Brian Takeuchi

(2013-05-22 00:18:56)

Good, but not that good

I watched this version in class, after we had read the book, and I felt thatthe movie was missing some of the important symbolism used in the book. Yes,this movie did capture a lot of the things that happened, but it was missingsome of the more important things.In class, we critically analyzed (we're an honors class) the details to thebook, and what they symbolized.In the book, the conch shell was smashed into a million pieces when Piggywas killed. This should have been in the movie. It symbolized the ending ofcivilization, because the conch shell was a symbol of power for thekids.The other big thing that annoyed me was that they left out the part whereRoger throws rocks at another kid (I forget who). In the book, heintentionally misses because the other kid was protected by an invisiblebarrier, the barrier of rules and punishment for intolerable acts in theworld of parents. This showed that they still had a small grip on realitybefore Jack took over.One last thing, the height of Ralph and Jack annoyed me. They were supposedto be the same height, but Jack was significantly taller. This shows thatthey were equal in size and shape.

egraca6

(2013-05-21 15:11:59)

What's with the random glow sticks in the 1990's version?

There's no way that anyone can make this book into a decent movie. Whenyouread the novel you are able to capture the thoughts and feelings of thecharacters in the story. In the 1990's movie it just felt like thedirectorwas struggling to cram all of the events into about an hour and a half.There was nothing there, the entire movie was just played out scene byscenebefore you. I didn't feel the need to discuss my understanding of thestoryor analyse any of the character's actions. The movie was so incrediblyweakcompared to the book. The book made me think. It's the kind of book younever forget, how can you? It's the kind of story you refer to whendiscussing human nature. And I'm sorry, I don't mean to bash the entiremovie, but what's with piggy's death? In the book they made it dramaticandsymbolic (when he dies the last symbol of order is shattered before theboy'eyes (conch)). In the movie it was almost funny. Not because of the factthat he dies, but the way they kill him. Is it me or did that rock bounceoff his head? I just think it would have been more powerful if all theyshowed the giant rock were Piggy stood. Obviously he dies, there's no needto prove how badly done your movie was made. I just recently had to watchthis movie for my grade 9 English class and my classmates and I agree thatit was very disappointing compared to the book!

dougdoepke

(2013-05-20 10:57:08)

A Novelty

No need to recap the plot. As I recall, the movie got a lot ofword-of-mouth back in '63. Many theatre-goers were discovering a worldof cinema beyond the typical Hollywood product of the conformist '50's,and eager distributors were obliging. Of course, many viewers saw the boys' graphic descent into savagery asa profound comment on human nature. I suspect director Brooks was wiseto toss aside the screenplay and improvise instead. After all, theseare pre-pubescent boys and its darn hard to write convincing dialog forthat age level, especially dialog with philosophical undertones.As a result, the narrative is told in visual fashion, with lots ofcrashing waves, screaming boys, and chanting refrains. To cover thesparse dialog, the sound track is unusually noisy, but many of thevisuals remain memorable. Also essential is the abundant symbolism. Forexample, there're Piggy's glasses (reason), hunting instead of foraging(killing), along with the conch and the assembly (democratic values).Despite such allegorical references, I suspect contemporary viewersfind the film less compelling after 50-years of unconventionalmovie-making that has worn away the original impact.Now, I haven't read the book, so I don't know how faithful the film is.But frankly I would have been more persuaded by the cynical subtext hadthe survivors been adults rather than 10-year old boys. After all,who's surprised that that age group would wind up shucking classroomconstraints for "going native".Then too, it's important to remember that art is a medium ofmanipulation (in a good sense) and not of proof. That is, an artisticnarrative can illustrate a truth, but no matter how good, it can'tprove it. For the latter, we have to go outside of art, mainly to thesciences. Thus, novelist Golding may illustrate a particular view ofhuman nature, but the novel can hardly confirm its truth.All in all, the movie is worth catching up with since it remains agenuine curiosity, whatever the drawbacks.

(2013-05-19 22:40:40)

Well done, like special features for backstory

This is the version I show throughout the book, revealing bits and pieces to the students as we go chapter by chapter. The credits, done in a slide-show fashion, do a great job of contextualizing the opening situation for students (although some explanation may be needed). Although they largely do not like black and white, students do like this movie and have reported to me that it helps them understand the book better.One unexpected bonus is the commentary track. When we were done with the book, I replayed several scenes with the commentary: the casting of Piggy, how the night dancing scene was lit, the pig's head and how they rigged it, and how they did the rock scene with Piggy. One or two of the people contributing are rather soft-spoken or don't enunciate well, so you may have to "translate" to the students, or play it again, but the trivia is interesting!Students tend to be amused when you point out to them that Ralph's voice changes from high to low frequently (thanks to his voice changing between the actual filming and additional dialogue recording). Do beware: there is some brief rear and nearly-frontal nudity toward the end (when Jack's tribe whips a boy, and when Piggy talks to the few boys at Ralph's camp before they all go to confront Jack). You can fast-forward through that.

