Rating: 
Summary: I like this movie a lot.
Review: This movie was really good. I bought it after I read the book. It is nothing like the book at all, so all of you kids who have to do a book report, watch the older version. But this movie is really good. It is about a group of kids who are coming back home from military school, and their plane crashes in the ocean. They manage to get on an island safely. It deals with what happens when humans resort back to their primal nature. I reccomend this movie to anyone who likes a really good story. But if you liked the book, you might not like not like this movie. But I did. So you may like it too.
Rating: 
Summary: A Damned; "Un-English Movie;" And "Thank God for that"
Review: I have read all 62 reviews of this classic movie. I have seen that most of the reviewers whom did not care for this 1990 version; Are from Canada. Now I have nothing against our neighbors up north. But "if" we are going to be honest about things. Then lets start with "This Movie". First of all; I purchased the "English version; "First". Before I had purchased the U.S. version. I had not read the "book"; Which is so aptly protraded here. "I" wanted to form my "own" opinions. Much is made about the fact that this movie "Did not follow the book".
I do not know about this. You may be right. "If" you have ever read "The Wizard of Oz" for instance; "The movie was'nt anything like the book either!!
This movie was made with the full scope of showing just how savage people can become when they are left unattended. This includes "Children". Have you never seen a "School Yard Bully?"
This movie is attempting to portray the "Struggel"; Between "Good and Evil". Not how "English we all can be". Not intended as a slam against England either. I mean I've always loved "The Beatles", as well as Princess Diana. So I am not speaking from any pre-concieved predjudices. "Boy's will be Boys" and foul language was an attempt by these boys to be what "They" precevied as "Manly". Remember; All of us at one time or the other, have pushed the envelope of our parents trust.
These boys in this movie; Were portraying "Real Life". Not living in some fantasy castle. They were trying to survive in a hostile environment. They were not waiting for "Tea Time". They struggel alone on an Island with no adult supervision. "There fore. "They were lost, scared, and with out hope of being rescued.
Someone; Had to set the stage for what would really happen in this instance. That someone was "Jack". "He" was more afraid than all the other boys combined. This is why he rebells. "Ralph" the eternal optimist; Does not want to admit to himself or the other boys. That "He too" is afraid. "Piggy"; Was played excellently by the young man who did this part. "Piggy" represented to "Jack" all that Jack was afraid of. Things like "Caring, Sharing,thoughtfulness". And the loss of power. This movie is all about "Power". The struggel to start a fire. The struggel to maintain that fire. The struggel to steal Piggys eyeglasses so that "Only Jack" could control the fire. The struggel to dominate all the other boys on the Island. Jacks rebellion against "Good"; As prtrayed by "Ralph". If you want to poke fun at the movie because the boys came to shore in a raft. For instance. Then watch the 1960's English version. "Where did the Choir garb come from?...I suppose that "Harrods"; Had opened on the other side of the Island right?. Putting the actors into Military Uniforms in the begininning of this movie. Was suppose to represent "Order". This was not the case as we saw in the movie. Little by little; The uniforms are shed along with any sense of order. This fact I found to be curious. As from that point forward. This movie almost becomes a 90 minute advertisement for "Fruit of the Loom"; Boys Underwear. Aside from that fact. Clothing would deteriorate. In a tropical climate. So this part makes perfect sense. Unlike the English version where Choir uniforms are the norm.
Lets try to be objective here. This movie was NOT made to follow the "book" no matter who wrote it. Or no matter what country they come from. This Movie is a classic example of "Good against Evil".
This is no doubt what the director saw in this movie. This is how he choose to portary this movie. Is this film not an example of that struggel?
"Who"; Finally wins that struggel?......"Jack?"..."No". No one wins Jack loses; Ralph; loses. Piggy loses. Simone loses.
When reviewing this film. "Keep this fact in mind". Boys 10 and 11 and 12 "Do" swear!! All boys do. This is all just part of being a male, in a male dominated world such as this Island had become for them.
