The Scary Flower Shop

It’s a classic. The 1986 musical directed by Frank Oz, Little Shop of Horrors managed to form its own little cult following. It is a fun movie, and it is remembered as such. However, Roger Corman was the first to make a Little Shop of Horrors movie. He made the movie in 1960 over the course of just a couple of days. But which one of these is the better film?

Both of these films tell the same story: a young man, Seymour, has found a new breed of plant that is making him famous – think Venus Fly Trap on steroids. However, this plant does not “eat” the same foods that other, normal, plants eat. No, this one eats humans. So Seymour goes out in search of food for his plant. He is not so much a killer, more of a guy who is in the wrong place at the wrong time, but still finds dead people. He doesn’t like to kill, but he needs to do it in order to keep his plant alive and keep his fame alive. There is a love interest, Audrey, and Seymour has a real mean boss – common stuff. They are both good movies, but they tell their stories slightly different.

The biggest difference between the two versions is that Oz’s film is a musical, while Corman’s is not. Yet it is this musical that became a breakout hit. In my opinion, the greater success of Frank Oz’s film is because it is more fun than the original. Especially at the time it was made people were looking for those fun movies. Little Shop of Horrors was almost as fun for audiences as The Rocky Horror Picture Show. I would say because of Rocky Horror, Little Shop managed to gain so much fame.

Having the musical aspect of the film was definitely better for Oz. It created a different platform for him to present his material. Corman’s film is more two dimensional, whereas the musical gives the film three dimensions – metaphorically speaking.

Additionally, I felt as though Oz was able to portray social conflicts better in his film than Corman did in his. Through Oz’s film, it was very noticeable that the plant was a symbol for racism – it was the alien, much like how some felt of the blacks. Also, at the end of the movie Seymour was presented with the opportunity to make “Audrey II” a plant available commercial, and, in the original ending of the film (spoilers), these plants eventually take over the world. The cast was also far more diverse than Corman’s film. 

Another big difference between the two is the endings. (Spoilers ahead) At the end of the 1960 film, Seymour runs from the police after they discover he has been killing people to feed his plant. In the end, Seymour is eaten by the plant when he gets back into the flower shop to hide from the police. In the 1986 version, the original ending had both Seymour and Audrey die at the “hands” of the plant. However, Corman received poor response from this ending so he changed it to where Audrey and Seymour fight off the plant then run off and live happily ever after. Personally, I like the original ending better.

In Oz’s film, there are many cameos from famous actors of the time like Bill Murray, John Candy, and James Belushi. And, of course, everybody remembers Steve Martin playing the crazy dentist who finds waves of pleasure in other people’s pain. Unfortunately, I cannot say the same for Corman’s film. However in Corman’s film, the audience will get to see a very young Jack Nicholson.

            Even though Frank Oz was able to produce something completely different in his version of Little Shop of Horrors, I would have to say that I still prefer Roger Corman’s version. Corman’s is a little more flat, but I found it to be more entertaining, and not as ridiculous as Oz’s. I do not mean this in a bad way, I mean, both of the films are pretty ridiculous seeing how they are about a killer plant that eats humans to grow. So, in this instance, the original was the better film.

-Tyler Creek