IMDb > The Little Shop of Horrors (1960) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
The Little Shop of Horrors
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
The Little Shop of Horrors More at IMDbPro »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 8 of 12: [Prev][3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [Next]
Index 114 reviews in total 

Only Gets Funnier Everytime I See It!

Author: santsa70 ( from New York State
27 February 2002

I swear that this film actually gets funnier every time I view it. It's one of the few movies that can do that. So, it was a movie that was shot in just two days. *pfft* If this is the result of a two-day shooting, more films ought to be low budget and shot with 24 hours! This is an incredible film in a category of it's own. In my opinion, it was Roger Corman's best and I'm sure that it would be a full-fledged classic, instead of a cult classic, if more people had a chance to see it. Seriously, folks, if you ever come across this film, don't pass up the chance to view it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ (the following is for people who read my review for "Little Shop of Horrors" (1986))

BTW, I love the musical, too. I wrote a review of that as well, but when I wrote it, I hadn't seen the movie in a while. I think that for the most part, my review was pretty accurate, but I'd like to correct myself on one thing: Bill Murray did not *subtly* give off gay undertones, compared to Jack Nicholson. The undertones that Jack Nicholson gave in the original film were very funny, and like some of the other jokes in the film, ahead of its time, but Bill Murray just went totally wild and turned the subtext from the original film into maintext. Course, that was the 80's and displaying that sort of thing was much more easier to do than it was a couple decades before.

Was the above review useful to you?


Author: Bill Treadway ( from Queens, New York
25 May 2001

Roger Corman's "The Little Shop of Horrors" was made on a budget of $30,000 and looks it. But that's a good thing with a movie like this. Like its' predecessor "A Bucket of Blood", it is supremely silly. But "Little Shop" is somehow funnier, probably due to its' extremely bizarre premise.

No need to go into the story because you probably know it already, most likely from the 1986 big-budget musical remake with Steve Martin and Rick Moranis. While that film has good music and hilarious comedy (especially Bill Murray as the dental patient)and is an overall better film than this original, how can you not enjoy this?

There are very funny performances here. Dick Miller (from "A Bucket of Blood")plays Fouch, a man who can't stop eating flowers. This is itself not very funny, but Miller plays it very straight and slyly and the result is a wonderful comic performance, different from his "Bucket" one. Jack Nicholson has Murray's role here. Although he's only on screen for about 4 minutes, it's a scene stealer and a sign of good things to come. Mel Welles is Mushnik, the Little Shop owner who hates the plant and what it does, but loves money so much, he turns the other cheek. It's mainly a collection of stereotypes, but Welles does such a good job that one can forgive it. He deserved an Oscar nod.

The film's budget was so low that Corman lifted the entire music score from "A Bucket of Blood". However, the score fits this film much better than the previous film. In fact, aside from a few details, this film is a variation of "Bucket". But "Bucket" had a few flaws that prevented it from eventually reaching greatness. "Little Shop" is not without flaws, but it's much more entertaining. It has a goofy charm that big budget films can't give us.

***1/2 out of 4 stars

Was the above review useful to you?

One of the best comedy-horror films you'll ever see.

Author: lartronic from Akron, Ohio
1 July 2000

You might think "Awe geez, another low-budget peace of garbage by Roger Corman.", but it's actually an excellent horror-comedy, even though it was shot in 2 days with a budget less than what you'd buy it for. Okay, so the acting isn't oscar winning, so what? Of course, Jack Nicholson is in this, as a dental patient. Makes you think, too bad Corman couldn't do this with all of his films. The print shown on TV here in Akron is poor, with too many scratches and splices, but it's still great. I recommend seeing this as soon as possible.

Was the above review useful to you?

The Little Shop of Horrors

Author: Tim Cox from Marietta, OH
20 July 1999

Offbeat horror cult classic about a Skid Row flower shop employee who creates a kooky plant that feeds on human bodies. One of director Corman's greatest films that features a

screen appearance from a young New Jersey actor named...Nicholson, who appears as a dental patient who thrives on pain.

Was the above review useful to you?

Corman's masterpiece.

Author: Timothy L. Fox from Frankfort, IN
13 July 1999

We all know Roger Corman made some pretty lame ones, but thankfully, he had his exceptions, like this little gem. the plot is a virtual spoof of horror films, dealing with a large plant that eats people, and the schmoe who takes care of him (Her? It?). Yes, Roger made sure to include all of his friends in this one - Jonathan Haze as Seymour, the schmoe (I'm surprised, at the rate he kills people, that he never killed a person before,) Dick Miller as a guy who eats plants, Mel Welles as Muschnick, who has a hilarious, hard-to-place accent, and, as everyone knows, Jack Nicholson as a sadisitc dental patient. When it's good enough to be remade into a musical, you know it's good (like Seymour says, "There's no accounting for people's tastes."). And remember, it was made in two days, in true Roger Corman tradition!

Was the above review useful to you?

Great film, considering your rent probably costs more than the budget of this!

