Il signore delle mosche

After reading Golding's classic novel, my class watched this adaption of "Lord Of The Flies" in our literature class. I found it to be quite good, and a hell of a lot better than the 1990 version, which alters all too many important moments and characteristics of the book. Reading over these comments, I was very confused. 1. The story and moral of "Lord Of The Flies" is so haunting and powerful that it does not need an overly dramatic score. The tune that Jack and his choir sing around the island is just the right touch. 2. Of course the acting wasn't as amazing as it could have been! Everyone seems to be forgetting just how young and inexperienced these boys were. Besides, the character's in Golding's story are just as young, and act their age (however violent and disturbing it may be). I found the camera work to be quite lovely. The film uses beautiful shots, which only enhance it even more. The final scene is one of my favorites. My only bone to pick is how quickly the film goes through the events in the book. I really do wish it would have slowed down a bit, and concentrated more on such characters as Simon, as well as the boys transformation into savages. Overall I found this adaption of "Lord Of The Flies" to be fantastic. My advice to future viewers of this film is to read the book first, definitely watch this 1963 version afterwards,and completely avoid the 1990 version all together.

I agree with other reviewers that the acting is less than polished at times, but that just adds to the atmosphere and makes for a compelling picture. Peter Brook and the cast did a wonderful job making the first-time viewer really feel they were on a deserted island. Only being familiar with the title from literature references and not actually read William Golding's classic novel, I really couldn't wait to see how things were going to play out.

I understand that this was the first professional acting role for many of the boys featured in the movie. Maybe it's this fact and the fact it is in black and white that led others to write bad reviews but I enjoyed it and I think you will too!

Director Peter Brook delivered a very powerful and artfully done film based upon the classic book by William Golding. To those who have commented here about the differences between the book and this film: these are two very different mediums. Brook did not attempt a straight adaptation, he presented Golding's story through his own vision and emotional lens.

The use of non-professional children is one of the things that make this a brilliant film, and vastly superior to the obnoxious 1990's version. If you pay attention to the opening minutes of Brook's film, you will notice that the world presented is nice, normal, clean, and functional. The boys deliver their lines well and the story flows smoothly. Once the boys are on the island, the scenes aren't nearly so smooth in transition, the speech becomes very awkward and the boys interaction with each other is stilted and unnatural.

That is the point! These children know the direction they are going is wrong, to a boy they know this. Yet as individuals they are helpless to stand up to the group. Their awkwardness flows from their fear of being cast out, while yearning to be rescued and return to their homes. The nightmarish quality of the situation is well reflected in the hesitant speech and graceless movements. The uneasy stringing together of scenes makes the viewer squirm, hopefully making the connection to how ill at ease and unnatural the boys themselves must feel.

I'm sure most of you have been around boys of this age at some point in your life. They are prone to being tongue-tied, have few social graces and lack physical co-ordination. That's what makes this film so utterly believable, the boys are real boys, not pimped-out Hollywood trick ponies, delivering their lines in perfect Shakespearean English, while nimbly doing complicated dance moves and mugging their perfect little faces square at the camera.

Golding's book is a masterpiece that can be taken on several levels. Brook's film offers no fewer interpretations of the deeper meaning while presenting a realistic and horrific vision of the basic story. I know most people simply will not get this film. That's too bad because it is a classic.

Having just completed the novel, I was eager to see the film adaptation, and I was pleasantly surprised at how well William Golding's ideas were captured. It isn't very often that a movie can help you understand the book better. All of the actors were wonderful, particularly the four leads. They nailed the characters of Ralph, Jack, Piggy and Simon dead on. I was also pleased that the director didn't attempt to re-create the "conversation" between Simon and the Lord of the Flies, it would have been nearly impossible to make it as effective as it was in the novel. In general, it was very well done and well worth the time spent viewing it.

"Lord of the Flies", a piece of literature written by William Golding and originally published in 1954, is still a very famous novel, and is often studied in schools (many can say that's where they became familiar with it). Nearly a decade later, the first movie adaptation of the book saw the light of day. Adaptations of novels can be excellent, while others may generally be disappointing. This 1963 adaptation of William Golding's famous novel turned out to be sort of a mixed blessing.

A large group of English schoolboys find themselves stranded after a plane crash, without any surviving adults. Shortly after the crash, two of them meet for the first time. One of them is Ralph, and the other's real name remains unknown. The other boy tells Ralph about his undesired nickname, Piggy, and unfortunately, that is what he is called from then on. Ralph and Piggy don't see any other boys around, so Ralph uses a shell (or a conch) to call them. With all the boys gathered, Ralph is elected as the leader for the time they are stranded, and it is soon discovered that they are on an island. Ralph tries his best to keep the rest of the boys civilized, and tells them that a smoke signal must be kept going in order for them to be rescued. However, a rivalry soon begins between Ralph and the power-hungry Jack, and many boys end up on Jack's side, creating a group of savages!

The first thing you may be wondering about this movie is how faithful to the novel it is. Quite a bit of detail from the story was removed for this movie (which often happens with adaptations of novels), so if you've read the book, remembering some parts that you found really interesting, and you'd like to see how they're done in this movie, you may be disappointed to see that some of them are not included. However, apart from that, I would say the movie tells the original story very well, but it definitely has some other problems. The cinematography is pretty amateurish, and the cast is, well, not terrible, but not great. Personally, I found some of the movie dull, so I had trouble getting into it at times, but also found certain parts interesting or somewhat moving (though not as much so as I was expecting).

This "Lord of the Flies" adaptation definitely hasn't impressed every admirer of the book, which I can understand. I was a tad disappointed myself (certainly not as much as some people, but still a tad disappointed). However, many other admirers of William Golding's piece of literature like this movie. For fans of the book who haven't seen this movie, if you want an adaptation that is faithful to the book (despite the unsurprising fact that the story is shortened), and you can get over the shortcomings I've mentioned, I recommend this movie. You just might not want to expect a work of genius.