|Page 1 of 13:||          |
|Index||129 reviews in total|
I've read the book so many times and after seeing the first 1963 adaptation of the movie I admit I was a little let down. I was surprised they didn't put in the Simon scene (which is probably one of the most important scenes in the book) and a lot of other important things they missed out on. But then, once I found out there was another version of the movie I quickly rented it. But let me tell you something; This is movie is much worse than the first one, and does an awful job of telling the storyline. Although the boys were very adorable (I'll admit that)that still didn't make up for the bad acting job they did. Plus, I was really confused on why the director chose to make a nonexistent captain the most important symbol in the book. Why he did that is beyond me. So anyways, my point is, if your looking for a good movie based on the book, you should probably just stick to the first one, and don't waste your money on renting/buying this movie.
Sorry folks, the 1963, low budget, English black & white version is much better. Hollywood can never leave a good story alone. On occasion they can do it better, sometimes on par , usually they blow it. This version blows. I give it 3 stars out of 10 for production value and some good casting, but it wasn't enough to save it. Rent the 1963 version or better yet read the book.
After a plane crash in the ocean, a group of military students reach an
island. The boy Ralph (Balthazar Getty) organizes the other kids,
assigning responsibilities for each one. When the rebel Jack Merridew
(Chris Furrh) neglects the fire camp and they lose the chance to be
seen by a helicopter, the group split under the leadership of Jack.
While Ralph rationalizes the survival procedures, Jack returns to the
primitivism, using the fear for the unknown (in a metaphor to the
religion) and hunger to control the other boys. His group starts
hunting and chasing pigs, stealing the possession of Ralph's group and
even killing people.
I found this impressive movie very scary, since it shows the behavior of children (and human beings) fighting to survive in a society without perspective and rules. My immediate association was with my and other Third World countries, where many children are abandoned by the Government in their poor communities, and without education, perspectives in life and laws, become very young criminals working in gangs of drug dealers and thieves. In this movie, it is exposed how primitive a kid can be without the authority and respect, and this sort of violence is in the headlines of our newspapers almost every day. There are many discussions presently in Brazil about juvenile criminality. I have never the chance of reading this visionary novel; therefore I can not comment is it is a good or a bad adaptation, but I found this movie a frightening study of characters and sociology. My vote is eight.
Title (Brazil): "O Senhor das Moscas" ("The Lord of the Flies")
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
I read the book a couple of years ago, and found it to be very dark but not by any means boring. Now, we are studying it, and our teacher brought both movies for us to watch. Unfortunately, we watched this one first. Right after the first scene, I knew that this movie would be terrible. None of the actors fit their description, and every single one of them cannot act; not that the script helps. Eery scene is rushed and senseless - I cannot imagine how anyone who has not read the book can understand what's going on. Then there is the fact that they swear. A lot. Believe me, I have nothing against swearing, but the whole point of the book was that these were more or less polite, normal, *British* boys, who turned into monsters in a very short period of time. Here they were so bossy and arrogant already, that it was hard to tell the difference. Jack was made into some sort of "bad guy" who "steals cars", robbing him of any sort of dignity that he retained in the book even after his descent into monstrosity. Piggy... Piggy had a high, whiny voice, and the sight of him slobbering over his broken glasses was enough to make me sick: another good character wasted. The Piggy in the book, at least, was not stupid. And the scene of his death lacked the horror and the suspense of the book. It is funny how only a few written words can contain more emotion than a five-minute movie scene. Simon's character was also ruined; the most awesome scene in the book was simply not there. Why? And what is with the pilot? His presence took the place of the beast - not a good replacement. The beast itself was barely mentioned. There were two scenes which I somewhat enjoyed - Simon's body floating in the water (not the scene of his death), and the chasing of Ralph through the burning forest - both these scenes take less than a minute. This movie is not worth watching. I suggest you don't.
I watched this movie during my English Class a few weeks back, and I have to say, it was rather disappointing. I loved the book, the story was very interesting, unlike anything I've ever read. When we watched the movie, I knew it would be different, but I didn't think it would be THIS different. The story almost completely changes, nothing but the bear bones of the book are left, and it made me sort of angry. It was cartoonish, and lacked any symbolism whatsoever. The book was great because of it, and here it lacks something. I feel that someone who hasn't read the book will laugh, they probably wouldn't understand what is going on. So much of the plot was taken out. The acting is okay though, Balthazar Getty does a good job as Ralph. Despite the boys being American here, he reminded me of the Ralph in the book.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
When I was in 10th grade, I read the novel Lord of the Flies in English
class, and right after that, we watched this movie. I really loved the
novel so I was excited about seeing the movie.
The novel Lord of the Flies is very provocative. While it stands as one of the greatest novels of the 20th century, it also stands as one of the most controversial and frequently banned novels of the century. For a novel of that much greatness, it is hard for a movie to do it any justice.
Part of the reason for why Lord of the Flies is a classic and is still read today is because of its theme, which involves kids killing each other. There has always been a sensation and terror about that kind of theme. This movie tries to catch that theme, while it succeeds at being a disturbing movie, it fails at living up to the novel. There is also a lot of symbolism in the novel that isn't really present in the movie as well.
