Rating: 
Summary: Ok for what it is. It's just not the book.
Review: I saw this film many years ago and I enjoyed it because I was a teenager and liked Balthazar Getty. Typical, eh? I was prompted to read the novel, and found the story good but ultimately frightening, especially Simon talking with "the Lord of the Flies." I thought it was very weird that this was not in the film since I saw it as the most important part of the story.Balthazar Getty is so-so (this was his first film, I think) in his performance as Ralph, but the other actors (mostly unknowns who never appeared in any other films, with good reason) fell way short. I was however, still affected by some scenes after viewing the film on Bravo a few weeks ago. It had been years since I'd seen it, and nice to view it with a different perspective. I advise "baltysgirl" below to do the same. I understand the enthusiasm for the film, but this whole story is based on something far more profound than a guy's "pretty face." If you defend its flaws and excessive foul language etc. with that much gusto and also claim to be "balty's girl", it leads others to suspect you've missed the point. Be honest with yourself. If Balty wasn't in it, would you adore it that much? The best actor in the film I think was Badge Dale as Simon, but I am partial to the Simon character so I could be biased. I thought Chris Furrh (who was, strangely enough in a TV movie made just after this one called "Exile" -- about a group of young people stranded on a deserted island who eventually become savages complete with warpaint and spears) overacted his way through LOTF and seemed more annoying than evil. Piggy (Daniel somebody) was annoying as well. I agree with the other reviewer who said Piggy was too blubbery and all. I just didn't really feel like the actor believed HE was on this island with this action happening. He didn't seem genuine enough in his performance. When movies are made from books we know they won't be perfectly accurate, but to take out or change the parts of the story that make it a good story is just ridiculous, and that is what happened here. We lost the entire social commentary, we lost the depth of thought, and we lost the chance to look closer and walk away with something substantial. All we got was a couple of hours of nice scenery, pleasant music, and a bit of action. I must add that the last sequence was very well played out and Getty finally pulled out the talent we should have seen throughout the film.
Rating: 
Summary: Read the Book Instead
Review: A terrible adaptation of Golding's terrifyingly brilliant novel. Misses the entire point, and loses the whole appeal. Skip it.
Rating:
Summary: this [stinks]
Review: if anyone has read the book the lord of the flies, and enjoyed it so much they wanted to get this movie version: dont. most of the main important elements in the book have been lost, the boys private school innocense, their disability of not knowing what to do in the situation, even their nationality. beleive me, the book is much better. you dont feel the same impact as when you read the ending to when you watch it, the plot is too watered down, and the gradual build up of evil and fear is not as gradual. this movie is about as far away from the book as you can get, while still being somehow related. if your after an action movie to impress your kid, then it is a good choice, but if your are wanting it to study for an english course (where the book is often used) go with the 1963 version.
Rating:
Summary: Not the same as the book
Review: It just doesn't convey the deeper meaning of William Golding's novel Lord of the Flies. The use of the pilot as the "Beast" was one of the worst things. The Beast was supposed to have started gradually, elavating in form and terror. The other major difference that caught my eye was the fact that Simon never has his episode with "The Lord of the Flies", which, by the way, literally translates to "devil". This part of the story is the most symbolic, and deep part of the author's message. In closing, the acting was done well, but they should have stuck more to the book's actual scenes.
Rating: 
Summary: Amazing!
Review: I first saw this movie about a month ago on tv. As soon as I saw it, I fell in love with it. I cried when Simon was killed, and was shocked when Piggy was. The best part about this movie though, is Balthazar Getty who played Ralph. He's gorgeous, talented, and just truly amazing. I was in awe of him the whole time. I bought this movie on DVD a few days after I saw it. I've watched it countless times, and have made all my friends who came over watch it. lol I'm just like that I guess. I recommend this to anyone. And I don't get why a lot of people hated this movie. It was brilliant! And about the swearing, everybody does it ya know! My brother started swearing when he was 8. In my opinion, there's nothing wrong with some swearing. I have read some of the book, and although it doesn't seem much like the movie, so what? Why should we go comparing books to movies when we know their never going to be exactly the same?
Rating: 
Summary: Whoops!
Review: In a recent review I accidentally referred to Chris Furrh as playing Ralph in the 1990 version of Lord of the Flies. I meant to say he played Jack.
Rating:
Summary: Underrated and too often compared to the original!
Review: Okay, we've read the reviews where everyone takes pot-shots at this film, but in my opinion it is, overall, well done. The cinematography is great, the film score fits beautifully with the mood, especially the feverish scene with the boys reenacting a hunt around the fire which, as a result, leads to poor Simon's demise. The boys' chorus here fits perfectly! And the principal actors all do an admirable job. Even many of the 'extras'. Yes, the film has it's faults. Many of the secondary actors are only so-so,(but YOU try being a director working with 20+ young boys!) the reference to 'Alf' is ridiculous, ( not to mention dating the film. In the near future most folks won't know what the kid was talking about!)and some of the foul language was unnecessary. But taken for what it is, this is a good film.
This version is often compared negatively to the 1963 version. But I must STRONGLY disagree with Leonard Maltin. The actors in this film were, by and large, more convincing than those in the 1963 version. The principal characters in that version, Ralph, Piggy, and Simon were good. Ralph was tolerable. But Chris Fuhrr was much stronger and more convincing as Ralph than the boy in the original.
