Rating: 
Summary: Good Effort, Little Outcome
Review: The film, Lord of the Flies, was an interesting portrayal of the original book by William Golding. And by interesting, I mean bad. Sure, I give them some credit for trying... but they failed...miserably. There were some similarities. There were a bunch of boys on a deserted island, they got there due to a plane crash, they were mostly pure evil, and the characters stayed the same. Piggy was fat, Jack was the devil, Sam n' Eric were twins, Ralph was Ralph, and Simon was an outcast, but that's as close as they come. Unfortunately, if you're watching the movie so you don't have to read the book, the differences out weigh the similarities. First of all, in the book, THERE'S NO PILOT! And come on - in the movie they have a raft. You can't be stranded on an island if you have a raft. Third of all, the book takes place forty years earlier than the movie. So I guess now the boys must have found a TIME MACHINE on the island...that was sarcasm. Glow sticks, they have glow sticks...it's like Gilligan's Island meets a rave. The movie would have been better if it had taken place in the fifties, the pilot never existed, and if they had just followed the story. I mean, they must have read the book, why not just stick with it. It would have been a better movie if I had never read the book, BUT I DID, oh the sorrow... my mind tainted by someone else's opinion...oh the pain. But in the end it was worth seeing because Piggy's death was humorous and the movie itself may help the people with no imagination.
Rating: 
Summary: Hook's 1990, "Lord of Flies"
Review: Like the 1963 adaptation, Harry Hook's "Lord of the Flies" has its roots planted in Golding's experiences as a Briton during devastating occurrence of World War II. In Hook's movie the plot is generally the same as the books'. A group of boys stranded on a tropical island without any adult super vision. The movie sticks to the minor but needed details of the book: the discovery/purpose of the conch, the sow's head placed on the stick and the nearly fatal manhunt for Ralph. On the contrary, you can clearly see that Hook has added a bit of his own interpretation and flavor in the story and script. Hook disgracefully implies the true animalistic instincts that Golding had so much described in his book. The Americanization of the film takes quality away from the story. There are several flaws that cause American academy cadets to come off slightly inferior to the British upper-class schoolboys. Such as the vocabulary and fowl *language* of the American boys goes to harsh levels. This hurts the newer film.
Rating:
Summary: What movie is this?
Review: I watched the movie Lord of the Flies the other day as an assignment for my English class. Right from the very first scene I was wondering if I put the right movie in the VCR. I mean the basics are the same. The boys are in a plane crash and they are on an island. But the rest is just like out of control. I mean they have a raft! Why wouldn't they use the raft to get off the island? It almost made me mad just watching it. Thank goodness I didn't try to cheat and just watch the movie instead of read the book for my class. I would have been totally beat! I can't figure out why you would make a movie of a book, and change the movie so drastically, that it doesn't really even make sense. I don't know the movie was big disappointment. I mean they curse like it's going out of style and that makes their whole "innocent" beginning fly right out the window. Then the accents of the boys were different making them seem like a bunch of American hoodlums who were not all prim and proper to begin with, therefore making it easier for them to adjust to their situation. I would not recommend the movie to anyone who enjoyed the book. You would have very little to go on and it may cheapen your Lord of the Flies experience all together.
Rating: 
Summary: a terrible creation to the film world
Review: William Golding writes the novel lord of the flies. Its setting was taken place in the central part of World War 2. The novel begins with a group of schoolboys surviving a plane crash and being stranded on a deserted island. The boys are to raise themselves and survive with no grown-ups with the hopes of being rescued. There are three main characters of the novel, piggy, Ralph, and jack. These three collide on many levels of endearment during the novel. This novel became very popular among readers that 2 movies were made in support of the novel. The first was made in black and white version in 1951. The second movie, which is a disgrace to the novel, was created in color in 1990. There weren't many comparisons between the two movies. The movies both began with a plane crash, and being deserted on an island. The comparisons led to Ralph and piggy becoming friends and finding the conch shell. In both films the conch was used as a symbol of assembly. Towards the center of the films there was the controversy of the beast. In both the savages kill Simon and show no remorse. Even afterwards they still fear the beast that is non-existent. There was no remorse shown when piggy was killed by the falling rock. Jack simply goes back to his side of the island as if nothing had happened at all. After Piggy's death the films collide with "real" comparison as the savages are chasing Ralph onto the beach fearing for his life. He stumbles and falls at the feet of an army recruit in both films. The films end with the boys being rescued and the confusion of the murders being buried with the boys. As a rating on the films, my opinion is strongly opposing the 1990 version film of lord of the flies. I feel this insecurity towards the film because it had absolutely no comparison to the novel. There were additions and lies added to the 1990 version to attract more viewers of the film. If the producer was smart, he would of made the color version similar to the novel. I have no understanding of why the producer would come up with such confusing ideas. As for the rating on the 1951 version, I have high hopes for the film. The film helped me grab the concept of the book. I'd say on accuracy the 1951 version was about 89%. There were a few differences from the novel, but that was simple compromises that the producer made. Overall the 1951 version had me more interested than the 1990 version. Changing the content of a movie to attract readers and viewers is a mistake. In order to make a film accurate to a novel a producer must follow a story line. In the creation of on of the films the producer didn't do that. This results in many disappointed movie critics, including myself.
