Rating: 
Summary: A Bit Rushed, A Few Omissions, But Overall Very Good
Review: "The Lord of the Flies" tells the tale of a group of English schoolboys stranded on a tropical island, with no adults, after a plane crash, while war rages on worldwide. The boys, ages 5 or 6 through 12 or 13, have food, water, and a pleasant climate. Their only challenges are to fight boredom and stay civilized until they are rescued.I saw this videotape for the first time only a few weeks after reading the book for the first time. To me, the film was a little rushed, and there were a few important omissions, but it was still quite faithful to the brilliantly disturbing novel. The picture quality was a bit grainy, and the dialogue of a few of the child actors was a bit stilted at times, but Jack, Ralph, Piggy, and Simon were portrayed very well. The dialogue is hard to hear at times, against the sounds of surf and jungle, but I wonder if that was intentional and symbolic (i.e., the words of civilization struggling to rise above the roar of primitive Nature). The important omissions were: Ralph's gradually increasing difficulty with thinking things through and needing more and more help from Piggy; Ralph's encounter with "The Lord of the Flies" in his mad dash for survival; the disappearance of the never-named boy with the birthmark, in the very beginning, which, in the novel, set off the fears and wild imaginings of the boys. The whole movie had a rushed pace to it, as if the producer and/or director had been given a tight budget. Overall, I found this to be a good rendering of an excellent novel. I have never seen the remake, but have heard it's shallower.
Rating: 
Summary: "Buy the 1990 verson instead"
Review: "That's it; That's all there is to it. The American verson 1990 is far and away. "A Better Movie"
Rating:
Summary: A Bit Rushed, A Few Omissions, But Overall Very Good
Review: "The Lord of the Flies" tells the tale of a group of English schoolboys stranded on a tropical island, with no adults, after a plane crash, while war rages on worldwide. The boys, ages 5 or 6 through 12 or 13, have food, water, and a pleasant climate. Their only challenges are to fight boredom and stay civilized until they are rescued. I saw this videotape for the first time only a few weeks after reading the book for the first time. To me, the film was a little rushed, and there were a few important omissions, but it was still quite faithful to the brilliantly disturbing novel. The picture quality was a bit grainy, and the dialogue of a few of the child actors was a bit stilted at times, but Jack, Ralph, Piggy, and Simon were portrayed very well. The dialogue is hard to hear at times, against the sounds of surf and jungle, but I wonder if that was intentional and symbolic (i.e., the words of civilization struggling to rise above the roar of primitive Nature). The important omissions were: Ralph's gradually increasing difficulty with thinking things through and needing more and more help from Piggy; Ralph's encounter with "The Lord of the Flies" in his mad dash for survival; the disappearance of the never-named boy with the birthmark, in the very beginning, which, in the novel, set off the fears and wild imaginings of the boys. The whole movie had a rushed pace to it, as if the producer and/or director had been given a tight budget. Overall, I found this to be a good rendering of an excellent novel. I have never seen the remake, but have heard it's shallower.
Rating:
Summary: A Bit Rushed, A Few Omissions, But Overall Very Good
Review: "The Lord of the Flies" tells the tale of a group of English schoolboys stranded on a tropical island, with no adults, after a plane crash, while war rages on worldwide. The boys, ages 5 or 6 through 12 or 13, have food, water, and a pleasant climate. Their only challenges are to fight boredom and stay civilized until they are rescued. I saw this videotape for the first time only a few weeks after reading the book for the first time. To me, the film was a little rushed, and there were a few important omissions, but it was still quite faithful to the brilliantly disturbing novel. The picture quality was a bit grainy, and the dialogue of a few of the child actors was a bit stilted at times, but Jack, Ralph, Piggy, and Simon were portrayed very well. The dialogue is hard to hear at times, against the sounds of surf and jungle, but I wonder if that was intentional and symbolic (i.e., the words of civilization struggling to rise above the roar of primitive Nature). The important omissions were: Ralph's gradually increasing difficulty with thinking things through and needing more and more help from Piggy; Ralph's encounter with "The Lord of the Flies" in his mad dash for survival; the disappearance of the never-named boy with the birthmark, in the very beginning, which, in the novel, set off the fears and wild imaginings of the boys. The whole movie had a rushed pace to it, as if the producer and/or director had been given a tight budget. Overall, I found this to be a good rendering of an excellent novel. I have never seen the remake, but have heard it's shallower.
