Lord of the Flies

These are just little kids but their leadership skills are way better than most politicians I've actually voted for.

A warning sign to never vote libertarian.

One of the better movies I was forced to watch in highschool.

The novel was simply great. This movie, however, tarnished my view of the story. It lacked any sense of adventure, dread or anything in between. Somehow this is considered a classic and maybe I can't get past the dated material but I've seen plenty of old films that do much better than this. The children actors just can't live up to the source material.

When the num of humans > 1, most probably the inevitable social emotion that will occur is politics. This film portrays it beautifully.. and how our emotions transcend from one to another .. from survival > fear > illusion > politics > .. emotions that make us do things that make us hate ourself when we hit ground. All in all worth the time, if u put in the initial time.

Kids killing each other. The only thing that could make this more fun is if it were live.

Has the poetic edge and succinctness of an effective parable, and Brook is a fine director.

had to watch this in school

Barelypaidattention. it seemed poorly made and acted. some cool shit like choosing a chief, him losing power, the hog, one saying not muder etc

This was a decent enough movie but I much prefer the remake. While the lack of acting ability works well for making things seem more natural and less scripted it also made me notice that the kids never really seemed to be in any real danger or distress. Nice use of locations and good cinematography were strong points. The lack of score helped with giving the film a documentary feel.

Ranked so High, because of nostalgia, and it is a coming of age story that explores the dark side of humanity.

The largely improvised dialogue walks the line between an appreciable authenticity and disjointed awkwardness; Aubrey and Chapin bring natural charisma as the two opposing leaders but a more streamlined script still would have been nice (not to mention a more spooky soundtrack in line with the film's horrific content-as it is, the music is repetitive and much too cheery). The black and white look and the camerawork is excellent though, particularly in the dark and chaotic pivotal final scenes.

the classic

Needlessly fast, as it's also quite short. The kids can't really carry the movie as well as they should.

A very poor telling of a great book.

85.000

Muitos recursos de linguagem usados na versão de 1990 tiveram origem aqui, mas ainda não é uma obra prima.

Hardly touches upon the genius of the book but the story is basically all here. A decent adaption with some interesting moments but very flawed.

otokrasi, issiz ada, cocuklar, ucak düsmesi, avcilik, domuz avlamak, canavar korkusu, linç etmek, survivor, gözlüklü sisko, liderlik mücadelesi, (benzeri Novaya Zemlya, Lost)

I know they're kids, but the acting is amazingly awful. There's not a lot of tension and at 90 minutes it feels endless.

This is an effective experiment in improvisation using non-professional child actors (Piggy and Ralph are particularly good), but Brook has always been a much better director of plays than he is of movies. And this movie just doesn't move. It is as simple as that.

So bad and cringe-worthy.

It took me a while to warm up to this - I was initially put off by the boys' lack of concern about the horrible plain crash they had just been in - but I eventually got into it. The stark black and white, the iffy acting and the poor audio actually created a raw feel well-suited for the film and its theme. And I have to admire the production as a whole; shooting in the harsh jungle and on steep jagged cliffs with a cast of dozens of young boys must have been quite an ordeal.

You know how you talk to someone and mention a movie you saw and they ask "have you read the book?" and you reply with "no" and then they immediately say "oh you should, it's much better, it... blah blah blah". Before you hit that self-righteous so and so square on the nose, realise that I'm one of those people, doing that to you right now. Check out the book first if you can. And my nose isn't even in your sights.

You can see the potential even amongst all the negatives (terrible acting, some cheap effects, a bit of really dodgy direction/editing), and given some time I'd like to give the book a go: I'm sure it's much better. In this age of rehashing every film ever made I'm surprised this hasn't had a contemporary version released.

Hard for me to get into. I loved the book, but felt bored by the movie. Just horrible horrible acting, which kills this movie because it's almost completely revolving around the kid's and their dialogue. I also have some problems with the believability of what the kids would actually do. There were a few things I liked, but not nearly enough for me to ever want to watch again or recommend to anyone.

It isn't the best adaptation, regarding structure anyways, and the acting is almost all terrible but it captures the spirit quite well, making sure not to lose much in terms of thematics and commentary, at least coming from someone who loves the book but also hasn't read it in over a decade. Also, really great photography.

Kind of boring when I saw this as a kid. Not much happens and the dramatic pacing was a bit plodding. The last 15 minutes of the film were alright but overall this is one to miss.

Somewhat dated and dramaturgically old-fashioned movie, kind of disjointed feel at times. But when I saw it as a 12 year old in a cinema (a film-club in '86, I'm not THAT old) it left me floored. Some scenes still gave me a shiver now as I recalled how I experienced it the first time. Would have given it 90 then and 60 now - I merge them and give 72.

Probably a NAMBLA favorite but didn't really work for me at all. Not only because the child acting is bad, but also because the text stinks. It miserably fails to imitate the way children talk and behave, which is no surprise, because Golding and Brook were obviously more preoccupied with creating a preachy allegorical moral tale than with believability. As with other cases of bad allegorical literature, the descriptive ineptitude undercuts a simplistic message.

Excellent movie. I have seen this many times, and it never gets tired... the black and white really adds to the whole atmosphere.

A good film which shows the human nature

Such a disturbing film.

This makes a better book than it does a film. Brook eschews the narration of the novel, which is a strength of the film and moves it toward being something more cinematic than your standard novel adaptation. However, something about seeing these kids in the flesh, rather than in the imagination, strains credulity. And while I wasn't a fan of Brook's camerawork, the editing was effective at ratcheting up the tension, especially in the final scene.

This is an important literary work to be sure, containing loads of social commentary. That said, I saw this in school and it freaked me the heck out. As a result I have to give it low scores. Just because something is redeeming does not necessarily mean it is something you want to watch.

Piggy has a hilarious death scene. Worth it just for that.

Original and the best

Awful acting made it completely impossible for me to enjoy.

Book was better, movie mangled together parts of the story and overall not too entertaining nor had the appeal of the original story.

The acting could have been better (casting for a pack of child actors on a low budget is always going to pose a problem, I guess) but otherwise this was good. The film makes the tension of the final act more palpable, but otherwise I'd say the book is superior. Some striking images, though.

Classic.

Classic story but the American accents really grate with the dialogue after a while.