Both versions are good in their own right and I thoroughly enjoyed both. I'm just tired of seeing this one get a bad rap. No, it does not stick closely to the book, but then why should it? The 1963 version did that admirably. This is just another writer/director's take on the story! So those criticizing it on that level, give it a rest! Many films differ greatly from the original novels. Try both versions of Planet of the Apes! Neither version is recognizable as taken from the original novel.
So I applaud Harry Hook for having the courage and taking HIS vision of 'Lord of the Flies' and making this film. In my eyes it would have been a waste of time just to remake the original. It's been done!
Rating:
Summary: Deeply flawed; unfaithful to its source
Review: I saw the premiere of this film in 1990, writing a review for my college radio station. I had been fond of the novel in high school and had looked forward to what I had hoped would be an effective update of the true-to-the-text but somewhat shoddily produced 1963 version. While I was impressed with the rich color photography and Philippe Sarde musical score, and the story does get closer to the novel toward the end, there are serious thematic and character flaws in this "updated" version of Golding's classic. The only character that seems to be on-target is Badgett Dale's Simon, whose pensive look and gentle voice portray the character's spiritual, Christ-like qualities. Balthazar Getty's Ralph is appropriately noble, but his voice is too shrill to command the respect that he does in the novel. Where the film really trips up is in its portrayals of Jack (Chris Furrh) and Piggy (Danuel Pipoly). In the novel, Jack is a choirboy, top of his class, which lends great poignancy and irony to his transformation and descent into brutal demagoguery and bloodlust as he succumbs to his monstrous, overpowering id; here, he's presented as a juvenile delinquent, sent to military school for allegedly stealing a car, so he seems pre-disposed to this sort of behavior and his actions carry less resonance. Golding's Piggy, despite his physical limitations, is practical, logical and thoughtful, but also proud and defiant; he never once sheds a tear even as he is ridiculed, bullied, belittled, even physically assaulted by Jack and others. Pipoly portrays him here as a sanctimonious crybaby, preaching practicality in a whiny tone, quite unconvincingly, and blubbering like an infant when his glasses are broken; I actually heard audience members cheer when Roger dropped the rock on him. That the film misses the mark so widely on two of the tale's most important characters is unfortunate and really works to its detriment. The central flaw in the film, however, the crux of its literary shortcomings, is in its treatment of Golding's most powerful and important symbol: the "beastie" of which the boys are afraid almost from the very beginning. The beast is meant to symbolize both their fear, and the inherent illness in their own essential human nature. Golding accomplishes this by introducing the concept early on; in the novel's second chapter, after the boys' initial exploration of the island, one of the "littluns" asks about the "snake-thing," or "beastie," which he claims to have seen. None of the other boys have seen it, there is no evidence of any such creature, but many begin to believe in it and that belief contributes to the tensions, divisions and breakdown of order on the island. The twins' discovery of the dead parachutist, who falls from the sky in chapter six, merely fuels the belief and provides an object/manifestation of that fear. In the film, the boys arrive on the island with the pilot of their doomed aircraft (there were, of course, no adults in the novel), who spends most of his screen time moaning and writhing under a mosquito net before wandering off and disappearing. Later, about 45 minutes into the film, by which time the camps have already divided (and just as I was thinking to myself, "Hey, they haven't mentioned the beast yet,") one of the boys wanders into a cave and is attacked by something which all but the dimmest audience members instantly realize is the missing pilot, but which the boy believes is a "monster" and reports as such to the others. The key here is that in the novel, the beast came from the boys' own minds and existed in their own essential nature, contributing to their downfall; the film diminishes the beast's symbolic value with the too-convenient and contrived device of the adult pilot providing the impetus for their fear AFTER things had already started to go wrong. Simon's pivotal observation in the novel that "maybe the beast is only us" doesn't really apply here, as there is no mention of (or belief in) any sort of beast until after the boy sees it in the cave. All told, the 1963 version, despite its grainy black-and-white photography and shoddy sound editing, is vastly superior to this aesthetically impressive but thematically vacuous material. I think that modernizing and Americanizing this story diminishes its power and symbolism, and Golding's message is nearly lost in a sea of gratuitous profanity, modern (yet dated) pop-culture references, and contrived situations. Read the novel.
Rating:
Summary: wow it was 1990
Review: 11 years ago was the last time i saw this movie and i still remember it. Who could forget the part where he picks up the rock and..... bang. Its a good movie and im going straight out to get it. Some places its as low as 9.99.
Rating:
Summary: If I could have voted 0 stars, I would have
Review: I TRIED to watch this version of Golding's novel last night but didn't make it through the first forty minutes. It was disgustingly untrue to the theme, tone, or even plot, of the novel. I was previewing the film to show to a class of tenth graders after having read and studied the book, but I would not contaminate my classroom with it. I am very seldom offended by bad language, but this movie pushed me to my limit. I guess I understand the motivation of having the boys "test the waters" and emit every vulgarity known to man, but it just became too tiresome and ridiculous. The inconsistencies just became too much to bear, and I had to turn it off before I became physically ill. If the director/producer had wanted to make an adventure story with beautiful cinematography and a shallow plot, that would have been his perogative, but to blaspheme the name of this masterpiece of a novel is truly a crime. I will purchase a copy of the 1963 version with my own money to show in class rather than rent this easier-to-find "version."
|