Rating:
Summary: Good, but not for those who dwell.
Review: A classic book as well as a classic film. The film technique is great as is the lighting. This film is one that will make you immediatley think "why did I watch that". Disturbing in a subtle yet deep way. Leaves one with an "ick" feeling. But there is a lesson to be learned in the tale of the lost boys.
Rating: 
Summary: bellissimo!!!!
Review: a wonderful film, one of the best film of the last century.
Rating: 
Summary: A poor adaptation but good as far as films go
Review: After reading this book in English Class I loved it. The book is in my opinion one of the best ever, and when I saw this film I felt that it did the book, and everything it says, a great disservice. The main problem with it is that so much is missing. This is perhaps necessary to fit it into two hours, but I think that in cutting it, it looses its moral message to the extent that the film was not worth making. Aulthough there is some excellent use of imigary and some scenes did represent the book very well, (As in the choir walking along the beach scene), the film misses the point. I'm sure that Aubrey fully understood its tragedy and purpose, but he failed to communicate what Lord of the Flies really means. The film focuses on the aspect of the book which tells us that if uncontrolled, children descend into barbarity extremly quickly, this was not the main point of what Golding says. I think the main point of the book is to say that humans are essentialy floored and that evil is intrinsic to human nature. That man is never more than two words away from war. The film is incapable of working on the number of levels that the book does and does a great disservice to the character of Simon. In the scene where Simon is attacked and killed, he screams and appears rather pathetic. This scene in the book, is supposed to parody Christ's crucifixtion yet the film does not give this impression. Aulthough the boys are represented down to a tee, Simon, aulthough well acted, is misinterprited and fails to have the impact he did have in the book. In conclusion this film is probably worth seeing, but I plead with you to read the book first because I don't think it will have the same impact if you have had the imigary decided for you by the film.
Rating: 
Summary: Where did the swearing go!!!
Review: Although William is a genius, the director of the movie stinks. They even let a 12 year-old kid say "*%$& you!" or "Bull@#%&". Well, these does not shown in the book anyway. If you think that's cool, spend some time on praying to God instead. Really.
Rating:
Summary: if only the state of nature
Review: an insightful visionary travel back into the state of nature. What are our real values, and how strong are we to defend them?
Rating:
Summary: Hmmm.....
Review: First things first: William Golding's _Lord of the Flies_ is one of the best novels I've ever read. It is suspenseful, terrifying, disturbing, brilliantly symbolistic, and deeply moving--all at the same time. The book gets 5/5 stars, no question about it. Now for the 1963 movie: Well, for the most part the acting is decent (Ralph and Simon are especially good) and the scenery depicts images from the book well. (I love the scene with the choir boys walking on the beach in their costumes!) Unfortunately, this movie is just too rushed in its storytelling and too short to have the same lasting effect as the book. The movie kind of zipped through the first half of the book within 20 minutes, and the characters weren't given enough solo screen time, so their personalities don't really shine like they did in the book. (For example, Roger is taken as a very minor character except when he suddenly killed Piggy, so I didn't really feel that he was representing all that is evil in human nature.) I also never really felt the rivalry building up between Jack and Ralph in the movie, since there weren't really enough examples of it. (For example: Before Jack became a savage, there was only the one scene in which Jack argues with Ralph and says "Bollocks to the rules!" He then became a savage soon after. I would have liked to see more arguments between Jack and Ralph before Jack went ahead in becoming a savage.) And the name "Lord of the Flies" is never explained or even mentioned during the entire film (except when it is displayed during the opening and closing credits, of course). This is probably one of the most important examples of symbolism in the entire book! Finally there's the ending, which doesn't include the scene painted by the last two paragraphs. These lines are, IMHO, the most powerful in the book. I was expecting a scene to go with these lines, one that would really hit home. Instead the movie just ends when the officer appears. I suppose I'll give the movie 3 out of 5.
|
