Rijndri Load of rubbish!!

Arianna Moses Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

Fatma Suarez The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

Rosie Searle It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

kijii After attempting to watch this movie from beginning to end several times, I finally saw it. I'm not sure whether Brook was brave or stupid to try to make a complete movie, based on the highly symbolic classical masterpiece by William Golding. Nevertheless, he did it well considering that the only speaking parts were done by those non-professional boys. (It must have been interesting to watch Brook directing those boys.) For me, the main feature that comes out in the movie is that if a group of boys, of that age, are left alone--without adult supervision--on a desert island they will eventually form their own factions, clichés, and hierarchies based on their particular skills and priorities. Leadership seems to be something that is hard to define. However, if a society is forced to start all over again, leaders will somehow emerge based on the ability to attract followers.However, if I recall correctly, in the book (which I read some 30 years ago), each of those boys were symbolic of some aspect of society. The task of capturing all of this in a movie was just too difficult to do well. My favorite character of the file is 'Piggy.' I noticed that there was one scene where he orally related a story to a group of boys. In a society without print media, this oral tradition of remembering the past is--and always had been--crucial.

ofpsmith As a big fan of William Golding's 1954 novel, I was eager to see Peter Brook's 1963 film, as I knew that Golding himself had shown approval of it. In the midst of a school trip (or evacuation as the film makes clear), a plane crashes into the Pacific Ocean. The only survivors are the children. Ralph (James Aubrey) is a natural benevolent leader who gets the group together and decides the first order of business is to make a fire so that they can be rescued. Piggy (Hugh Edwards) is the overweight adviser to Ralph, who although represents reason, is often picked on. Jack Merridew (Tom Chapin) is the malevolent choir boy, who seems to care little about being rescued, and whose desires are hunting and having a cult of personality. Although the boys are productive at first, Jack soon turns most boys against Ralph's democratic practices and begins a new tribe on the island. Soon almost all boys turn against Ralph. The film has very little theme music, and often relies on long running takes to illustrate the story. Cinematography is excellent and the child actors really do a good job. The film follows the novel very carefully and faithfully adapts it to screen. I enjoyed both the book and the movie fully.

anthonymichaelbangert I was not a fan of this novel. I want to start by saying that. The story goes that a bunch of British schoolboys are flying out of the UK during wartime, when their plane crashes on a deserted island. The young boys must survive on their own, developing rules and systems to keep themselves going. But as time goes on, religious like beasts are created within some of the boys minds, and the ideas spread quickly. One boy starts his own, individual tribe dedicated to hunting and killing the "beast" and many of the boys follow. These boys become savages and go against the remainder of the island. I don't like the story for many reasons, the main being that it seems too forced. The ideas are understandably a mirror to society and its culture, but done so in an unbelievable way. On top of that, this movie wasn't put together well. Bad acting across the board led to me constantly be taken out of the film. The cinematography was terrible in areas, but made up for it with some amazing and beautiful imagery.The film seemed to drag on for way too long in certain scenes. I just found so many things wrong with this film, and it was not one I would want to re-watch.Soundtrack: 8 Script: 4 Originality: 10 Cinematography: 5 Casting: 8 Acting: 3

dasnataree Okay, let me just say it: The 1990 screen adaptation was awful compared to this amazing film.I don't know why, but there's just something about this film that captures the disturbing essence of the story that the 1990 version lacks. This 1963 version is the most true adaptation to any book I have ever seen: For example, the boys actually have British accents, like the book, unlike the 90's version. In the 1963 version, there are no adults on the island (except for the parachuted man and the ranger who comes in at the end), exactly like the book. In the 90's version, the pilot is shown at the beginning (What the heck!?). When Piggy dies, he is ACTUALLY KNOCKED OFF THE CLIFF (unlike the 1990 movie, where the boulder bounces off his head- seriously, guys? Do you have any concept of the laws of physics?) The script follows the dialogue of the book nearly word-for-word, and has no music- which adds to the creepy aura of the story. All in all, it's an excellent film that I recommend to all people. I promise it will not let down fans of the book.