The directing in this movie isn't done very well. The beginning of the movie just kind of opens up and never really gives you much background. As the movie goes along, there isn't much of a flow to it. The book had a great flow which kept the story moving, but the movie was pretty choppy, and as you watch it, you don't think the director even cared about keeping the flow of the novel.
The child actors aren't much better. The kid who played Ralph was good, as well as the kid who played Jack. The kid who played Piggy was pretty good, but not quite up to par with the other two that I mentioned. The kid who played Piggy fits the description pretty well, and I kind of feel bad for him because his performance in the movie sort of affects how people look at him as a person. All of the other kids in this movie didn't do very well at all.
One of the key elements in the novel is done very poorly in the movie. In the novel there is a scene where the kid Simon sees a pig's head on a stick and has a conversation with it. In the movie all that happens is Simon looks at the pig's head and you see a flash of lightning. The director sure expects a heck of a lot out of the audience if he wants them to believe the kid is having a conversation. Another key scene from the novel, Piggy's death, was also done very poorly in the movie. In the novel it was shocking and depressing. In the movie it is depressing that he dies, but the scene looked pretty fake. There are also a few random things that were put into the movie and had not much impact on the story, like the glow stick, and the pilot who survives the crash, unlike the novel.
A couple of scenes in the movie are done pretty well. There is one scene where the kids are all gathering around the fire at night and are reenacting a hunt that took place. This scene is done pretty well, but the real key to that scene is the score in the background. The score is pretty good and helps guide the movie at times. At the very end, when the kids see the marine standing on the beach and they realize what they had done, the director did pretty well at showing the kids' emotions over what had gone on at the island. Unfortunately, the ending is very sudden and is over before you would expect it to be.
I loved the novel, but I have very mixed feelings about the movie. There are plenty of things in the movie that you will be disappointed by, but there are also some redeeming factors. It is worth watching once, but only if you have read the book. If you haven't read it, this movie will ruin it for you, so read the book first and then see the movie.
I love this movie and I don't know why so many people bag it.I have seen it several times and I actually own a copy.I must confess though that I have never read the novel or seen the original 1963 version.People who have read the novel have said that they found the movie disappointing.Movies are never as good as books.There are always different interpretations in movies and it is sometimes very hard to convey certain elements of a story in a book in a film.Several people have said they thought the acting was terrible.I thought the two lead actors Balthazar Getty(Ralph) and Chris Furrhr(Jack)were excellent and they both played their parts really well.Balthazar Getty is a great actor who I think is very underrated.Okay so they replaced the British kids from the novel with American kids.So what who cares.Its still a great story and the whole point and theme of the story which is to show how children unsupervised by adults can turn into savages and become uncivilized is still there.Also since when was swearing uncivilized?I noticed one reviewer commented on the fact that there was a lot of swearing and that the idea was that the kids were supposed to be polite and civilized before they became uncivilized.If swearing is uncivilized then we must all be because we all do it from time to time.There was not a lot of swearing anyway it was only occasionally.I have certainly seen and heard a lot worse.Get over it.I thought the cinematography was great too.If you like stories involving people stranded on a deserted island as I do then I recommend that you check it out.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Though this movie could of been better in many areas it still fit into
what Author William Golding was going for.
The transformation of the language in the movie is just to keep up with the time. Does any one believe this movie would gain any respect in this day and age if 9-12 year old children were going "Wizard!, Wacco!, Doink!." (Actual quotation from point when they are excited). No of course not (By the way 9-12 year olds enjoy swearing more than any other age group). I know personally I would be laughing all the way through the entire movie, which would not portray the decay of mankind to politely. So, yes they came onto the Island swearing. But if you remember Jack was never innocent. Though he was eviler at certain points, he always had the evil side.
I believe other than the fact they were missing Simon's epileptic episode, the movie was a fine representative of the book. The beastie though clearly not a dead parachuter like in the book, still provided the same role as in the book. That is a source of false power to Jack.
Though the movie was a bit of a modern adaptation it still provided the same dark and hopeless feel of the book. I personally loved the book, the movie changed a few important events that I feel should of been left in. Either way the movie painted many of the scenes exactly how I imagined them and for that I give them credit. I just hope that if they make a modern adaptation they should be more creative, possibly change the setting, and the characters, but still have a similar plot. That way the audience has to fill in the blanks between the book and the movie so they are in suspense not critization of the dissimilarities between the two.
Well I happened upon this movie by accident and started watching it because I fall for the kinds of movies where someones stuck on a desert island etc. Over all it's an extremely good depiction of humanity and the psycological behavior of children left alone without guidance. The acting was wonderful, and I'm sure anyone who sees it will agree that that kind of situation is difficult to imagine let alone act out especially with the actors being so young. I recommend this movie for anyone looking for a creepy survival story.
I can't believe that this movie has recieved such bad reviews, and has only a 5.9 rating. And the fact that I am the only one to write about this film makes it truly underrated. When I first saw this movie when I was nine, I was blown away by it. it was the ultimate boy movie for me. The acting was very realistic. It was about a group of boarding school boys get shipwrecked on an island with no parental supervision. It showed us how truly savagely and animalistic we can become when their is absolutely no rules or restrictions. And how our survival insticts want to take over. The end was very touching and summed it all up, without any words being spoken.
|Page 1 of 13:||          |
|Newsgroup reviews||External reviews||Parents Guide|
|Official site||Plot keywords||Main details|
|Your user reviews||Your vote history|