Lord of the Flies
|
List Price: Our Price: $7.14 You Save: $7.84 (52%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $6.38 (click here) Category: DVD See more DVD releases |
|---|
Canada
Movie Reviews of Lord of the Flies
Movie Review: Lord of the Flies movie
Summary: 3 Stars
Decent interpretation of the classic novel. I was happily amazed when my ninth-grade students claimed that they actually preferred the book!Movie Review: Deeply flawed; unfaithful to its source
Summary: 2 Stars
I saw the premiere of this film in 1990, writing a review for my college radio station. I had been fond of the novel in high school and had looked forward to what I had hoped would be an effective update of the true-to-the-text but somewhat shoddily produced 1963 version. While I was impressed with the rich color photography and Philippe Sarde musical score, and the story does get closer to the novel toward the end, there are serious thematic and character flaws in this "updated" version of Golding's classic.The only character that seems to be on-target is Badgett Dale's Simon, whose pensive look and gentle voice portray the character's spiritual, Christ-like qualities. Balthazar Getty's Ralph is appropriately noble, but his voice is too shrill to command the respect that he does in the novel. Where the film really trips up is in its portrayals of Jack (Chris Furrh) and Piggy (Danuel Pipoly). In the novel, Jack is a choirboy, top of his class, which lends great poignancy and irony to his transformation and descent into brutal demagoguery and bloodlust as he succumbs to his monstrous, overpowering id; here, he's presented as a juvenile delinquent, sent to military school for allegedly stealing a car, so he seems pre-disposed to this sort of behavior and his actions carry less resonance. Golding's Piggy, despite his physical limitations, is practical, logical and thoughtful, but also proud and defiant; he never once sheds a tear even as he is ridiculed, bullied, belittled, even physically assaulted by Jack and others. Pipoly portrays him here as a sanctimonious crybaby, preaching practicality in a whiny tone, quite unconvincingly, and blubbering like an infant when his glasses are broken; I actually heard audience members cheer when Roger dropped the rock on him. That the film misses the mark so widely on two of the tale's most important characters is unfortunate and really works to its detriment.
The central flaw in the film, however, the crux of its literary shortcomings, is in its treatment of Golding's most powerful and important symbol: the "beastie" of which the boys are afraid almost from the very beginning. The beast is meant to symbolize both their fear, and the inherent illness in their own essential human nature. Golding accomplishes this by introducing the concept early on; in the novel's second chapter, after the boys' initial exploration of the island, one of the "littluns" asks about the "snake-thing," or "beastie," which he claims to have seen. None of the other boys have seen it, there is no evidence of any such creature, but many begin to believe in it and that belief contributes to the tensions, divisions and breakdown of order on the island. The twins' discovery of the dead parachutist, who falls from the sky in chapter six, merely fuels the belief and provides an object/manifestation of that fear.
In the film, the boys arrive on the island with the pilot of their doomed aircraft (there were, of course, no adults in the novel), who spends most of his screen time moaning and writhing under a mosquito net before wandering off and disappearing. Later, about 45 minutes into the film, by which time the camps have already divided (and just as I was thinking to myself, "Hey, they haven't mentioned the beast yet,") one of the boys wanders into a cave and is attacked by something which all but the dimmest audience members instantly realize is the missing pilot, but which the boy believes is a "monster" and reports as such to the others. The key here is that in the novel, the beast came from the boys' own minds and existed in their own essential nature, contributing to their downfall; the film diminishes the beast's symbolic value with the too-convenient and contrived device of the adult pilot providing the impetus for their fear AFTER things had already started to go wrong. Simon's pivotal observation in the novel that "maybe the beast is only us" doesn't really apply here, as there is no mention of (or belief in) any sort of beast until after the boy sees it in the cave.
All told, the 1963 version, despite its grainy black-and-white photography and shoddy sound editing, is vastly superior to this aesthetically impressive but thematically vacuous material. I think that modernizing and Americanizing this story diminishes its power and symbolism, and Golding's message is nearly lost in a sea of gratuitous profanity, modern (yet dated) pop-culture references, and contrived situations.
Read the novel.
Movie Review: Lordy
Summary: 2 Stars
At its outset the update film version of Golding's classic novel is creepy and cinematically mysterious. We see the commotion as the boys try to make it to the island while many of the adults are apparently dead or clinging to life, all trying to swim towards shore after the plane went down. In this version, the boys who make it to the island are from an American military cadet school instead of being English. The early stages of the film really do keep the impact of the story alive, but as the film wanes, so does the mystique of the tale.
