the high school life of Buffy. She is a teen queen, concerned with boys, shopping, fashion and popularity. The film spends far too much time creating her as an annoying anti-hero for most viewers to actually care about her character struggle as she learns that she has a destiny. Moreover, witless romantic subplots between Buffy and her boyfriend and Buffy and Pike drag the film down into the territory where Buffy becomes so unlikable that only teenage drama queens are likely to enjoy large tracts of the film.

As Buffy The Vampire Slayer progresses, though, the film fails to engage adult audiences, most notably because the villain is anything but menacing. Lothos, the vampire king, looks more like a sadistic Robert Goulet than an actual menace. Played by Rutger Hauer, the violin-plucking villain is more campy than menacing and, in fact, only seeks to lower the menace. Watching Buffy confront this mediocre adversary, the viewer is left feeling they are too much made for one another; Lothos is so unmenacing that he could only be a serious threat to a dimwitted, unwilling Slayer like Buffy. Truth be told, I alternated between the secret hope that Lothos would kill Buffy and the dull urge for Buffy to put him out of his misery quicker. In other words, if Buffy couldn't take out this vampire, she pretty much deserved to die.

What Buffy The Vampire Slayer does have is a pretty exceptional cast. The inexperience of such notable performers as Hilary Swank, David Arquette, Ben Affleck (who appears, uncredited, as a basketball player!) and Natasha Gregson Wagner seems to be the only excuse I can find for director Kuzui managing to woo them to the project. More experienced actors like Luke Perry (Pike), Paul Rubens, and Rutger Hauer (Lothos) seem to be involved in their attempts to break the molds they are usually cast in, though the irony is that Perry ends up as the badboy loner and Hauer ends up as the villain, which are pretty much the ruts both actors have always ended up in.

But the film depends largely on the talent of two actors: Donald Sutherland and Kristy Swanson. Sutherland plays Merrick and part of the problem with the film is that far too often, he delivers his lines as if he is rolling his eyes. Much of his dialogue is expository and he sounds bored saying a lot of it.

On the other hand, Swanson helps sink the film because she is - quite simply - too good in her role. Swanson so convincingly portrays Buffy as an insipid airhead that she makes the character entirely unlikable. And when Swanson as Buffy begins training, we are easily convinced she has the physical abilities to fight the vampire hordes, but we lack any ability to care about her at that point. Swanson nails the mannerisms and dialogue of the self-involved teenagers perfectly!

Unfortunately for Buffy The Vampire Slayer, at the end of the day, it makes this film virtually unwatchable. In fact, die-hard fans of the television franchise ought only to watch this if they are prepared to unite, en masse, and demand Joss Whedon remake the film in the television show's canon. Until then, it is best to leave this one for people who have nothing better to do than Mystery Science Theater 3000.

For other works written or created by Joss Whedon, please check out my reviews of:
Firefly
Serenity
Alien Resurrection

3/10

For other movie reviews, please be sure to visit my index page on the subject by clicking here!

© 2011, 2008 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |