User reviews

Peter Brook's film adaptation of William Golding's "The Lord of the Flies" is still an interesting piece of cinema one doesn't get a chance to see too often. After more than forty years of its release, the film is still a good way to get to know Mr. Golding's masterpiece, as Mr. Brook stayed truthful with the screen play he wrote.

The mere idea of children shipwrecked in an island to fend for themselves, as they make a world of their own, was quite revolutionary when Mr. Golding wrote the story. To witness what children are capable of doing in extreme circumstances is an eye opener. In fact, the children put into practice what they have seen of their society as they realize they are stuck in an island without any indication of anyone looking out for them.

Although some criticism has been expressed in this forum about the way the accident happens, and the way the boys come from all parts as they first gather in the beach, Mr. Brook's intentions seem to be more into the theatrical staging of this scene as the different groups come together. The best scene being the group lead by Jack as they march on the beach singing Kirie Eleison in their sweet and melodious voices.

Cruelty is the most notorious trait the boys display for one another. That, and the leadership that Jack wants to take away in forming his own tribe and the complete breakdown in the communication among the boys. Mr. Golding was telling us that given to certain circumstances, man, or children in this case, will revert into being savages and that perhaps society's role is to keep people controlled into what is known as a civilized world.

Peter Brook made an excellent film, but perhaps his biggest achievement is the magnificent work he got out of the mostly unknown cast of young children. There are no false notes, especially in the principals. With the notable exception of James Aubrey, who plays Ralph, none of the other boys had a film career, although one sees the promise in some of them. Tom Chapin is good as Jack. Hugh Edwards gives a heart wrenching account of Piggy, the boy that is ridiculed by the rest and betrayed by Ralph in telling the new arrivals about his nickname. Tom Gaman as Simon also had some good moments.

This film shows Peter Brook at his best.

I read the book when I was a kid, and I found it to be very disturbing. I didn't really care to think why.

Watching this movie as a grown up (especially as a grown up trying to think about anything BUT work) made me ponder several things about human behavior. For instance, what makes one person lead and another follow? Why is there almost always just 2 prominent sides to a situation, even though there are people involved whose opinions may be of varying shades of gray? Isn't it strange that once you commit an act of taboo, that it just makes it so much easier to do the next time? Why is an act that is morally reprehensible to perform individually, become so much easier when it is done in group? Where does one's individualism go when "mob rule" prevails ? I think the movie did a good job of bringing out the "beast", but it didn't surpass my initial impression from reading the book. The acting was commendable, given the age and experience of the actors, and the classic novel they were trying to portray. Ralph was just superb, trying to lead with "reason", but watching his leadership ebb to a much more terrifying alter ego. The relentlessness and inevitability of his fate was captured in all its horror when he is told "They're going to hurt you, Ralph".

Its hard to write a review about just the movie, when the story itself (as told in the book) is what makes the biggest impression. The movie is rich in metaphors - innocence lost, war, society in general, right and wrong, etc. In closing, I would recommend this movie to anyone looking for fear, but not of the sensational variety that 'horror movies' are generally associated with. Its a black and white movie, made in the 60's, and stars a bunch of scrawny kids. The fear is what you have to not watch - but live.

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.

First, unlike the general opinion, I don't find the book outstanding. It is very interesting but has many unrealistic parts as in every fiction book. Second, as for 1963 film adaptation, I can say I was dissappointed so much. The acting is so poor, character development does not exist. Special effects are non-existent. Many crucial details are omitted in the script. Some dialogues are trimmed and/or replaced with silent scenes. Those silent scenes become annoying after some time.

Violent scenes, which are the most striking parts of the book, are all excluded. The film provides merely a superficial abstract of the book.

After a plane crash in the ocean, a group of British students reach an island. The boy Ralph (James Aubrey) organizes the other kids, assigning responsibilities for each one. When the rebel Jack (Tom Chapin) neglects the fire camp and they lose the chance to be seen by an airplane, the group split under the leadership of Jack. While Ralph rationalizes the survival procedures, Jack returns to the primitivism, using the fear for the unknown (in a metaphor to the religion) and hunger to control the other boys. His group starts hunting and chasing pigs, stealing the possession of Ralph's group and even killing people.