It's really hard to know who to blame, the child actors who played these characters ineffectively, or the screenwriters, for putting in a slew of profanity and inane parts to the movie. The children who played these characters for the most part did what they could with this script. For what it is worth, I really liked how Simon was personified in several of the scenes, especially the one with the "monster" (the "beast" in the other movie version). You really get a sense that he is like the character in the book, as he connects with nature and seems to not fear what the others do: the mysterious "creature" in the cave. Ralph's character was depicted in an appropriate way also for the most part. However, Jack's character was just way too one-demensional: he seemingly never had a chance to grow into the antagonist because he was already one when the movie started. It probably didn't help that Jack's character had profanity-laced tirades aimed at Ralph and Piggy for a good deal of the film, and these moments seemingly killed any originality that the movie could have had. Lines from some of Jack's "servants" were kind of asinine also: "The Chief has spoken."
Perhaps this film could have also done a better job of building the momentum of the story. It seemed like events were happening too quick. One minute they don't know how to hunt; the next they are experts. They could have also built up the character conflicts between Jack/ Roger and Ralph/Piggy a little better. They are seemingly friends one minute and enemies the next.
If you completely forget that this is Lord of the Flies, or even related to it, and take this movie as just a modern survival story you will be better served. For what it is worth, I am not a big fan of the other version of Lord of the Flies either, although it is better than this one. Maybe they can update the novel one more time and get it right.
2 1/2 stars
Movie Review: Ok for what it is. It's just not the book.
Summary: 2 Stars
I saw this film many years ago and I enjoyed it because I was a teenager and liked Balthazar Getty. Typical, eh? I was prompted to read the novel, and found the story good but ultimately frightening, especially Simon talking with "the Lord of the Flies." I thought it was very weird that this was not in the film since I saw it as the most important part of the story.Balthazar Getty is so-so (this was his first film, I think) in his performance as Ralph, but the other actors (mostly unknowns who never appeared in any other films, with good reason) fell way short. I was however, still affected by some scenes after viewing the film on Bravo a few weeks ago. It had been years since I'd seen it, and nice to view it with a different perspective. I advise "baltysgirl" below to do the same. I understand the enthusiasm for the film, but this whole story is based on something far more profound than a guy's "pretty face." If you defend its flaws and excessive foul language etc. with that much gusto and also claim to be "balty's girl", it leads others to suspect you've missed the point. Be honest with yourself. If Balty wasn't in it, would you adore it that much?
The best actor in the film I think was Badge Dale as Simon, but I am partial to the Simon character so I could be biased. I thought Chris Furrh (who was, strangely enough in a TV movie made just after this one called "Exile" -- about a group of young people stranded on a deserted island who eventually become savages complete with warpaint and spears) overacted his way through LOTF and seemed more annoying than evil.
Piggy (Daniel somebody) was annoying as well. I agree with the other reviewer who said Piggy was too blubbery and all. I just didn't really feel like the actor believed HE was on this island with this action happening. He didn't seem genuine enough in his performance.
When movies are made from books we know they won't be perfectly accurate, but to take out or change the parts of the story that make it a good story is just ridiculous, and that is what happened here. We lost the entire social commentary, we lost the depth of thought, and we lost the chance to look closer and walk away with something substantial.
All we got was a couple of hours of nice scenery, pleasant music, and a bit of action. I must add that the last sequence was very well played out and Getty finally pulled out the talent we should have seen throughout the film.
Movie Review: An unfortunate misrepresentation of a classic novel
Summary: 2 Stars
After reading the book for English class, the teacher sat us down to watch the film version of the novel. We watched the 1990's version. Although I haven't seen the 1960's one, it probably would have been a better choice. Granted, the movie is gorgeously filmed. The island the boys inhabit is rich in color and vegetation. But of course, looks alone do not make a film. It must have some substance. Perhaps having read the book and rather enjoying it, I have a biased opinion but this film didn't seem to have much to do with the book except share a title, main idea and some character names. Sara Schiff should be ashamed for butchering the tale. Trying to modernize the story may have seemed like a good idea, but it wasn't, it really wasn't. Since the boys are no longer British and no longer living during the WWII era (one mentions 'Alf', seriously folks) and since they are American children who have grown up on video games and now curse like sailors, it is easier to believe that they would revert to savagery. The screenplay has also conviently added an adult on the island and also completely removed the entire scene with Simon and the Lord of the Flies. The young actors cannot be accused of bad acting since almost none of the characters are developed enough to really act. Ralph was watered down, Piggy reminded me of a young Drew Carey. The only characters I had strong feelings for were Jack (hated him) and Simon (loved him). It's just kind of a shame. My advice to you is read the book definately, don't even think about renting it without having read it. If you're interested though, by all means rent it. It's not a horrible film in general, it's just a bad adaptation.