I watched The Little Shop of Horrors and I liked it. 3/5
–
“The Little Shop of Horrors,” directed by Roger Corman and released in 1960, is a cult classic that blends elements of horror, comedy, and musical into a unique cinematic experience. Set in a run-down flower shop on Skid Row, the film follows the misadventures of Seymour Krelborn, a hapless florist’s assistant, and his discovery of a peculiar plant with a taste for human blood.
At its core, “The Little Shop of Horrors” is a low-budget, B-movie affair, evident in its simplistic sets, amateurish acting, and campy special effects. However, it’s precisely these elements that contribute to the film’s charm and enduring appeal. The film’s shoestring budget forces creativity, resulting in a quirky and offbeat atmosphere that captivates audiences with its absurdity.
One of the film’s strengths lies in its premise—a man-eating plant named Audrey Jr. that thrives on human blood. The concept is inherently absurd, yet it’s executed with enough sincerity and enthusiasm to suspend disbelief. Seymour’s interactions with the plant, voiced by a growling, menacing actor, provide some of the film’s most entertaining moments, blending horror and comedy in equal measure.
Despite its low production values, “The Little Shop of Horrors” benefits from a talented ensemble cast. Jonathan Haze delivers an endearing performance as Seymour, portraying the character’s bumbling innocence with charm and humor. Jackie Joseph shines as Audrey Fulquard, Seymour’s love interest, infusing the role with a blend of sweetness and vulnerability. Additionally, Jack Nicholson steals the show as the abrasive yet comical dental patient, Arthur Denton, in a memorable cameo.
However, the film’s shortcomings are difficult to overlook. The pacing is uneven, with the plot meandering at times and the narrative lacking a sense of urgency. Some scenes feel drawn out, contributing to a sense of repetitiveness that hampers the film’s momentum. Additionally, the production values, while part of the film’s charm, can be distracting for modern audiences accustomed to more polished visuals.
Furthermore, the film’s treatment of certain themes and characters may be considered dated or problematic by contemporary standards. The portrayal of Audrey Fulquard, in particular, conforms to stereotypical gender roles of the time, depicting her as a passive love interest whose sole purpose is to serve Seymour’s narrative arc. While reflective of the era in which it was made, this portrayal may detract from the film’s appeal for modern viewers seeking more nuanced representations of female characters.
In conclusion, “The Little Shop of Horrors” is a product of its time, a quirky and eccentric B-movie that delights in its absurdity. While its low-budget production values and campy performances contribute to its cult status, they also limit its broader appeal. Fans of cult cinema and aficionados of offbeat humor may find much to enjoy in this charmingly eccentric film. However, for those seeking a more polished and sophisticated cinematic experience, “The Little Shop of Horrors” may fall short of expectations. Ultimately, it’s a film that’s best appreciated for its nostalgic charm and campy allure rather than its artistic merit.