When I saw the 1990 "The Lord of the Flies", I found the impressive story very scary since it shows the lost of innocence of children fighting to survive in a society without perspective and rules. My immediate association was with my and other Third World countries, where many children are abandoned by the Government in their poor communities, and without education, perspectives in life and laws, become very young criminals working in gangs of drug dealers and thieves. In this movie, it is exposed how primitive a kid can be without the authority and respect, and this sort of violence is in the headlines of our newspapers almost every day. I have never the chance of reading this visionary novel, but both movies are very similar and I believe that they are good adaptations, with a frightening study of characters and sociology. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "O Senhor das Moscas" ("The Lord of the Flies")

"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.

The best thing about Peter Brook's film adaption of William Golding's "Lord of the Flies" is that it does remain essentially faithful to its literary source. Golding's acknowledged masterpiece is not the sort of material that is open to a "loose" cinematic interpretation. This was the fatal flaw in the 1990 movie version. That being said, it is fair to then suggest that this 1963 budget adaption, is by no means the definitive rendering of the story that many, including on this site, claim it is.

The collective acting for a start is woeful. I mean really, much of it is on a par with that seen in a pretty ordinary school play. Raymond Leppard's not infrequent school band-sounding musical interludes underline these over-theatrical impressions. Yes, I know the boys were amateurs and guess what? It really and truly shows. The result is that there is little sense of the dramatic, no heightened suspense. The supposedly villainous characters always appear as caricatures just being played by kids, almost for the fun of it. It is therefore difficult to accept that what we see is real; civilisation undergoing an almost unhinged throwback to more primitive times.

The film, even back in 1963, was filmed on a budget and this too really shows. I've got no objection at all to black and white cinematography, but the work done by Tom Hollyman in Lord of the Flies is distinctly downmarket. Quite a bit of the action occurring at night is really difficult to see and this is where knowledge of the book, becomes almost a pre-requisite. It shouldn't be so. Jerky edit cutaways frequently stand out, as a means to avoid using any real special effects to depict certain actions. All it does is accentuate the cheapness of this production.

Whilst keeping faithful to Goldman's tome, Brooks avoids making any changes that would have provided a more convincing narrative environment. The boys have survived an airline crash. Do any of them seem really disturbed by the experience? No! Do any of them appear battered and bruised coming through a disaster in which all their adult supervisors (amazingly) perished? No! In fact the height of absurdity is reached early on, when Jack's choral group rock up on the beach in their costumed finery, singing Kyrie Eleison in melodious unison , seemingly without a care in the world. Within a few minutes of onscreen time, they're all running around in a hunting pack. The transformative process occurs way too rapidly to be in any way plausible.

Lord of the Flies strikes me as being ripe for remake; one that does align itself strongly with Goldman's evocation. But also one that is unafraid to present the story in a far more cogent, persuasive, cinematic style. I'm giving Brooks version a 6, only because in almost 60 years, his picture has been the only genuine filmed adaption of Goldman's novel. I guess it has to count for something.

Lord of the Flies is a classic book, it's unfortunate the movie couldn't compare.

It's clear that the movie didn't have a big budget but that's not the only reason it fell short. The acting left a lot to be desired. I don't know if it was the British accents that just made everyone sound as if they were perpetually in a friendly debate or if it was the lack of range of the child actors but I wasn't convinced of the rabid viciousness that was conveyed in the book.

This is one of those rarest of rare birds: a film that is totally faithful to the novel upon which it is based.

During his lifetime, William Golding was ever protective of his greatest creation. When it came to making a film of 'Lord of the Flies' some of the greatest screen writers and playwrights of the day had a go at producing a script for it - all of them being turned down by Golding himself. Finally, it was decided to attempt the film as a sort of Drama Workshop. Thus it was that 30+ boys, plus director Peter Brook, a film crew and the regulation chaperones found themselves living in a bunk house, which had been an old canning factory, on the island of Vieques off Puerto Rico, with little more than copies of the novel and an outline of the idea and the limitation of the school holidays in which to make the film.

