I seriously feel for the person that mentioned in his review of this film that he paid to see this in the theatre in 1987 (he bought two tickets which at the time totaled $10.50). Not only was he subjected to a severe test of his patience as a film-goer, but had to lose money in the process. Ironically, this is the same year that Evil Dead 2 came out starring Bruce Campbell, a movie that was most likely playing at the very same theatre (which would have been a far better choice even on the whim of a guess over FITA). What a bad stroke of luck this guy had.<br /><br />This film is not only bad, but it is not even laughably bad. Laughably bad are the following films: The Core, The Hills Have Eyes (the original), Troma's War, Class of Nuke Em' High, Class of 1999, Bad Taste (although entertaining for its gross-out quotient). These films have merit for the sake of knowing they are bad. They make us laugh because it's self-parody.<br /><br />Flowers in the Attic somehow finds a new low in cinema (or found one I should say). I feel disgust for not only myself since I cannot have the 90 minutes of my life I wasted watching this garbage, but for every single person involved in the making of this film except for the director (he is solely responsible for its fruition). As a crew, I'm sure they had to smile a lot around the director during production so as not to look dumbfounded and disgusted. My guess is when the director yelled "cut!", the crew let out a not-so-obvious sigh of relief. Even more so when he announced, "that's a wrap!" The acting is very bad, the photography is uninteresting, the locations are mundane, the role of the Grandmother played by Louis Fletcher is not convincing whatsoever, and the list goes on and on. The main thing to attack really is the script itself, which from what I hear from fans of the novel it was adapted from is one of the most tragically altered renditions that they know of. What else could top these things on the list of "bad" other than the fact that two lead actors have us not at all concerned of their plight or unease. They are not physically tortured in the film (which brings me to ask, why is this movie PG-13?), but in one scene when the grandmother knocks over the daughters beloved (and highly fragile) music box, the daughter screams in agony and twitches her face as if she is enduring 15 lashes across her front torso.<br /><br />You might be curious to see this film just to see how bad it really is, but that would be a mistake. You will almost find yourself feeling unclean and your stomach will assuredly churn. Worst of all, much like the poor guy that remembers his experience in the theatre some 19 years ago, you will unfortunately remember this film for a long time as the most horrific of traumatic film experience ever to take place and be recorded in one's memory bank. The young ons in South Park have inspired me to take a road trip across wherever to track the director down and ask not for monetary compensation, but simply for 90 minutes of my life back.