Martino Zu Nicola

(2013-05-17 06:26:18)

Read it, then watch it.

Alone on an island somewhere in the Pacific ocean a group of Britishschoolboys put up the struggle of their lives in order to survive,after crashing (being shot down) their airplane.The passenger tube, leaving a scar on the island, may represent the sinfall or the beginning of destruction on the island.Two boys, Ralph and Piggy, manages to call an assembly where theydecide to elect Ralph as leader. Ralph who is a good looking and fairhaired boy, representing democracy and reason, takes the responsibilityand make up some basic rules that the group has to follow. The rest isup to you to discover, but is the human being natural evil or is itnatural good? that is the question you have to ask yourself beforereading or watching. Do you believe in mankind?

(2013-05-16 16:04:11)

Does not work

This review is from: NEW Lord Of The Flies (DVD) (DVD) The Lord of the Flies DVD was a gift for my fiance. He was very excited to unwrap this gift, but we were both very upset when we placed it in the DVD player. The DVD did not work. I'm not pleased with this purchase and will not be buying from the seller ever again.

dswaq

(2013-05-16 06:07:02)

Wasn't amazed by the book, but it puts the movie to shame

First off, if you never read the book, DON'T see this...you will notunderstand what the hell is going on. It took only select parts from thebook and it was frustrating watching it even after reading the novel. Andthe acting was very bad...I realize they were all kids, but it was stillquite bad if you compare them to some of the acting talents of somechildrentoday. This movie had potential to be really good, but failed quitehorribly.

(2013-05-15 15:11:31)

Not bad for a "based on"

This review is from: Lord of the Flies: Essential Art House (DVD) POSITIVE-It followed the book fairly well. The gory parts were not filmed- a fact my 10th graders questioned, but relieved me. NEGATIVE- Little naked boys in the final 10 minutes. I could have done without that!

Terrell Howell

(2013-05-15 04:14:51)

A hollow adaptation

What happens when children have complete control over themselves andtheir situation and all authority is cast out the window? Lord of theFlies documents just such a situation. The movie, adapted from WilliamGolding's novel of the same name, is about a plane full of youngBritish school boys that crash lands on an island. The pilot of theplane dies and the thirty something boys are left to fend forthemselves and make their own rules. As lines are drawn and tribes arecreated and divided, chaos descends. This story delves into the darkand undisciplined, essentially animal side of the human mind. It'sextremely dark and indeed frightening to watch the depths thatunattended children sink to when they lose all control and authority.The story William Golding created is an absolute incredible one thatgoes so much farther into the psyche of the adolescent than most dareto go. Unfortunately the film adaptation of this epic tale does noteven begin to do the source material justice. It is a poorly executedattempt at bringing Golding's novel to a new medium. My biggestcomplaint with this film would have to be the acting. The direction issomewhat shoddy and the sound mixing is particularly frustrating (eventhough I read all the sound had to be overdubbed because the oceandrowned out everything while filming) but the acting is the biggestissue. The child actors all seem to regurgitate their lines, giving thefilm a stale feel without any substance to lines which are meant to beharrowing and dramatic. During the entire first and second act theacting is tense and feels very forced, whilst the actors are beingcompletely unenthusiastic. In a film about children losing control andgoing absolutely mad with power and freedom, the acting should be muchmore restless and I kept thinking these kids needed to be morehyperactive and significantly less subdued.Leading into the final act there is a very significant and very obviousshift in tone. The story turns from an innocent one about lostchildren, to a terrifying psychological study. It was here that thehighlights of the film came from. There were some scenes that deliveredin a dark and cynical way, and for that I can appreciate the effortonly slightly more. After this dark turn the film started to improve atpoints, but then would seem to drop back down to that subdued level oflackluster acting. By the end of the film I felt robbed of what couldhave been a great adaptation of a fantastic story. But by the ending,which was still well done, I realized that the character relationshipswere still underdeveloped, as well as the underlying themes of thestory. They weren't absent from the story, but they could have gonemuch further.All the right elements are present in Lord of the Flies but they areall very underdeveloped and the film does not achieve its fullpotential. Poor acting and a lack of enthusiasm hurt an extremely wellcrafted psychological experience that had so much potential. A storylike this could be amazing if done right, but when it isn't done right,everything goes horribly wrong. I was left very disappointed by thisfilm adaptation.