Rating:
Summary: A good movie, but untrue to the novel
Review: I thought the 1980's film of the lord of the flies was entertaining to the point of being humorous. It did include many of the main points of the plot that were included in the book, but it was portrayed almost as if it were a completely different story. It didn't stay completely true to the book, but, at the same time, I was entertained. Compared to the book, this was a brief interpretation. It wasn't as personal as the book. I felt as if I was actually there. I felt as if I really knew the characters when reading the book. When piggy was killed in the movie, I didn't cry, but I did when reading the book. When Simon was attacked in the book, my heart was broken, but the movie didn't phase me nearly as much. I think besides the plot being switched around, the main difference was the amount of character development. The movie hardly had any. It was more impersonal than the book. If I had to rate this as a film on a scale from 1 to 5, I would give it a 3. It was a good movie. I was entertained and into it the entire time, but it lost two points for its lack of character development. So, I basically enjoyed the movie, but it could never stand a chance when compared to the book. The Lord of the Flies is an entirely different experience when read.
Rating:
Summary: I read the Book I guess they didn't!
Review: Sir William Golding's Classic book Lord of the Flies is being read in classrooms across America. This timeless novel about a group of young boys who have been plane wrecked on a deserted Island is in almost every high schools curriculum and will be for many years to come. The book gives excellent examples of human nature and government, While also showing the simple mindedness of a group of young boys whom are lost on an island without any grownup supervision. There have been two movies made about the Novel Lord of the Flies, One which was made in the 60's in black in white and one made in the early 90's. Although the earlier one kept very true to the book the newer one was very far off, To a point where it was slightly humorous. The First big difference that i saw between the book and the later movie was the arrival of the boys on the Island. Though it did not really state in the book how they came to be there you know for certain that they did not arrive on a raft, nor with a very sick adult whom of which was their captain. Once you got to know the boys in the movie you learned that they had all went to the same military school, where as the boys in the novel did not seem to know each other at all when they first got to the Island. In fact the only relationship that had been developed before their arrival on the Island were the twins Sam and Eric. Another very big difference with the two was the language being used by the boys in the movie. They used Curse words a lot where as the boys in the book seemed far to innocent to do such a thing. Because of what I already knew about the Characters I found this quit amusing. Finally I would like to to talk about the boys them self. I mean who the hell was Tony that they spoke about in the movie, not one persons name was tony in the book. The descriptions that were given about each boy were not even similar to how they show have looked. One of the first lines in the book was talking about the Fair Boy Ralph, whom was very dark and did not look nearly as intimidating in the movie. I believe that the Director of this movie was trying to make a more recant version of this timeless Classic. He made changes in his version to make it seem more real and true to what would have happened only while doing this he lost control of what the book was really about. Lord of the Flies like I said was mainly about human nature and Government, the book was chalk full of symbolism and the director of the movie very much took that away.
