"Little Shop Of Horrors", who could forget that musical. It has fun and lovable characters; a fantastic villain; memorable songs; a good story; and a creepy and yet funny atmosphere. Everybody knows this musical so much that people tend to forget about the film that the musical was based off of and that film is the original black and white 60s film by B movie director Roger Corman.
The film that the musical was based off pretty much had the same story, same characters and had the same tone of comedy mixed with horror. The Musical is so famous that not many people are aware that there was an original film. Does the film not hold up and will always be over shadowed by a great musical; ON WITH THE REVIEW!
A clumsy poor young man named Seymour (Jonathan Haze) works at a crummy Flower shop in the town of Skid row and finds a weird looking plant and brings it to the shop to put it on display to attract customers. His plan works, but he not only finds out that his Plant can talk, but it also lives on blood. Same basics as the remake and since many of you know more about the remake than the original, I'm going to talk about how the original differs from the musical, while also making comparisons at the same time. So let's start with our cast of characters starting with Seymour.
Many people know Seymour as the poor nerdy orphan who feeds the plant to get what he wants and to be with his love interest Audrey. In the original Seymour is not a nerd nor is he an orphan. He's actually a clumsy poor man who lives with his "sick" mother and is struggling to keep his job at the flower shop. Seymour also doesn't kill people to feed the plant and become famous; he kills people so he can feed the plant and keep his job. Ok he does get kind of famous as the film goes on but it's mostly just showing the audience how badly he needs this job. Most of his victims are killed accidentally, but none of them are the main characters of the film, they're just regular people that Seymour encounters. And to make matters even worse, he kills more people than he does in the remake. Johnathan Haze really puts a lot of heart in this character. He does commit murders but you still love him because he "doesn't mean it", and seeing the life that he lives makes the character even more sympathetic.
Mr. Mushnik (Mel Welles) has more personality and more screen time than he does in the remake. I love how over the top the character is in this one and how he constantly swings back and fourth from being nice to a mad boss. My favorite scene is when he tells Seymour to call him daddy as he begins to happily talk about the future of him being rich because of the Plant as he pictures a big sign with his name on it; but when the plant wilts he goes back to being his old cranky self telling Seymour to call him Mr. Mushnik where he then proceeds to talk about the future of him being poor as he pictures a giant sign that says "Seymour is dead". The actor is filled with so much energy that I laugh every time I see him on screen. By the way, another huge difference in this film is he doesn't die and actually finds out earlier in the film that Seymour has been killing people to feed the plant but keeps his mouth shut because of the all the money he's making but at the same time feels disgusted with keeping his trap shut and letting Seymour get away with these murders. Throughout the film you see the character have a guilty face thinking if he should report Seymour to the police, and it’s not only because of the money and publicity surrounding the shop, but it’s also because he too has fed someone to the plant. Mel Welles, for me is the definitive Mr. Mushnik that can’t ever be topped.
We all know Audrey as the famous stereotyped dumb blond with a high pitched voice. In the original forget everything you know about Audrey because she's none of that. She's Seymour’s love interest and every time when they're together you do feel a love connection, but the character is sadly bland and there is really no distinctive personality to her (aside from being the obvious love interest) nor is there a tragic background to her, she's just the thrown in love interest. I can tell that the actress (Jackie Joseph) is trying to give her a personality, and she is pretty charming but her overall performance just isn't as memorable compared to the others I've mentioned. Some of you are probably wondering "where's her dentist boyfriend, is he in it?" The answer is yes, but he's a supporting character with very little screen time who doesn't have a relationship with Audrey. Even though he only appears for a very short time the actor (John Herman Shaner) not only brings one hell of a performance, but you can also tell he's having a ball playing this mad dentist.
Now for the Plant, is it scary in the original? Well first off, the plant’s name is Audrey Jr, and the idea of having a talking man eating plant (even if it isn’t original) that can go inside the mind of an innocent person and having him kill people so it can be feed and grow is a great concept, but to be honest it's not really scary. The design for the plant is nice, but it still looks like a low budget effect. When it talks sometimes it's out of sink when it opens and closes it's trap; and most of the time, its trap doesn't move at all when it talks. The voice sounds eerie, creepy, and even hilarious on many occasions, but it can get a little annoying after a while. I'd rather hear the Levi Stubbs voice any day. However, to the films credit it is a cool villain, it not only makes Seymour a monster, it also hypnotizes Seymour into getting his food. Sometimes I wonder if the plant actually hypnotized people to come to the shop and buy the plants; make Seymour famous; and even have someone try to rob the place. Is it just a coincidence that all these people come in at the right moment? In the remake the plant tells Seymour it was all his doing, but here it just makes you wonder. Also, while we're on the hypnosis topic, I do question the scene when it hypnotizes Seymour. It has some funny moments, but I have trouble telling if he's still hypnotized or not when he kills a person since he acts like himself and has a look of guilt after the deed is finished. One final thing about the plant that I should mention is the build up to when its flower buds are going to open, but I'm not going to spoil the surprise.
The supporting cast members in this film really bring out the the comedy in this dark comedy. You got Leola Wendorff as the lady Mrs. Shiva who has relatives that are constantly dying and goes to the shop every day to buy flowers for their funereal; famous character actor Dick Miller as the cool customer who buys flowers so he can eat them; Myrtle Vail as Seymour's over the top hypochondriac mother; Karyn Kupcient and Toby Michaels as the two school girls who keep buying flowers ( And also wanting to buy the open buds) for their float; Meri Welles as the hooker that constantly follows Seymour; and Wally Campo and Jack Warford as the two detectives (who are parody of the detectives in the TV Show "Dragnet") that are trying to figure out the murder cases. You also have a young up and coming Hollywood actor Jack Nicholson as the crazy patient who Seymour takes care of when he's posing as the dentist that he killed. The films writer, Charles B Griffith also appears in the film as a screaming patient, the robber and even serves as the voice of Audrey Jr.
The humor in this film is very over the top and most of the actors put a lot of fun into the characters they play, but is it scary? Well, I wouldn't call this film scary. It has its creepy moments, but just like the musical it's all in good fun. However, there are a few creepy moments like the scene when Seymour feeds the plant dead body parts while singing "Deck The Halls", and the scene when Mushnik tricks someone into being eaten, but those scenes still have a dark comedic tone to it. For those who liked the original ending in the remake then I think you'll like the ending to the film as well.
So that's my review on the film, so does it hold up? It actually does still hold up as a fun horror B Movie. I think the musical is superior compared to this movie, but without this film there would be no musical, and if you separate the musical from this film, it’s actually good enough to stand on its own. I say give this film a chance! It has funny performances, a good villain, a great actor who's just staring his career, fun humor, a dark atmosphere, and above all, is the inspiration for a great musical. It's not by any means a masterpiece, but for what it is, it's not bad.
RATING 4/5
No comments:
Post a Comment