These actors were portraying "Real Life"; Not trying to be English, American, or Momma's boys. This is "Real Life". These boys portrayed "Real Life". The acting in this film is excellent and well worth the price. This film did not have to slam anyones Religon like "The Boy's of St. Vincent". Another "sad" but true story. A shame for Canada what took place in that movie. As it would have been a shame in "any" country.
Lets try to be objective here. And not allow our own predjudices. Outweight the objectivity of this film. I rate this movie FIVE Stars!!
It's a shame that Hollywood did not take advantage of the fine young talent that worked in this film.
Rating: 
Summary: Great book -- so-so movie...
Review: How do you turn a book as visceral and gut-wrenching as the Lord of the Flies and turn it into Hollywood mush? If you want the answer to that question, watch this movie. Otherwise, don't bother. The acting is not exactly Haley Joel Osment quality, the scenes of savagery are played down IMO so they lose some of their horrific nature, and some of the dialogue and scenes are dumbed down.
One area where this movie does get it right is the sets and the cinematography. The stunningly beautiful scenery does provide a nice offset to the action on screen. Leave it to Hollywood to get the look right -- enough to suck you in with a great trailer -- yet fail to deliver the goods.
Rating:
Summary: American Version On DVD---FINALLY!!
Review: I'm really happy to see that this excellent American version of Sir Wm.'s book will soon be available on DVD!! When I was a kid the worst and best things that happened to me were, respectively: having to go to military school, and reading Sir Wm.'s book. This flick was made for me! And it is a terrific film through and through: music, actors, location, story,.... everything is PERFECT!! And I am just pickled stink! ....tickled pink. Now to see what the DVD looks like..... (?)
Rating:
Summary: Is this Lord of the Flies?
Review: The film Lord of the Flies, was a make off of the novel Lord of the Flies by William Golding. It is a different take on the book than I had being that it was totally different from the book. The film had many faults, if the directors were trying to make it like the book. To start the film off they had everyone crash into the water, and all of the boys were together, which is not at all how the book starts. To continue this contrast of plots, they came to the island by raft, which suddenly disappears, when it shouldn't have been there in the first place. The boys they carried the body of a pilot, also non-existent in the book and he reappears repeatedly through out the movie. The time of the story takes place in the mid 20th century of the novel and in the film it takes place in a time of MTV, Alf and digital watches. This film is a horrible depiction of the novel Lord of the Flies and I do not recommend it if you are trying to skip out on reading the book. You will be totally lost in class and it is a complete waste of time, unless you're up for a good laugh. But as far as films go, it was amusing for those who are easily entertained. The book however intrigues you and leaves room for the facts of the book to grow in your imagination, not made up effects.
Rating: 
Summary: Not Edifying, But the Fat Kid Dies
Review: The 1990 movie Lord of the Flies is entertaining, but if you have a report on the book due tomorrow, buy the cliff notes, don't rent the movie. There are better movies in the "stuck on an island" genre, but it does keep your attention. A bit bloody at some parts, one does not know whether to laugh or cry at the events that befall the young boarding school boys who must survive on an uninhabited island. Perhaps this is but another movie not looking to retell a classic novel, but looking for a quick buck in blood and curses. The differences between the book and movie are astounding. There are many obvious points such as the time setting; a difference between the 1940's and the 1990's. The list can continue, but the difference that really changes the entire experience of the story is the tone. The book holds a dark tone, making the idea of ten-year-olds murdering disturbing. Their innocence and naivete makes the shock even greater when they murder Simon in the middle of a game. Consider the movie on the other hand. In this age, the age of Sylvester Stallone and school shootings, eleven year olds dropping a rock on the fat kid's head is funny. Their innocence is shattered in the foul language they use, and their American accents allow you to think of them as just another group of kids killing each other, the same thing you see on TV every night. The different versions definitely convey a different tone, one a bloody cliché modern movie, the other a dark book that leaves you a bit perturbed. So in reviewing this movie, remember that it is not the age-old story of fear and survival, but a modern movie looking for profit in blood. On that level, the movie is a lark. You have the simple laughs, ones that can only come from people calling the fat kid "tits." You