The result defies belief. This is a masterpiece of Youth Drama, years ahead of its time. Even today, 40 years on, it is still staggering in its truth and clarity. The powerful imagery, chilling in its simplicity, far transcends anything which could be achieved with present day digital trickery. Not for this film the obvious blood and guts of action horror; here we have the most unspeakable acts made far more terrifying by their very understatement. (Simon's death must be one of the foulest acts ever filmed - but then, in reality, it was not - it is all in the imagination of the viewer and becomes far more terrible than any actual depiction of the act of ritualistic murder could ever be!).

When the great day of reckoning comes, this film will stand head and shoulders above all other film adaptations of novels.

This is a very patchy affair, mostly because of the extremely amateurish acting of the cast of children: three of the characters, Ralph, Jack and Simon, are decently portrayed and have good moments, but the rest of the 30+ boys are stilted and off, with long pauses between every sentence, as if they are all struggling terribly to recall their lines. The boy playing Piggy is by far the worst of all: his inexplicable casting in such a pivotal role is such a catastrophic misfire that the film had no hope of being salvaged even if all the other pieces - such as the lifeless pacing - had turned out right.

For all that, the film has some truly unforgettable, deeply haunting moments, especially towards the end, and is extremely brave in how unflinchingly it remains true to the spirit of such a bleak book, making it seem very out of step with almost any other British film from the same era. It seems likely to have had a large influence on Coppola's Apocalypse Now, some 15 or so years later, and also Oliver Stone's Platoon.

So it is an unusual experience, being at once a remarkable, timeless achievement AND an awkward, stumbling mess, and as such is very difficult to rate.

What happens when children have complete control over themselves and their situation and all authority is cast out the window? Lord of the Flies documents just such a situation. The movie, adapted from William Golding's novel of the same name, is about a plane full of young British school boys that crash lands on an island. The pilot of the plane dies and the thirty something boys are left to fend for themselves and make their own rules. As lines are drawn and tribes are created and divided, chaos descends. This story delves into the dark and undisciplined, essentially animal side of the human mind. It's extremely dark and indeed frightening to watch the depths that unattended children sink to when they lose all control and authority.

The story William Golding created is an absolute incredible one that goes so much farther into the psyche of the adolescent than most dare to go. Unfortunately the film adaptation of this epic tale does not even begin to do the source material justice. It is a poorly executed attempt at bringing Golding's novel to a new medium. My biggest complaint with this film would have to be the acting. The direction is somewhat shoddy and the sound mixing is particularly frustrating (even though I read all the sound had to be overdubbed because the ocean drowned out everything while filming) but the acting is the biggest issue. The child actors all seem to regurgitate their lines, giving the film a stale feel without any substance to lines which are meant to be harrowing and dramatic. During the entire first and second act the acting is tense and feels very forced, whilst the actors are being completely unenthusiastic. In a film about children losing control and going absolutely mad with power and freedom, the acting should be much more restless and I kept thinking these kids needed to be more hyperactive and significantly less subdued.

Leading into the final act there is a very significant and very obvious shift in tone. The story turns from an innocent one about lost children, to a terrifying psychological study. It was here that the highlights of the film came from. There were some scenes that delivered in a dark and cynical way, and for that I can appreciate the effort only slightly more. After this dark turn the film started to improve at points, but then would seem to drop back down to that subdued level of lackluster acting. By the end of the film I felt robbed of what could have been a great adaptation of a fantastic story. But by the ending, which was still well done, I realized that the character relationships were still underdeveloped, as well as the underlying themes of the story. They weren't absent from the story, but they could have gone much further.

All the right elements are present in Lord of the Flies but they are all very underdeveloped and the film does not achieve its full potential. Poor acting and a lack of enthusiasm hurt an extremely well crafted psychological experience that had so much potential. A story like this could be amazing if done right, but when it isn't done right, everything goes horribly wrong. I was left very disappointed by this film adaptation.