(2013-05-14 22:15:42)

Relax and enjoy it!

Unfortunately not a brilliant movie, as others have pointed out. I try to avoid analyzing or critiquing a movie *while I am watching it*, therefore maybe get more pleasure from less-than-stellar movies than some. LoTF falls into this category- just enjoy it for what it is. It has some chilling, and some heartening effects, especially the ending, which I liked very much. If you can see it before you are an overly critical adult, so much the better. This is one of the few movies that "realistically" portrays kids as the cold-blooded little twerps they can be at times. B&W was the way to go. Good stuff.

(2013-05-13 11:20:33)

A great movie, a fantastic DVD.

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!

(2013-05-12 19:22:48)

Badly portrayed Goldings intentions

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.

(2013-05-10 05:04:47)

Take a good look into the mirror and at your neighbors

This review is from: Lord of the Flies: The Criterion Collection (DVD) Read the book years ago. The movie does an excellent job of re-creating the authenticity of the book. We've been brought up to hide from our natures, only to make us even more so just beneath the surface. We see this brutal and honest film and want to think it's just a story, but it's not. It's raw and scary. It's probably too adult for the average viewer. We can't withstand that long, hard stare into the mirror. It's a gritty art film. This film was not meant to be an entertainment film but rather a think piece with a point. Highly recommended.

(2013-05-09 13:55:25)

Hidden behind the symbolism...

This review is from: Lord of Flies [VHS] (VHS Tape) 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.

T Y

(2013-05-09 11:47:07)

marooned with the Kiss army

The problem with this movie (and the book as I recall) is that there isnothing very interesting going on at the apparent level. To getanything nourishing out of it you're just dumped right into thesymbolic level (aggression as man's basic impulse / the boy makes theman) which luckily isn't hiding at all. The story provides no detail tolinger over at the obvious level. And the book has been overtaught byteachers eager for the fastest possible lesson about allegory.Conflict, shaming and exclusion are all introduced at the same earlymoment. ...It does not have enough structure. Climbing around anisland/mountain multiple times to generate small intrigues in aone-track story is just not engaging enough. There's nothing left to dobut overstate the scenes it does have.The problem with many 'modern' efforts from this era ('63), is thatmodern was intended as an aesthetic that was forever current. 'Modern'as a mid-century style had a good run. But 50 yrs on, this 'modern'cinematography is receding into the stylistic past. On top of thatthey're coming off 15 years of noir films, and they still don't know tofill the dynamic range. The imagery is drab. The backstory is coveredvia a 'modern' prologue of still images, that is now rather junkylooking. The actor playing Jack makes for an extremely prissyantagonist. If you breathed on him, he'd collapse.

Scars_Remain

(2013-05-08 22:43:49)

A Near Perfect Adaptation

I just finished watching this movie for the first time. Before thisone, i had only ever seen the 1990 version before this and I must saythat this is much better than that version! It's just great to see amovie that, for once, follows the book almost perfectly. I wish everymovie would at least strive to do so.There definitely are flaws in this movie with some iffy acting, roughediting and bad sound at times but the story is what caused me to giveit a 10/10 rating. It is so well done as far as the story goes that ithas become one of my favorite movies.See this movie if you're a fan of the book and I don't doubt that youwill be pleased. I grew up reading the book and now I am glad to haveseen this movie. I hope you will be too.

bekria

(2013-05-07 12:06:54)

Bull*****

he movie was a peice of crap and the 90's remake was even worse. The camera angles were off, the sound was bad, the images were crappy and the whole movie was just bad. The book was much much better and my school is making me watch this over and over again to analyze it. I practically memorized all the lines. Don't Rent/Watch the movie. It made my eyes hurt watching this crappy thing.