have the exciting appeal of surviving on an island; which opens up all kinds of conversations you can have with your date about what you would do if you were stuck on an island. And you have the big rock falling on the fat kid's head, all in all making it an entertaining movie. There are two reasons why one would rent or purchase this movie. One would be for that poor child who has a book report due the next day and is going to stay up all night doing it. Don't rent the movie. Skimming through the book would be a better bet. Or one would rent it for a slightly entertaining slightly juvenile film. In that case, rent it and laugh at the fat kid. The 1990 movie Lord of the Flies is entertaining, but if you have a report on the book due tomorrow, buy the cliff notes, don't rent the movie. There are better movies in the "stuck on an island" genre, but it does keep your attention. A bit bloody at some parts, one does not know whether to laugh or cry at the events that befall the young boarding school boys who must survive on an uninhabited island. Perhaps this is but another movie not looking to retell a classic novel, but looking for a quick buck in blood and curses. The differences between the book and movie are astounding. There are many obvious points such as the time setting; a difference between the 1940's and the 1990's. The list can continue on the differences, but the difference that really changes the entire experience of the story is the tone. The book holds a dark tone, making the idea of ten-year-olds murdering disturbing. Their innocence and naivete makes the shock even greater when they murder Simon in the middle of a game. Consider the movie on the other hand. In this age, the age of Sylvester Stallone and school shootings, eleven year olds dropping a rock on the fat kid's head is funny. Their innocence is shattered in the foul language they use, and their American accents allow you to think of them as just another group of kids killing each other, the same thing you see on TV every night. The different versions definitely convey a different tone, one a bloody cliché modern movie, the other a dark book that leaves you a bit perturbed. So in reviewing this movie, remember that it is not the age-old story of fear and survival, but a modern movie looking for profit in blood. On that level, the movie is a lark. You have the simple laughs, ones that can only come from people calling the fat kid "tits." You have the exciting appeal of surviving on an island; which opens up all kinds of conversations you can have with your date about what you would do if you were stuck on an island. And you have the big rock falling on the fat kid's head, all in all making it an entertaining movie. There are two reasons why one would rent or purchase this movie. One would be for that poor child who has a book report due the next day and is going to stay up all night doing it. Don't rent the movie. Skimming through the book would be a better bet. Or one would rent it for a slightly entertaining slightly juvenile film. In that case, rent it and laugh at the fat kid.
Rating:
Summary: Lord of the Flies in the 90's
Review: While watching Lord of the Flies the 1990's edition I thought many things. I thought back on the book and tried to remember all of the things that went on to see if they had fit with the movie. I thought while watching this movie that things from the original movie in the 1960's was much better. This movie gave a general idea of what went on in the book, but was not everything that it should have been. In this movie the kids ended up some how having a raft when they got to the island. In the book the plane had crashed but these kids did not have a raft. The kids having a raft kind of defeated the whole purpose of being on the island. The raft could have been used to get them off the island. So there was no point of giving them a raft where as in the story they had nothing. Also in the movie there was no choir. This makes everything seem to be different. The choir in the book shows that Jack was a leader. In the movie it shows nothing of this sort. It just shows that Jack thinks that he is better and can take over. Which is nothing like the movie. The choir in the book shows the reasons why Jack thinks that he should be the leader due to him leading them through the choir. I also think that the movie has way too much fowl language in it. These little kids that go to this private school should not talk like this. They are young and it was totally uncalled for that they kept using it throughout the whole movie. So if kids want to watch this movie I would not prefer it. I think that they should have stuck with the topics of the book rather than making it work as if it were happening today. This movie was more funny to me because everything was so outrageous that it was funny. If you need to learn from the movie I would more advise to watch the 1960's version of it. This movie would have not helped me at all if I needed it to. So I rate it a two and no more than that. The two is more likely for effort not the movie.
