Rating: 
Summary: A horrifyingly realistic movie
Review: I saw the 'new' version of the movie before I read the book, and I still haven't seen the 'old' movie. That doesn't stop me from wanting to say something about the Lord of the Flies, though! Personally, I prefer the movie to the book - I think the book is a little bit too preoccupied with what goes on inside a single person's head than with what is actually happening to the stranded boys. However, I think that comparing the book and the movie is meaningless, as they are so completely different. The movie has - as many have pointed out before me - excluded the part which in fact gave the book its title, so they can't really be seen to be the same story at all if you ask me. I think that seeing them as two individual tales is the key to make you enjoy both the book and the movie. The movie might have been better if it hadn't been 'Americanised', but if you use your imagination and ignore the Hollywood influence it's fine! The most important thing to me is that the message comes across, which I feel is the case in both the movie and the book. If you don't feel the chills running down your spine as you watch these 'innocent' school boys turn into murderers and savages, then I really don't know what to say! What scares me is that it is so painfully realistic - this could happen to any one of us, whether we like it or not! It doesn't matter whether you're an adult or a child, under the 'right' circumstances, anything can happen..... I'd recommend this movie to anyone that's willing to listen - it's a wake-up call you shouldn't miss!
Rating: 
Summary: Americanization
Review: the thing which really bothered me about this adaptation of William Golding's wonderfully cynical novel, was the fact that it was Americanized. what good is the story if the boys are American? One of the key symbols in the book was that the boys came from a very refined and proper society (England) and were then turned to savages by their experiences on the island. Only an American version of this story would have the boys rescued by an entire army.
Rating:
Summary: What a coincidence!
Review: What a coincidence to have a classic novel and a 1990's movie with the same name, same setting, same characters, and - on a *very* superficial level - the same plotline! Many reviewers of this video imply that the movie is actually based on the book, but such a notion renders this fun, fairly well-made film completely unentertaining, and that's a bummer . . .Seriously, the only way I could glean any enjoyment from this modern cinematic version of Golding's literary classic is to pretend, for a full 90 minutes, that the two are entirely unrelated. Otherwise, it stinks worse than a pig's head rotting in the sun. Why? Because, as many have already pointed out, the movie discards all but the shallowest layers of Golding's moral and symbolism in favor of yet more Hollywood flash and hype. The most important aspect of the story - the notion that, given the right ingredients (the most important by far being imagination-fed fear), even the most likely of civilizations will decay into violence and anarchy. At the heart of my criticism is "the most likely of civilizations", something which is completely lacking in this rendition. The book portrayed boys from what was perceived as the very height of civility: WWII era, privately schooled, British youth. These fine specimens of humanity seem most unlikely to revert to savagery under any circumstances, perhaps most especially among them the master of order and discipline himself, choir leader Jack Merridew. In the novel, it's quite shocking to watch the barbaric nature of these boys emerge. In the 1990 film, on the other hand, one all but *expects* that these modern, American, over-video-gamed, military school teens (or almost teens) will be pulverizing each other in short order. On the other hand, in all fairness, I understand the script-writers' desire to modernize this story - who nowadays is going to buy a ticket to see a movie about a bunch of British kids on an island 50 years ago? (I'm glad that some producers, like Spielberg, aren't quite so myopic!) Making the boys from a military school was actually a good effort toward making the viewer expect some order and discipline among the boys, but I think too many of us would expect a bit of violence from pupils of war. So, this mechanism just didn't do the trick. Oh, well, once I was able to separate the film from the book, I did enjoy it. The casting was really good, the cinematography was great, and the watered down story was nevertheless more engaging than almost any episode of "Friends". Next stop: Amazon's video catalog to purchase the 1960's film of "The Lord of the Flies". I suspect (and hope!) that I won't have to entirely forget the book to enjoy this one . . .
Rating: 
Summary: WAAY BETTER THAN THE BOOK OR OLD MOVIE
Review: I h8 when people try to compare a new movie with it's older version or book. Try judging the movie for what it was. I think a lot of the characters came across stronger than in the book. Simon's just a retard in the book. In this movie, we at least get the point he's got something to do. And Jack comes across better as a leader instead of just the one who likes hunting the most. And in the most noticeable case, the twins aren't just a couple of yes-men to everyone else when it comes to getting food or watching fire. Also better that they weren't just plain beaten into submission at the end of the book and actually do stand up to Jack in a way by lying about Ralph's hiding place. One part looked kinda corny tho. When Piggy had a boulder dropped on his head, it like bounced off. Rrrright.... Back to a few other things. I think that people who just spend the whole story or movie looking for the metaphorical meaning in everything need lives. I hate when authors do that. If Golding wanted to say something, he should have said it, no written an entire story and then buried the meaning in a pig's head. Movies are meant to entertain and enchant. This is the movie, no book (which sucked) As a movie, it does it's job.
Rating:
Summary: It's not like the book or the old one and that is good!
Review: People complain about how this movie isn't like the book and whatnot. So what? Stop trying to compare it. It's a different movie in itself. Few things about characters...I thought the whole pilot was sort of pointless. Also, I think Simon's dreams where a weee bit whacked out, maybe he hit his head harder that the pilot? Second, my favorite part is the assembly that got all in shambles at every funny comment hurled out of the crowd when they tried to decide what to do with theives and stuff. Also, minutes-seconds, prior to that scene was pretty funny as The Twins (never really named in the movie) buried three of the little kids like, 20 feet inland and refused to uproot them until they could spit waay out into the ocean. I think the twins turned out better in this film than in the book or old movie. They just sat around doing whatever anyone told them to do, in unison and they did that relay talking thing which got annoying. But in this, it's more realistic. If a bunch of kids were stranded on an island and two of them were twin brothers, they would gravitate toward one another and spend the most time together and that's exactly how it turned out which is a good touch
Rating: 
Summary: The Lord of the Flies
Review: I had just recently read the book, and I was amazed at how the 90s terribly derranged the story with much more gore. If you really want to see the right movie for this book, watch the older version filmed in Black and White to give the story that dark effect.
Rating: 
Summary: Modern Version of a Classic Misses the Point
Review: If you are looking for a recreation of one of the best modern classic novels, don't watch this video. This 1990s version is senselessly more violent and not as critical of our society. The characters are also much more shallow. However, if you can forget the book for 90 minutes, the story is entertaining and the setting is vivid.
Rating:
Summary: a sick but good movie
Review: this is the kind of movie you would watch over and over again. its really good but gorry. this is a perfect gift for the holidays.--matt tatti
Rating:
Summary: Nothing like the book
Review: This movie was terribly far off of the content of the book. All symbols in the book were ignored, the boys were American rather than British, and the time period seemed modern rather than post-WWII. Major symbolic events in the book were either left out or glossed over. In the book it seemed that the boys were there for several months, but this movie seemed to last only a couple weeks. There was also a lot of profanity. If you are wanting to buy this movie to show to students when they read the book--don't. It's not a good addition to the unit. Show the 1963 version instead.
Rating:
Summary: Does the director understand the concept of allegory?
Review: This movie was horrible, I would give it a 0 if I could, it surely doesn't deserve a 1. To begin with the boys were American, there was no separation of the boys who where and weren't in the choir, there was no surviving pilot, and most importantly all of the major metaphors where left out. Even the Lord of the Flies was entirely erased from the movie, the subject that the book is titled after has been left out! That's just totally unacceptable. The beast, which was just as important to the meaning of the book as the Lord of the Flies, was totally changed. The pilot (who shouldn't be there to begin with) was the beast and after the boys found him, that was it, the beast was gone. Imagine what Sir William Golding thought of it...
|
