Lord of the Flies
|
List Price: Our Price: $7.19 You Save: $7.79 (52%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $6.11 (click here) Category: DVD See more DVD releases |
|---|
Buy this DVD movie at online store in your country
Canada
Canada
Movie Reviews of Lord of the Flies
Movie Review: Lord of the Flies - DVD
Summary: 5 Stars
This is a great movie! However, I can't show it to my students because of the rating. Wish I could.Movie Review: Great Product
Summary: 5 Stars
The product was received in great condition and timely delivered by the seller. I would buy againMovie Review: great film with a wonderful message behind it
Summary: 5 Stars
This was a great film and had a great message behind it.
The product was delivered quickly.
Movie Review: An Important Exploration of Human Nature
Summary: 4 Stars
I have seen both the 1963 movie and the 1990 movie, and have also read the book, so I may be able to shed some light on which movie is "truer" to the book.
When you're trying to bring to the screen a book that was written several decades ago, and which was set in the contemporary society and culture of its day, you have to choose between keeping its original setting (i.e., making it a period piece) or keeping it contemporary (which means updating the story). If you prefer the first choice, then the 1963 movie is unquestionably "truer" to the book. But I can't think of a story for which the first choice makes less sense.
Lord of the Flies is, to my way of thinking, not so much a story as a thought experiment: Imagine that a group of boys, much like boys we may know in real life, are stranded on an uninhabited island with no adult supervision. What happens?
If you simply told someone the outcome, I think they'd be incredulous. But Lord of the Flies takes you there step by step and incident by incident, with no step seeming improbable given what has gone before. And when you see where it ends, you find yourself thinking back over everything that happened, trying to figure out if there was a false step somewhere. And if there wasn't, what does it say about all of us?
Unfortunately, the thought experiment gets significantly distorted if the boys seem different from the boys that you encounter in real life. And the boys of the book, and of the 1963 movie, are different from the boys I encounter in real life! Because of this, I think the 1990 version of the movie does a better job, for modern day viewers, of preserving the thought experiment. The use of color film also allows the 1990 version to depict the way that the activities of the boys defaces the beauty of the island at times (which is definitely depicted in the book). And the character of Piggy (who in the book is both physically unattractive and poor at expressing himself) is also better depicted in the 1990 version, in my opinion.
Some parts of the story did have to be changed a bit because of the change from wartime British boys to peacetime American boys. (And, frankly, I think the story was changed a little more than was needed, which is why I only gave the movie a four star rating.) But the essence of the thought experiment is still very much intact!
Movie Review: Underrated and too often compared to the original!
Summary: 4 Stars
Okay, we've read the reviews where everyone takes pot-shots at this film, but in my opinion it is, overall, well done. The cinematography is great, the film score fits beautifully with the mood, especially the feverish scene with the boys reenacting a hunt around the fire which, as a result, leads to poor Simon's demise. The boys' chorus here fits perfectly! And the principal actors all do an admirable job. Even many of the 'extras'. Yes, the film has it's faults. Many of the secondary actors are only so-so,(but YOU try being a director working with 20+ young boys!) the reference to 'Alf' is ridiculous, ( not to mention dating the film. In the near future most folks won't know what the kid was talking about!)and some of the foul language was unnecessary. But taken for what it is, this is a good film.This version is often compared negatively to the 1963 version. But I must STRONGLY disagree with Leonard Maltin. The actors in this film were, by and large, more convincing than those in the 1963 version. The principal characters in that version, Ralph, Piggy, and Simon were good. Ralph was tolerable. But Chris Fuhrr was much stronger and more convincing as Ralph than the boy in the original.
Both versions are good in their own right and I thoroughly enjoyed both. I'm just tired of seeing this one get a bad rap. No, it does not stick closely to the book, but then why should it? The 1963 version did that admirably. This is just another writer/director's take on the story! So those criticizing it on that level, give it a rest! Many films differ greatly from the original novels. Try both versions of Planet of the Apes! Neither version is recognizable as taken from the original novel.
So I applaud Harry Hook for having the courage and taking HIS vision of 'Lord of the Flies' and making this film. In my eyes it would have been a waste of time just to remake the original. It's been done!