Rating: 
Summary: A Supposed Out-take
Review: The 1990 film, "Lord of the Flies" is a suppossed out-take on William Golding's novel. However director Harry Cook didn't keep to the original dialogue or concept. It is almost as though Hook hadn't read the book since grade school and wrote the movie from what he had remembered. He threw the idea of the young men being english right out the window and adapted new characters whom were Military Academy boys. It begins with the boys struggling after a plane crash and trying to swim for their lives in the ocean when a large raft rises to the surface of the water and rescues them. They float until they reach a jungle island where they leave the raft on the beach shore. Now that was Hook's first mistake, why didn't they just use the raft to fo find safety? Well, I guess that was too logical. The movie does not keep to the original dialogue either. In fact, the impact of the character Simon is completely erased when Hook decided to crop more than half of his lines. The scene with Simon talking to the boars head which is where the title, "Lord of the Flies" actually comes from is not even in this version. The most amusing part of the movie is the fact that there is an adult on the island! The strongest point made by Golding in his novel was that there were NO adults. What was Hook thinking when directing this film I have no idea but, if Golding was alive today I'm sure he'd be upset by the way his novel was poorly portrayed. "Lord of the Flies" the 1990 version does not even come close to the book. I would not recommend this flick to anyone. Especially children, considering the fact that it uses foul language. The 1963 version is more direct and on point. Classic books should not be remade into films unless they are and exact take off of the original. This film was disturbing, upsetting, ludicrous, faulty, and distasteful. If you have already made the mistake of watching the movie and have not read the novel, do yourself a favor and pick up a copy of William Golding's novel today!
Rating:
Summary: no no no
Review: William Golding's The Lord of the Flies was adapted into many films. The 1990 movie version of the novel, though it retained the same title, did not retain many important elements of the novel. The novel The Lord of the Flies had many importnat symbols throughout the book that made the story a commentary rather than mere evetertainment. The conch shell, in the novel , symbolized order in society, and its destruction in the end of the novel symbolizes the destruction of the order in that society. The movie version completely twists this symbolism. The conch isn't found until a short while after they are on the island, when, in the novel , the conch is found almost immediatly after Piggy and Rlaph meet. The discovery of the conch had to be delayed becayse, unlike in the novel, the all land on the island together...IN A RAFT. In the novel, the conch calls all the boys together, but in the movie, this isn't necessary due to the fact that they met in THE RAFT after the plane crash. There were many characters that didn't exsist in the novel, but did in the movie verison. Piggy, a majorly symbolic character in the novel, was downright annoying in the movie. Piggy was no long the voice of reason, but not is so annoying that you can't even listen to the kid. The movie, independant of the novel, was very weak. Characters were not properly defined. I had a difficult time understanding who was who. Conflicts were difficult to define until the conflict was almost resolved, thus losing valuable content of the movie. The only aspect that the movie kept from the novel is a bunch of guys stuck on an island. The best thing to do for the novie is to change the title, because it's obvious that the movie doesn't do the novel justice. They had a raft and matches...Cmon!
Rating:
Summary: Walk away slowly: don't even look at the cover
Review: First, let me ask you, why did they make this film? I know why because they had nothing else better to do but rip apart a classic novel. The film is Lord of the Flies, written by William Golding. It is a modern remake of his classic novel. The novel, The Lord of the Flies, is about several boys being stranded on a desert island after their plane is shot down during World War II. They try to establish order, but can't without any adults. They separate into two different groups in which two people eventually die. A naval officer rescues them at the end. Lets start out by saying there was no real connections to the novel in the film except a few. If you've read the book then you will know what I am talking about. In the film, Simon was stabbed to death and that's it. The only thing they could get right was a murder. You can see the differences in the beginning. You're trapped on a desert island, and you had an inflatable raft. In the original story, it two boys walking out of the jungle talking. Another major difference would be an adult still being alive until the middle of the story. The whole story line was supposed to be several boys trapped on an island with no adults, meaning no order. That adult was supposed to be dead and not even shown in the story. This film is a horrible remake of a beautiful novel. It takes today's genre and kills all meaning that William Golding was trying to express or say. I'm not saying this film isn't entertaining, it is but if you want to learn about the Lord of the Flies without reading the book, do not watch this film. And oh yeah who's Tony?
|
