Watch Lord of the Flies For Free

Best movie of this year hands down!

A waste of 90 minutes of my life

In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

Fifty some years later, this Golding film is a reminder of the bankruptcy of England's understanding of itself. As one of the 3-4 greatest colonial countries of post-Middle Ages Europe, we would think the genocidal policies of Europe in various "new worlds" would have caused educated, intelligent people to ask questions about that history. Here we have an England that slaughtered and conquered and enslaved Africans and inflicted incalculable damage on Caribbeans, North American indigenous, Australian indigenous, and Asian cultures. But in this film book of 1954 and film of 1963, neither Golding nor Brook can see the way clear to including a single child of color. Why? Because apparently the issue of genocide and centuries of terror is a matter for white folk to decide.The Golding story is a British bourgeois wet dream of the failure to "civilize" the savage world, enacted of course by all white historical actors.To be precise here, Golding imagines here and in other works that there lurks in the uncivilized a murderous savagery that can only be corralled by western civilization. Regrettably, western civ has been too weak, too uncertain, and too incompetent to truly finish the world-caging task.Had Golding, and Brook, read something besides British self-congratulatory histories and seen something besides white "civilizing" westerns, they might have noticed that the true savagery of the last 600 years, or even last 2500 if we want to be a little comprehensive, originated in Europe. Always. And then Europe proceeded to genocide the world, only to find in 1930 the chickens had come home to roost. That the evil inherent in European supremacist values and social structures had faced off in Europe's very viscera. It refined its millennia of fascist practice and proceeded to genocide itself.That history, that euro-characteristic of supremacy -- supremacy of religion, of color, of culture, of gender, of values -- was the cause of it's even as yet unrestored, unreparationed evil. The very conception of The Lord of the Flies is a confident moralizing that at least a couple of white euro-men know the secret of evil. When, at least in 1954 and 1963, they hadn't the vaguest clue about their origins, but were in fact, stranded boys wandering in the arts, perpetuating the mythologies that wove back at least to "renaissance" Europe, or to fascist Rome, or to hypocritically un-"democratic" Greece, and indeed to the whole notion of "civilization" itself.It would have been instructive if Goldling and Brook had at some time tried to research the deep history of human tribes, how we lived for 40,000 years before the urbanization, which we call civilization, began. It was certainly the rulers and thinkers and "artists" and armies of "civilization" that destroyed tribes where ever they went. Perhaps, had they listened, they might have learned something about what it means to be a be a human being on this planet.

As a fan of the source material, I can honestly say that this classic film version of "Lord of the Flies" matches, and even exceeds the original novel in many ways. First of all, despite the original novel being gone of the most genuinely shocking and deeply disturbing books I have ever read (and the fact that the book is much more graphic than the film, and some of the book's most striking sequences are altogether ignored in this adaptation), I find this cinematic version to be even more creepy. While it isn't gruesome in any sense of the word, it manages to be more a psychologically damaging work.Mankind's descent into the inevitable pits of madness portrayed in Golding's controversial classic is powerfully captured on gritty black and white film as death and chaos reign. The film is shot in a cinema verite-type style; much of the film doesn't feel like a "film" at all, it feels real. Rather than any possibility of gore being the main aspect of this haunting work of art that is strikingly horrific, much of the terror comes from editing, camera movement, and atmosphere. everything builds up before at last exploding into violent horror at the very end. although it is not listed as such on IMDb at the current time, "Lord of the Flies" is a near masterpiece that I would label as a REAL horror movie.

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.

William Golding's timeless novel Lord of the Flies is one of the many works of literature that has continuously etched itself into the English reading curriculum, much like Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird and William Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet. Golding's novel isn't a racial parable or a story about star-crossed lovers, but a dark, biblical allegory with a message about as crippling and as thought-provoking as anyone I can think of. It's not an easy read, with lots of imagery spelled out in grand detail and a plethora of ambiguous symbolism. And for that matter, it's not a very easy watch. One must go in prepared and open-minded to truly enjoy what Peter Brook's Lord of the Flies brings.The story is simple. After a horrific plane crash, a group of young schoolboys are left stranded and ill-equipped to try and sustain themselves on a remote island surrounded by water as far as the eye can see. There are no adults, the pilot is dead, and their home country of England is now involved with what will be known as World War II. We are first greeted with plucky young Ralph (Aubery), who will later become selected leader of the island, with his leadership resembling a fair and balanced democracy. Ralph's best friend on the island is a chubby boy named Piggy (Edwards), who remains realistic about the situation that the boys will be condemned to this island until they die.Another boy on the island named Jack (Chapin), quickly embraces life on the island, and turns to barbaric and savage intentions as the antagonist whose only care is to hunt and kill. He becomes symbolic for Satan, while another boy named Simon (Gaman) becomes almost a Christlike figure, with his excessive assistance to the boys and authentic kind nature.The moral of the novel and film is quite interesting, and is open for some heavy debate. Golding states that the only reason humans are kept in place and are civilized is because of law and order, and if those laws were ever to be lifted at any given time, that at first, people would try to remain civil, but would soon become virtually consumed by their savage instincts. We act on our superego, meaning we do what we believe is right, and if laws didn't exist, we'd most likely act on our id, our impulsive inner-evil if you will. Over the course of the film, it seems like in no time these once well-kept, collective children are consumed by their own inner-desires to act on impulse and not fear any consequences at all. This makes for a very unsettling picture, especially in the last half-hour when some unthinkable scenes occur.Hook's direction sets up a consistently tense and very detailed atmosphere. The cinematography is also commendable, only complimented by the dreary silence because of the choice to omit any formal music. Hook manages to incorporate some rather tricky tracking shots, and some birds-eye shots that are difficult to successfully pull off. Apparently, the film was shot on an island in Puerto Rico, and very little scripting was done. Much of the dialog is improvised, which works for and against the film simultaneously. There is a great feeling of authenticity when a film or show is improvised, but here, the children, all of them I believe to be first time actors with some never even returning to film again, recite their lines in a strange, unnatural way, which takes time to get used to. It provides inevitable corniness, but thankfully, can't derail the entire film all together.Not to mention, the pacing feels a little off. Sometimes, long periods of silence go on, and we are unsure of where the film is going. Although a little odd, it provides time for the cinematography and atmosphere to take effect, projecting a feeling of dread and uncertainty. Throughout the film and the novel, the boys are fearing, what they call "the beast," which refers to the unknown on the island. The boys constantly believe some creature is out to get them, and this fear consumes them, much like their feelings of barbarism and savagery. This is where the film begins to hit home. What kid didn't dream of living by his own rules, in a place where he/she could do and say whatever they wanted? It isn't until that dream becomes a reality do we begin to regret our wish. The true tragedy is these boys didn't wish for this.Lord of the Flies was a challenge to adapt to film, and director Peter Brook clearly accepted it with gratitude and honor. He has great respect for Golding's original work, keeping the biblical theology and references in place, and rarely tampering the original events, making this a successful adaptation. I still feel the need to reiterate the fact that the phrase "the book is always better than the movie" is a void statement, seeing as the film adaptation can never be truly everything you wanted it to be. This is because the film is based off the director and/or screenwriter's interpretation of the story. As far as that works, Brook's is on par with mine, but perhaps the more important question is, is it on par with yours? Starring: James Aubrey, Tom Chapin, Hugh Edwards, and Tom Gaman. Directed by: Peter Brook.