Rating: 
Summary: A bad try!
Review: The 1990 version of "Lord of the Flies" was a terrible recreation of the 1963 version. The 1990 version although made to fit modern times, was terrible. I feel that too many little things in the movie were changed, changing the feel the original "Lord of the Flies" gives you. While I watched the 1990 version all I could do was laugh. The characters in the 1990 version,ran around acting like idiots, and cursed alot, all the cursing and no character development took away from the meaning of the film. The 1990 version was so untrue to the novel.
Rating: 
Summary: Lord of the BEST
Review: The DVD of Lord of the Flies is one of the greatest DVD i have ever seen. However, i was wondering why there were some scenes that were in the book and did not appear. The Extras of the DVD overpass those of the Matrix by far, and one does not have to reade the book before seeing the DVD. Alltogether, a great and excellent movie, very emotional, with a powerful meaning to it.
Rating:
Summary: yes
Review: this 1960's version is my most favourite movie in the world, especially as the boys weren't real actors; they portrayed their characters very well.
Rating:
Summary: Still the best 'survivor' story (1963 version).
Review: This 1963 version of Golding's Nobel prize winning novel has stood the test of time, and comes through with flying colours. It has been widely acknowledged as capturing the great depth and substance of the highly acclaimed book. Definitely one for your movie collection, to keep for years to come.The story is simple yet profound. An airplane with a group of schoolboys crash lands on a beautiful remote tropical island, with the only survivors not more than 10 or so years old, and some as young as 4 or 5. Nobody knows exactly where they are, so their chance of rescue whilst real, but not great. They have to find food, shelter, a level of organisation, and direction. Simple, or is it? What do young people really think about, away form their teachers and parents? How would they cope with such a situation? What kind of things can go wrong in such an environment? There are no TV viewer's voting system, no edited TV shows, just Nature and young, vibrant children. What do you think would happen in such a situation? Would they all behave, or would they fight each other? How would they cope with such simple things as feeding themselves, and organising their priorities? Would the older boys bully the younger, and what would they do to try to deal with this? You'll have to see the film for yourself to find out. The film touches on notions of religion, fear, superstition, government, science, knowledge, and tribalism- to mention just a few. Chance and accident play a large part in the development of the story. Golding wrote the book on which this movie is based, in one sense as a parody of the book "the Coral Island", which describes a somewhat different set of outcomes as to what would transpire in such a situation. Interested viewers/readers might like to research the latter for alternative notions regarding human nature and co-operation. The film is to say the least, very well done. The characters are very true to the book (and life), the images and scenery exquisite, the film's direction simple on the surface, but delicately contrived.
Rating: 
Summary: Fans, rejoice - a wicked good version!
Review: This disturbing, scary movie version of the classic novel about English boys stranded on an island after a war - and their descent into moral darkness - is just about as good as one could hope for. To start with, the casting is great. From the first time you see each of the principals and hear them speak, you want to nod. When the choir first arrives, singing a Kyrie that slowly fades in and ends in a trumpet fanfare as they reach the other boys, it gives you chills. Lord have Mercy, indeed, those who know what's coming will think. We're on the right track. The film is remarkably faithful to the story, including many of the little moments that subtly define the characters. The buildup is just right, including Ralph's increasing desperation as he tries to hold the boys together and the gradual change in Jack. When the most horrendous moment of the story arrives - I don't want to give it away but those who read the book will know what I mean - it's almost unbearable to watch. There's no merciful tact here to let viewers off the hook. You're forced to deal with exactly what's happening and the irony of who, out of all the boys, it's happening to. I will note, though, that Simon's notorious interview with the title character (a scene that admittedly must give directors everywhere nightmares at the mere thought of trying to film it) is not heard, which might leave you a little puzzled and missing an important part of the story if you haven't read it. This version suffers much, much less than it's remake from the omission, however, and can pretty much get away with it. All in all, highly recommended.
Rating:
Summary: Badly portrayed Goldings intentions
Review: This film was a slap in the face towards William Golding. The fact that crutial scenes were intentionally left out, lowered the quality and over-all feel of the story. By watching this movie alone the audience does not get the true sence of the savageness and chaos that the boys faced on the island. The book was an excellent example of great literary achievement, this movie makes it seem like joke.
Rating:
Summary: Hidden behind the symbolism...
Review: This is (was) a film draped in rich symbolism: there is enough sociology, political science, and even theology to satisfy almost any Bostonion. Yet to me when I saw it as a child, it was first a film about nudity: about social nudity amongst boys. In this film boys splash, run on the beach, and even spank one another while laughing and peeking with curiosity. If that all sounds exploitational, this is surely not new, nor does it invalidate the other "higher" levels of appreciation. Plenty of Italian artists were dislaying nudity in the 1600's, and pointedly ignoring it. With enough angst, demons ("Lord of the Flies" is Beelzebub), and Biblical allusions for Michelangelo, this is a great old classic.
Rating:
Summary: A great movie, a fantastic DVD.