Author: Mr Pants ( from Columbus, Ohio
25 January 1999

I bought the video because it was on sale at K-Mart the other day. This is a lotta fun! I had small hopes for this film, even though it spawned the mostly-enjoyable musical of the same name. But (especially for a Corman film), I was surprised how much I enjoyed it. The acting is bad, but not as bad as, say "Plan 9 from Outer Space." And the actors are funny (not the least of which is Jack Nicholson in a walk-on)! It does a great send-up of "Dragnet"-style detective stories, as the deadpan gumshoes discuss the untimely death of one of the cops' nephews: "Yeah ... that's the breaks," the cop mutters. A special award should go to Mel Welles for his hilarious turn as Gravis Mushnik. The film was apparently shot in two days, as evidenced by its decidedly poor editing. But for a B movie, the acting and plot is relatively strong, and the result is a very enjoyable black comedy which, even in its harshest moments, is tame by today's standards.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Great cheesy fun

Author: planktonrules from Bradenton, Florida
19 July 2007

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This Roger Corman film is great cheesy fun--mostly because it never takes itself seriously and has a deliciously dark sense of humor. Quite often, the jokes are corny, the acting way over the top and the sight gags are silly as can be--resulting in a very charming movie that is sure to please everyone except stick in the muds and people too sophisticated to give an American International film a look.

The plot is beyond weird, as Seymour Krelboyne is a pitiful loser living in the worst neighborhood and working a nowhere job for Mr. Mushnick. However, this loser gains instant fame in the neighborhood when he cultivates a plant he names "Audrey, Jr.". The only problem is, this weird new wonder begins to die until Seymour discovers the secret to making it grow--human blood. At first, he gives it some of his own, then through some hilarious accidents, he begins feeding it entire people! And, the more he feeds it, the bigger it grows and the more it begins to demand more food--in a very loud and silly voice! It's all very silly and very reminiscent of another dark Corman comedy, BUCKET OF BLOOD--which, incidentally, stars Dick Miller who is also a supporting player in this film.

What also makes the film wonderfully entertaining is the use of weird characters with weird names--such as Mr. Mushnick, Seymour's psychosomatic mother and the mad performance in a small part by Jack Nicholson as a masochist!! Murder, pain and excess--this film is like Roger Corman meets John Waters. A great film for anyone wanting a good laugh plus it's not too dark to let the kids see it as well.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Cult classic does well with tiny budget

Author: Dan Franzen (dfranzen70) from United States
31 December 1999

Sure, it's 40 years old. Sure, it was infamous as the film shot in two days (and it shows!). But there's a lot to be said for this short film with small production values. The audio quality on the tape I viewed was not very good, but the quality of the script sure was! Before the Broadway musical and subsequent movie, this classic penned by Charles B. Griffith was positioned not as a light musical romp but as a dark horror/comedy. What do you have? Well you have a tiny plant that apparently grows stronger when fed human blood; so, in order to keep the plant (and his job and his love life) intact, lovable nebbish Seymour goes out and kills....and kills. Throw in a sadistic dentist and a masochistic patient (played to the hilt by a very young Jack Nicholson, in his Corman days), and you have yourself a black comedy. It's short, it's sweet, and it's not something you bring a date to see, but it's pure cinema.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

Perhaps the Greatest Horror-Comedy of All Time

Author: Scars_Remain from United States
13 October 2007

This is another film that's been sitting on my shelf for a while, I found it at a thrift store and was so excited that I had actually found a decent DVD, but alas, it took me months to finally watch it. I finally decided to sit down and watch it last night. An absolutely hilarious movie with some genuinely creepy moments is what we have here. The story is very quirky and fun, and the monster is amazing. There's also a hilarious cameo from Jack Nicholson. Great acting all over and some laugh out loud jokes make this a masterpiece in my book. If you're like me and you have this movie but haven't gotten around to watching it, stop stalling! It's awesome!

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

The Little Shop of Horrors: 5/10

Author: movieguy1021 ( from Anywhere, USA
28 November 2002

In the non-musical original, klutz Seymour Krelboyne is played with a right bumblingness by Jonathan Haze. He works at Mushnick's Flowers along with Audrey (Jackie Joseph, who I don't think is as good as Ellen Greene) and Mr. Mushnick himself (Mel Welles). Seymour finds a new plant and tries to feed it, but it's sick. Nevertheless, it's like nothing anyone has ever seen. After pricking his finger by accident, Seymour finds out that Audrey Jr. (the plant) likes blood. Soon he gets in over his head.

It's a fine movie, a couple laughs here and there, but I liked the comedy-musical-horror version of the new one more. It did start off immediately and went quickly (of course, it's 70 minutes long).

Look for Jack Nicholson as a masochistic dental patient. As I look at what I've written, it's not much, but there isn't really much else to say except that it has cheesy special effects but is still enjoyable.

My rating: 5/10

Not Rated

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 8 of 12: [Prev][3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

Plot summary Plot synopsis Ratings
Newsgroup reviews External reviews Parents Guide
Plot keywords Main details Your user reviews
Your vote history