Spidersecu Don't Believe the Hype

Infamousta brilliant actors, brilliant editing

Baseshment I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.

Dynamixor The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

Kirpianuscus It is one of my favorit novels. because it remains the fundamental map for define the childhood, the dictatorship, the demons living in us, the temptation, the cold and hot, in same mesure, cruelty. and the adaptation of Peter Brook represents the inspired one. first, for the great cinematography . second - for lovely reflection of the essence of Wiiliam Golding masterpiece. not the last, for the performances. you feel each line of novel in this film, in its original sound and flavor and tension. you discover, again, the powerful message of the novelist. his fears. and his pesimistic perspective about the evil and its "freshness" of childre. entire universe of shadows and cruelty is reflected in the art of Peter Brook. and scene by scene I remind the period of high school when I was first time front to this magnificent book . it is an useful film. and this fact is only real important thing. for see the world from the right angle. for create, like me, a solid imafe about the demons inside us. and for become sincere. about yourself. about the others.

sharky_55 Seeing Lord of the Flies on film, I am struck by how unfaithful these screen counterparts are compared to the imaginary characters built up in my head from reading Golding's novel. They are tiny little things, barely even pubescent, and thoughts of savagery and bloodlust seem so far away. The novel's message is even more piercing when considered in this way; how easy it is to forget that these are the same little boys that descend into animalistic urge and desire later. Golding's words might have lulled some into complacency over the course of the chapters, but here there is a constant reminder through their pudgy limbs and wide eyes (and, to some extent, their English accents, which they recognise themselves as being the hallmark of civility and order). This low-budget feature version was shot by Peter Brook entirely on location, utilising all the harsh wilderness of the beach territories of Puerto Rico. The cast were all amateur actors, boys freed from authority and let loose to play on a deserted island. The style, a jagged combination of harsh natural lighting, sudden cuts and black and white images, saps the beauty from what should look like a holiday destination. The most frightening scene of the movie signifies the complete and utter abandonment of reason for savagery - when the boys gut Simon by the fireplace during nighttime. The cinematography continually throws the shots in and out of focus, one moment the white flames in sharp contrast, the next dancing chaotically in the background. And the hand-held camera bobs in motion as if it was one of the frenzied boys itself, chanting and getting right up into the painted faces of these savages. There are no light sources other than the fire and the bright spots of their torches, and in the darkness they become a trembling, murderous mass, more inhuman than human. Brook's rudimentary approach comes alive in some instances, and yet in others grounds the story. Most of Golding's figurative language is marred here; the painting of the island as firstly a wondrous paradise and then a nightmarish backdrop for ghouls and beasts, the forest as a teeming, dense thicket hiding the horrors of their imagination, even the palpable heat and scent of the island that the boys begin to be imbued with. The images wield darkness and shadow well, but the tribe become decidedly less menacing when they have to chant in open daylight. Golding's central allegory, of the beast and innate evil inside us all, also somewhat fades. Yes, there are grisly closeups of the rotting pig's head anointed with flies, but Brook ditches Simon's stumbling into surreal realisation, the horror of discovering something more terrible than any corporeal beast could ever be (unusual considering Brook's prior work in experimental theatre and Dali). The overall result is something like a strained documentary, trading periodical rawness and cynicism with stilted action, delivery and accents. It doesn't grip you like it should because there is still an undercurrent of rehearsal and civility under it, like a performance of a primary school play. Now, the 8mm murder mystery film that the boys shot themselves as they were acting out actual savagery? That I would like to see, because it would come from their own unplanned urges. And I wonder, of course, what quarrels might have occurred on that set, and who wrested directorial control from whom.

Parker Lewis Much has been written about Lord of the Flies (a reliable staple on school reading lists, and no doubt banned by some politically correct schools in America - shame). Anyway, it's sort of a precursor to Big Brother or The Real World, where you have young folk let loose in a house on their own. Another reboot is necessary, this time where the castaways have wi- fi, and communicate through texts and social media. No-one physically dies, but there's a slew of character assassination online.Toby Robertson as the naval office (uncredited) deserves credit for his outstanding role.The reunion documentary from 1996 - "Time Flies" (shame there's no IMDb entry) was interesting, seeing the actors all grown up, reminiscing about their time on the movie. It's a shame that James Aubrey died in 2010. I'm not sure if he was the first of the child actors from the movie to pass away, but sad.

dasnataree Okay, let me just say it: The 1990 screen adaptation was awful compared to this amazing film.I don't know why, but there's just something about this film that captures the disturbing essence of the story that the 1990 version lacks. This 1963 version is the most true adaptation to any book I have ever seen: For example, the boys actually have British accents, like the book, unlike the 90's version. In the 1963 version, there are no adults on the island (except for the parachuted man and the ranger who comes in at the end), exactly like the book. In the 90's version, the pilot is shown at the beginning (What the heck!?). When Piggy dies, he is ACTUALLY KNOCKED OFF THE CLIFF (unlike the 1990 movie, where the boulder bounces off his head- seriously, guys? Do you have any concept of the laws of physics?) The script follows the dialogue of the book nearly word-for-word, and has no music- which adds to the creepy aura of the story. All in all, it's an excellent film that I recommend to all people. I promise it will not let down fans of the book.