Review: This is a thinker's film. If you like movies to sweep you away in a safe adventurous fantasy, get something else. Enjoying this film is contingent upon thinking about it. Like the book, it provokes, and you, being the subject matter, may not like being addressed in such a way. Whether ir not it lives up to the book is a whole other question. I think it is wonderful in its own right, and that it does a great job of bringing Golding's story to the screen. Whatever. As a DVD, this Criterion Collection edition is practically unsurpassed. I buy very few DVDs because they are expensive and I see this new medium as an opportunity to build a truly great movie collection. One afternoon I was discussing with some friends what movies we would buy on DVD. I immediately suggested "The original 'Lord of the Flies'. But they won't release it. And if they do it will be a crappy transfer. And there won't be any extras." Oh, how wrong I was! The sound and picture transfers are incredible - the film is better than I've ever seen it. And the extras are amazing! The commentary is completely satisfying from a filmmaker's point of view, and likewise a philosopher's interest. The story of the making of the film is worth the purchase in itself. There's tons of stuff to watch and listen to. It's great. It's totally worth the price. I thought that "The Matrix" was a great value as a DVD (in terms of extras), but this matches it and means a lot more. "Buy it!", I say!
Rating:
Summary: Evil lurks in the hearts of marooned boys
Review: This is the 1960's movie of the Nobel Prizewinning novel by William Golding. Filmed near Puerto Rico in black and white, it faithfully reflects the novel's themes of good and evil. A group of young British schoolboys are marooned on a tropical island during a future nuclear war. There are no adults with the boys, none of whom is over 13 years old. So the boys attempt to form a society, based on their school's rules and what little they know of adult rules of behaviour. One boy is the good one, Ralph, who attempts to form a democratic society. His nemesis is Jack, who's the party type. He forms a rival group of hunters, who are not interested in getting rescued. Eventually the groups split, leaving sensible Ralph isolated. The theme here is that the boys prefer the excitement of the hunter over that of an organized group. Then the hunter group rapidly disintegrates into savagery, all pretense of civilization falls away. At the horrific climax, the boys kill Simon in a savage attack and set the island on fire. Golding handles his themes very well. Good and evil. How thin is the line between civilization and savagery. How anarchy so easily triumphs over organization. Despair that doing one's best is not enough. Friendship, loyalty and betrayal. It is easy to see why this novel is so frequently set as high school study material. The themes are timeless and reveal more and more nuances with repeated study. See also 1992 movie version of this novel, in an Americanized and inferior version. END
Rating:
Summary: Are we humans really THAT bad???
Review: This movie is a very skillful presentation of William Golding's eponymous, timeless sociological horror story. A group of boys ranging from around 6 to, I would guesstimate, 14 or 15, are stranded on a desert island. Unfortunately for the boys, the general spirit of their story parts ways with the spirit of "Gilligan's Island" immediately, and they end up deteriorating into tribal, superstitious savages, rent with internecine strife, in a matter of (evidently) weeks. Any viewer out there who plans to see this movie should absolutely make an effort to read the book. You could possibly see the movie first, if you digest storylines more easily through movies than books. But whatever order you carry out the two activities in, you must see the movie AND read the book, if you want a full understanding of what the director was doing here. Here are a few good things to notice. First of all, you should be aware that this film was shot mostly on the islet of Vieques, off the coast of Puerto Rico. It's hard to believe that this is true, because it's just so perfect -- Vieques is the island where the U.S. Navy practices bombing these days, and protesters against war have been getting into all kinds of clashes with the authorities the past few months (spring and summer of 2001). Maybe "Lord of the Flies" was more prophetic than the director, actors and writers ever even realized. A second thing to notice is the song that is constantly playing, throughout most of the movie. The song is "Kyrie Eleison." At first Jack's choir sings it, and then it sort of becomes general background music. If you happen not to be particularly into going to church, let me just clue you in that "kyrie eleison" is Greek for "Lord have mercy," which I think you'll agree is a chillingly apt refrain for this relentlessly dark movie. A third good thing to notice is the little boy, who progressively loses his memory of his own identity, over the course of the film. At first, he automatically recites his full name, address and phone number to any stranger he meets, as he was apparently taught to do by his parents. Midway through the film, he can remember only his name, and part of his address. By the end, not to spoil the ending by giving too much away, he cannot even recollect his name. "How quickly," one envisions William Golding bemoaning, "we forget!" But I'm just pointing out a few minor things to notice. The basic theme is obviously the clash between savagery and civilization, and the tendency for things to fall apart, for the center not to hold... George Washington himself used to say that the job of government has to do with Fear -- instilling it in possible malefactors, in enemies of the state, even in respected members of the community, just to keep everyone in line. This movie makes you think about what might happen if that force were removed from society as a whole. If the function of art is to raise awareness of painful truths, as this movie does, then the individual must be sure to bring things other than art into their lives, in order to raise awareness of kinder truths which are no less valid, no less serious, and no less important for being kind. That's what I think anyway. This is an interesting movie, and it will really make you think. Two thumbs up.
|