We open this classic 1963 adaptation of William Golding's novel with a series of photographs underneath the credits. A series of memories, nicely setting the mood of the story - photographs of boy's schools, of the situation at hand in the story, and of plane crashes, disaster. We get, though sometimes unclearly, that a plane has crashed during a war, and that there are presumably boys on board.

With that note, the story becomes suddenly detached. The first acting scene starts with the British boys we inferred before, yet they are completely clean, and perfectly calm, and nothing can be seen of the fact that they've just survived a near brush with death. We see nothing of the remains of the plane, we see nothing of the "scar" that was referenced in the book - we have no idea if these boys are simply on a field trip. A key point for continuity - the tube escape system hinted at in the book, a possibility that the boys might have escaped in their condition. It was supposed to be technology, but we never find out about it - that key point was missed.

So we start off with a break. Coming in to the movie, the first thing you'd notice is a horrible lack of pacing. When dialogue occurs, there are harsh pauses in between camera focuses on each character. Piggy speaks horribly slowly - although that could be attributed as a part of character - and the other characters seem perfectly sedate. It seems that they're simply waiting for a teacher to arrive. No sense of emotion, nothing.

Progressing through the normal parts of the book, the dialogue and action is extremely slow. The camera would focus in on Ralph for a second, wait....then he'd say his line. This rough pacing brought down the entire feel of the movie.

Granted, it was made in 1963. It is a black and white movie, and uses a different kind of cinematography we are used to today. But that is not apparent in movies made earlier in black and white - Hitchcock movies are paced amazingly. This is not an example of a good use of the technology available.

But there were naturally certain redeeming points. The bloodlust in eating the first pig is pictured well, and the second half of the movie is much better, and easier to watch. There is a genuine frisson of tension while Ralph is being chased - although a flash or a glimpse of a possible attacher would make it more so - and the music and sound effects are used amazingly well; although there is one point, on the top of the mountain, when one line of music repeats over, and over, monotonously.

The main problem, aside from the pacing, must have been the lack of a clear point to the tale - in the novel, there was a societal critique, and a perfect image of one's "inner demons". In this movie - it lacks.

Rating: 6/10

I had the task of watching this for Society and Environment. We were studying leadership roles I think. Well anyway, I didn't even know what the heck Lord of the Flies was (I had some image of flies festering on some rubbish tip, flies trying to be the master of flies... I don't know what I was thinking!). Anwyay...

A forever relevant and realistic story about a group of boys stranded on an island. The boys, who are about 9 or 10, have to adjust to the lifestyle on an island fending for themselves. The group splits in two and there is a terrible amount of conflict on the island - they have very different ideas of hunting for food etc. This conflict and the stress of the new lifestyle takes it's toll and causes fatal things to happen. Totally convincing - GREAT actors.

You'll have to see it for yourself because you really do feel for the boys (I feel for Piggy). A very good realistic movie that really struck a chord with me.. scared me though - not in an Exorcist kind of way but more of a psychological way. Definitely recommended.

No one in their right mind can call this film anything but an utter and complete waste of time. When the movie was over, I felt personally insulted that I had been subjected to watching it. Amateurish beyond belief, incomprehensible to anyone sane, so technically inept that it made me cry, the acting so horrendous that when a character dies, you feel relieved, and so plain bad that every copy of it should be hunted down and destroyed.

My favorite part is when the camera pans over 7 boys who say their names, hesitantly, as if they are waiting for their cue, one after the other, for at least a minute. There is no point to this pan, since you forget their names as soon as they have said it. It is just there.

And whatever evil person that wrote the Kyrie Eleison song should be shot at dawn along with the rest of the crew!

And another thing! This film is so unbelievably dated that it is embarrassing.

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!

I'm going to go on a limb and say that this quite possibly would be the worst movie ever made. The acting is horrible. And yes, I know that they're just little boys, but come on now. There are talented kid actors around. A monkey could perform better than the kids in Lord of the Flies.

The book was a great book. I really enjoyed reading it. So, read the book and don't see the movie. Unless you like a movie where staring takes up more time than dialogue.

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.