Rating: 
Summary: This movie rocks!
Review: I agree with the author about the story. I don't think that there is always a happy ending when people, much less boys under 12 years old. I think this is an excellent movie!
Rating: 
Summary: savage
Review: i am speechless about this film.i knew boys were rough but these boys were savages.they formed a " tribe "which gets too out of control and there ends up to be an extreme tradgedy. other than the violence and gore, it is an outstanding film, its very realistic and most enjoyable and a must see film.
Rating: 
Summary: extremly terrible adaption from the original.
Review: I can't believe what has happened to this wonderful, but creepy story. It has been chopped, and rearranged in a very awkward manner. Some important and key scenes aren't in the story at all! The movie didn't even exploit the message in the tale of man's dark nature. If Golding saw the movie version of his famous book, I think he would have been very disappointed. If I had it my way, I would had rearranged the story like the original. Read the book, its better.
Rating: 
Summary: Doesn't even come close!!
Review: I have read and loved Golding's original novel, and let me tell you this movie doesn't even come close to matching the intensity of the book. To begin with, the quality of the acting is extremely poor. The picture is similarly horrible, and the movie isn't even highlighted with half- way decent music. I don't know about the later version of *LOTF*, but this one is certainly a waste of film for the team who made it, as well as a waste of your time. You want entertainment? Read the book.
Rating:
Summary: Awesome movie!
Review: I literally thought that this is one of the best movies ever. If you've read the book...You have to see the movie!
Rating: 
Summary: Lord Of The Flies Does Not Fly
Review: I only give "Lord of the Flies" 3 stars because I think many new viewers may get bored with the film and it doesn't hold up to 2005 standards very well. I saw the film back in 1970. I thought it was a good film when I was a kid. However, seeing it as an adult, it seemed to lack many aspects of good film-making. I found the sound and voices of the children to be echoing as if they were re-recorded in a studio. It detracts from the believability of the situation because they are suppose to be outside. Granted, the film was a landmark film in 1963, but today it comes across as an amatuer film shot on a shoe-string budget. I really wanted to like this film, but I can't whole heartly recommend it. I think that many people may find it as a waste of time and money. I think a good updated version of this film is needed (I understand the 1990 version is not too good either).
Rating:
Summary: Doesn't do the book justice
Review: I read this book for a school assignment and was affected by the plot. The complexity of the symbolism and how true it is to society shone out in the book. The film doesn't do the book justice as all. I feel that some of the dialogue that was cut out was essential to the plot and some scenes cheapened the meaning, making it almost laughable. The actors tried, they really did, I loved the performance by the actor who played Jack. But what happened to Roger in the movie? He was mostly cut out, except to suddenly appear out of nowhere to kill Piggy. Simon, who is my favourite character from the book, was played by an actor well suited to what he looked liked and how he acted, but there wasn't many chances in the movie to show Simon in the way he was intended to be shown. There was so much potential in this movie, but it just doesn't meet what I had hoped for.
Rating:
Summary: Black and white works.
Review: I really enjoyed this movie. It was the same as the book. I loved the book. It was really good. I think that if you really liked the book then you will like this movie. Granted it is not as exciting as the 1990 version. But this version is better acted, and the story is almost the same as the book. So kids I don't encourage this, but if you forgot to read the book, then you should watch this instead of the newer version.
Rating:
Summary: Wonderful!
Review: i saw the 1963 version of Lord of the Flies in English class & I fell in love with it. It's one of the best movies out there, & I think it is MUCH better than the 1990 version, which i also own. the 1963 version definitely follows the book better & i thought James Aubrey, Tom Chapin etc. did a great job playing the main characters. Definitely worth seeing, & if u haven't read the book, definitely give it a try. :)
Rating:
Summary: Fantastic dvd of a superb film
Review: I was terribly excited to discover that one of my favorite classic films, the 1963 Peter Brooks "Lord of the Flies" was on dvd. I was even more excited when I saw it had been given a deluxe treatment by some studio called Criterion. "Lord of the Flies" was the first dvd I bought and it introduced me to the phenomenal Criterion Collection. Every extra on this dvd is fantastic and interesting, there is no filler or meaningless praise. The commentary alone is worth the price of this dvd, it gives a magnificent insight into how this film was made: for instance, the film was one of the first independent productions ever produced. This is one of those rare commentaries that adds to your appreciation and understanding of the film, I rank it alongside "Seven Samurai" and "Grand Illusion" (also both Criterion dvds) commentaries as among the best I have heard. The film itself looks abolutely fantastic, worlds better than any vhs or laserdisc edition I had previously seen; criterion's produced an amazing, clean image that will be striking on any video set up. _Lord of the Flies_ is one of my favorite novels; Golding masterfully touched on many themes and concepts about society and managed to capture the essence of humanity in the boyish caricatures he created. For the most part those themes and ideas come across very faithfully in the film. As it is pointed out in the dvd's commentary; there is no screenwriting credit, because there was no script, the production team worked straight from the novel, using it as their sole source of the story. The result is a remarkably clear and coherent adapation of the original novel, brought to life with great faith and startling prowess for a first time filmmaker. Some technical limitations can still be seen in the final product, but they do little to detract from your enjoyment of the film. In short: a fantastic, dark, and compelling story is brilliantly brought to life in such a stark manner that it feels to viewer at times like an unfolding documentary. Finally, to top it off, the film was given a royal treatment on dvd that perfectly complements and enhances the film itself; in all, very much worth the price of admission.
| 
