Lord of the Flies

Rating:
Summary: Lord of the Americanised Flies
Review: I read the novel three times in my life. Once when I was about ten, then in high school, then again as an adult. When I was ten I saw it as more an adventure story. When in high school, it was more the battle over good and evil. As an adult I read it and saw it as how man(not boys) are truly towards eachother.

Then I saw the movies(both) Even though the first movie had its flaws(Simon seeing the pig head as the lord of the flies, but in the movie the skull never seems to speek to him as it does in the book) it was a better representation of the novel.

In the American version when the boys are dancing around the fire as little savages the main detractor is what they are wearing...Boys underwear with cartoons and pictures. It made it more humorous than shocking. (humorous because many parents let thier young sons at this age walk around home in this 'form' of dress) It would have been better if they just had their wornout and ripped pants. This would have shown thier fall into savagary better, like the first movie did. The main reason is it shows they are growing out of what they had known and it is wearing and tearing away.

The Rivalry between Ralph and Jack is very different, they seem to agree too much then split apart too quickly.....no build up to the separation of the boys

The character of Simon in this version was only a very minor part. Even though the book has him learning who the real 'Beast' is.......them.

As is usual for a novel turned Movie.....READ THE BOOK

Rating:
Summary: Lord of the Flies, not living up to the book
Review: The book, in my opinion was the only book that I truly said 'wow' as I read it. Truly scary, emotional, and exciting, Lord of the Flies was an amazing book. So, as you think..we all waited for this movie to come out.

Cons/Mistakes:
The movie was set like 50 years after the book
Simon wasen't a main chareter
Piggy's death was stupid
Dreams confused me
I hated that Pilot!
The Pilot was the beast, not their own insanity.
Piggy was more of a retard than a genuis
Many more small things, Simon's talk with the Lord of the Flies was completely cut out.

Pros:
Jack's actor was played very well
The movie and flow is OK
The ending scene in the woods and the rescue I thought was done really, really good
Ralph's acotor was played very well
The actors who played Samneric were very good.

More mistakes than praise, but this was an OK version. Haven't seen the 60s version, but'll see it soon.

Rating:
Summary: Horrible Adaptation
Review: I was really looking forward to this movie simply because the book was amazing. Was I ever wrong. This has to be the worst acting I have ever seen in a movie. I felt like I was watching a play. The plot was also non-relevent since it only lightly touched on the main points it needed to keep the story going. Then to top it all off, it's not ships in the distance, but helicopters? A truly classic novel. The movie? You'd be better off watching a junior high play based on the novel.

Rating:
Summary: as good as it can get
Review: the movie was very different from the book, sort of americanized, yet i do not think you can make a movie version of lord of the flies much better than this. even though it was extremely different from the book, it still brought across the same point.

Rating:
Summary: This Film is absaloute Nonsense!!!!!
Review: The 1960s film version of this great book almost looks good when compared to this practical joke. This film is truly dreadful in every aspect. Any sort of statement that Golding made in the novel is way over the heads of everyone involved with this film. If they understood it, then it would not have been butchered in the way that it has been with this piece of dirt. First off, the whole military academy thing, the book is about the loss of innocence and the tragedy of man's heart. If the boys are already involved in conflict situations why put them on an island to see how they react to it? Simon was appaulingly portraid, by an ugly child. Given that he was supposed to be a christ like redeemer, this film has obviously missed the point that Simon made in the book. He is an insight into man's real self, but in this says nothing and does nothing. His death is not significant because the feeling was not built up that he was the saviour, and his death is supposed to convey a feeling of despiration. Don't watch this film, it's rubbish, if you want to see a film version of this chilling and tragic book, them watch the 60s version, but never ever ever watch this bucket of sick. Read the book, and be enlightened. They should have made a film about another book, instead of trivializing the most important novel of the twentieth century in this shallow adaptation. William golding must be revolving in his grave very fast indeed at this stain on the name of "Lord of the Flies"

Rating:
Summary: An unfortunate misrepresentation of a classic novel
Review: After reading the book for English class, the teacher sat us down to watch the film version of the novel. We watched the 1990's version. Although I haven't seen the 1960's one, it probably would have been a better choice. Granted, the movie is gorgeously filmed. The island the boys inhabit is rich in color and vegetation. But of course, looks alone do not make a film. It must have some substance. Perhaps having read the book and rather enjoying it, I have a biased opinion but this film didn't seem to have much to do with the book except share a title, main idea and some character names. Sara Schiff should be ashamed for butchering the tale. Trying to modernize the story may have seemed like a good idea, but it wasn't, it really wasn't. Since the boys are no longer British and no longer living during the WWII era (one mentions 'Alf', seriously folks) and since they are American children who have grown up on video games and now curse like sailors, it is easier to believe that they would revert to savagery. The screenplay has also conviently added an adult on the island and also completely removed the entire scene with Simon and the Lord of the Flies. The young actors cannot be accused of bad acting since almost none of the characters are developed enough to really act. Ralph was watered down, Piggy reminded me of a young Drew Carey. The only characters I had strong feelings for were Jack (hated him) and Simon (loved him). It's just kind of a shame. My advice to you is read the book definately, don't even think about renting it without having read it. If you're interested though, by all means rent it. It's not a horrible film in general, it's just a bad adaptation.

Rating:
Summary: An incredible movie from start to finish
Review: Lord of the Flies is a movie about the test of man and nature.Though sometimes this film reminded me alot of the Tom Hanks film castaway.Lord of the flies is a way more intersting film.It at times can be hard to watch with it's violent content and an excesive use of language.Lord of the flies is an action- packed thrill ride.The actors who portrayed ralph and piggy did an extroadanary job.This is a film that I think the Academy awards should have given a few nods like for Best Actor,Best Supporting Actor,Best Adapted Screenplay,Best Sound,Best editing and so on.Lord of the Flies is an excellent book and it's a vividly imaginative film.

Rating:
Summary: awesome movie!
Review: I've read the book 3 times, but i've watched the movie even more. Even though it was nothing like the book, it turned out awesome! The best part is that Balthazar Getty played Ralph, and i thought Gary Rule did a good Roger. Chris Furrh looks like the guy who played Malfoy in Harry Potter, and made me really hate Jack. I liked Badget Dale as Simon. I don't see what's so bad about it not being like the book, in other words, i loved it and i think every one else should too.

Rating:
Summary: Rezet is correct, this is AWFUL!
Review: I love the book. I've read it many times. However, I see VERY little of the book in this movie. It just never grabbed my attention, much less hold my interest.

Read the book. Avoid this movie, unless you have a feebie card from Blockbuster Video or somewhere.

Rating:
Summary: What the hell does this movie has to do with the book!?
Review: I don't know what director and producer of this movie were smoking while making this movie. It has basically almost nothing to do with the book. It's like totally different story that is alot worse too. Not to mention that acting in the movie was pretty bad too. The only good acting was from a kid who played "Piggy". The way he playes and looks is very close to how it was described in the book.
You should stay away from movie as far possible. Read the book, or watch 1963 version of the movie - it's alot better.