Grann-Bach

(2013-05-07 02:31:19)

Great, though the film-making could use some work

As I sat down to watch this with a group of young adults(yours trulybelongs in said group, as well) one of the two people in the room whowere our senior said, as the 'director' title card came up in theopening credits, "Peter Brook? He's a big name in theater!" Well, I'dbe lying if I claimed that I didn't, throughout watching this film,often thought to myself "Mr. Brook, I do believe you should have stayedin your own field." I do now, though, acknowledge his talent. The filmopens with a bold and unusual(as far as I know; I haven't seen too manyfilms of this period, so it may, in actuality be common practice of theera) choice of narrating events, which I found refreshing andsurprisingly effective(though if the less-than-pleased grunts I heardfrom around are any indication, I was in the minority). The film has aninteresting plot, though that may be more indicative of WilliamGolding's insight than that of Brook... I'd have to read the novelitself to determine. Before I proceed; I've heard that there is acolorized and re-cut version of this film... the version I saw is theoriginal, black and white (and apparently, less expertly cut, judgingfrom the opinions of those who have seen both; I wouldn't exactly claimthat those are terribly educated opinions, though). The pacing is allover the place. In some instances, the film is intense(at times,without really 'moving'... an impressive effect that is not easilyachieved), and at others, it doesn't move, well, at all, really. Theacting is, as could be expected by a cast of teenage boys, not allstellar. I would suggest that at least some of the roles were cast withmore focus on the actor looking like the character described in thebook than actual acting talent. The cinematography is at timesmagnificent, with some breathtaking visuals... and at times dreary anddull, with lazily composed shots to cover the action. I found myselfmarveling at how many angles seemed to be "missing"... scenes where onewould expect the camera to cut to a reaction shot or a closeup, and itinstead stays... and stays. Not moving from it's current motif. Theediting seems as if there was too little time or enthusiasm to do itproperly. Several shots are cut into before the action starts and outof too long after it's over. Also, I found myself looking at the screenall too often, not being able to make out what on Earth was going on orwhat I was supposed to be looking at. I recognized the same in myfellow viewers. It may be supposed to build atmosphere and create mood,but all it achieves is confusing the viewer. The cut I saw was no morethan 76 minutes long, but it certainly felt like a lot more. Now, withall that said, all that negativity... the film was actually not toobad. The point it makes is excellent, and I found myself more involvedin it than I thought I would be. I truly cared about these young,English lads... even though they did have a tendency to be a bit fullof themselves. Some of them handed in far better performances than whatis normally expected from such young(and no-name) actors... reminiscentof Tami Stronach of The Neverending Story. Near the end, one of theboys delivers a stare so unsettling that it's a bad bet to claim thatit won't send a chill down your back the first time you see it. Thoughthe production values and film-making qualities are somewhat dubious,this film is worth watching for any person who considers himself anopen-minded individual. I urge you to read the book instead(since I amalmost certain that it's better; to get this great work in its purestform, the way the creator intended it), but if you refuse to or areunable to, pick this over the colorized version(since that apparentlyloses tone and important character traits) and definitely over the '90version, since, just reading some of the quotes, ruins at least oneincredibly strong scene of this. I most insist that you watch withoutreading the plot outline or hear what it's about from anyone(unless youhave already have); I did. I watched this having no real idea of whatit was about, and I don't even want to consider how little an effect itwould have had on me if I had preconceptions about the story. Irecommend this to anyone who have the patience and emotionalstrength(it requires more than you'd expect, more than I expected, atleast) to watch it. 7/10

(2013-05-04 15:08:26)

extremly terrible adaption from the original.

I can't believe what has happened to this wonderful, but creepy story. It has been chopped, and rearranged in a very awkward manner. Some important and key scenes aren't in the story at all! The movie didn't even exploit the message in the tale of man's dark nature. If Golding saw the movie version of his famous book, I think he would have been very disappointed. If I had it my way, I would had rearranged the story like the original. Read the book, its better.

(2013-05-04 04:47:22)

A Haunting Tale Told Simply But Effectively!

Lord of the Flies was a required reading novel going into my freshman year of high school. I can easily say that I was one of the 20% who didn't find the book dumb and completely boring. I actually understood most of the hidden meanings (half through the help of spark notes)! I enjoyed the story, even though it was incredibly sad and horrifying. I was eager to check out both movie versions, and I bought both. I tried the modern retelling version by Harry Hook, and thought that it was okay, but nowhere near like the book. Then I watched this version, and immediately was drawn. It liked how simply everything was done. It almost seemed like there could have not been a script and half of the dialogue was just the kids talking like normal. As not "mainstream" as this is, it had an amazing effect on the movie and really mirrored how the books style of dialogue was written. The death scenes of Simon and Piggy were not done distastefully, as they were in Harry Hook's version, and left most of the gore up to how the audience perceived it. Yet, did it have it's slow moments? Of course, because the book is incredibly slow as well. But, does it do a good job at telling the story and still providing a good experience? Absolutely yes!