Rating:
Summary: Lord of the Flaws
Review: This is less a review than it is a warning. This "Lord of the Flies" is a shabby version of the classic novel, shorn of all the original's power. The filmmakers made a crucial error in transforming the cast from English private schoolboys to American military schoolers- this enables the audience to comfortably distance themselves from the events by putting the onus of evil militarism on the boys. William Golding's novel was more about the universality of our evil impulses; therefore its message went much deeper. But this is typical of lazy Hollywood productions. Only the simplest ideas remain and only shallow beliefs can be tolerated. So here we have a "Lord of the Flies" as an indictment of militarism, rather than a harsh look at how easily even the most civilized among us can be reduced by our basic primativistic impulses to savagery. This is part of the human condition, an unfortunate one. Also missing is the novel's sequence where Christ-symbol Simon has his hallucinagenic conversation with the rotten pig's head and his subsequent epiphany. I suppose the filmmakers were too afraid of the metaphysical aspects of the story. So why bother to make it at all? It frightens me to think some well-meaning English lit teacher might be showing this to a class in some high school somewhere. The acting here is subpar, and its central failure to think things through or take the novel's hard lessons to heart results in a tacky, weak-kneed movie. Not worth the time. But if you must see a movie version of this book- check out the 1963 version. It's a bit crude and the acting varies wildly in quality but it remains the best and most faithful version.
Rating:
Summary: Weak as Water
Review: This is the second filming of a book almost universally hated by English students. Anyone who didn't like the book will have even less to like about this. This 1990s remake of "The Lord of the Flies" is a travesty of the original novel. Very little of William Golding's message (the fragile barrier that separates humanity from animalism) appears in the film. Apart from the title, the story is almost unrecognizable. I agree with other people about the "Hollywood" treatment of an English classic. It makes me wonder what Hollywood would do with a remake of "1984". Jean-Claude Van Damme as Winston Smith, perhaps? Sandra Bullock as Julia? The only really good thing about the film is the photography. The kids looked like savages behind the face paint, but the American accents were a distraction. One of the distinctive aspects about the novel was its "Englishness", and the obsession with hierarchy. The Peter Brook version was much better in that respect. If "Lord of the Flies" had to be remade, it should have been more faithful to the book by putting stronger emphasis on those things that made the book so disturbing: without the restraints of civilization, Man reverts to cruelty and barbarism. Children can totally heartless. These things are only just touched upon in the film. See Peter Brook's version instead. It's much better than this.
Rating:
Summary: Lord of the What-the-heck-was-the-director-thinking?
Review: One cannot criticize the cinematography of this move. It is, at times, lush, humid and tropically, oppressively beautiful. All of which are good things... ...but that's all I can say good about the film. Golding originally conceived "Lord of the Flies" as an xploration of Human nature, and how people are inheirently evil. To drive this point home, he took English school boys (some of whom were members of a church choir) crash landed them on an island during a wartime evacuation and said, "Have at it!" (metaphorically speaking). The book and indeed the 1963 movie version asks how if even children can become cruel and violent and evil with very little prompting, are humans as advanced as we like to think? Are we really all that different from animals? Readers/viewers are shocked to see how far such a small child can fall. Weeeeeeeeellllllll... This, the 1990 version of Lord of the Flies, puts American military students on an island during a conflict of some sort, so when the first blow is struck it's not all that surprising. This removes the impact of Golding's ideas, and this becomes another adventure story (of sorts. Like "The Hun Family Robinson"). Further, the "updated" material doesn't really work: the glo-sticks, kids talking about watching "ALF" on TV (which seriously dates this movie. I guess the screenwrighter thought ALF would be around forever. Another example of the narrowness of this version. It is already obsolete, while the book perseveres.), Simon having a vision of a stealth bomber, etc.. It's all a bit too uneven, too naive almost, but totally lacking in charm (if such a word can be used here). In essence, this is a visceral film that lacks guts. Nothing upsets me more than movies that violate the basic premise of a book ("The Handmaid's Tale" also comes screaming to mind), and this movie goes out of its way to be "different" but identifibe by its title. Really, this should have been called something else for as much as the story is like the book; perhaps "Ishtar" would be more appropriate. One weird editing glitch I noticed was an image of a sunrise - the viewer sees it from a cliff with a tree interveing the space. Well, that night at sunset we see the same tree, the same cliff, but reversed!! Like the sun rose and set in the same place in the sky and the tree had turned to meet it. It's very disconcerting. So, unless you're taking a class in comparative cinema, don't bother with this one. An, whatever happened to Balthazar Getty? I thought his name guaranteed his career longevity. Weird...
Rating:
Summary: horrified
Review: I was amazed to learn that this movie was shown to my 12 year old daughter, without my knowledge, in a school health class to illustrate pecking order. It cheapens the original and should definitely not be shown to children younger than 16 or 17. I would have given it no stars, but that wasn't an option.
| 
