Watch Lord of the Flies For Free

Overrated and overhyped

While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

It is encouraging that the film ends so strongly.Otherwise, it wouldn't have been a particularly memorable film

It is encouraging that the film ends so strongly.Otherwise, it wouldn't have been a particularly memorable film

The book, Lord of the Flies is a very complex novel, and to completely grasp it the complexity of the novel, you have to have a higher understanding of English lore. The movie is the same way, to understand it you have to understand the book and the symbolism. The movie is alright just on its own, but the book is just on another level that the movie never seems to reach.

I owned the DVD of "Lord of the Flies" for more than 15 years already, but for some reason I kept it wrapped in plastic and refused to watch it for as long as I didn't read the classic William Golding novel on which it is based. Now that I read the book, I sorely regret this choice. I'm not a big reader, but based on the few great works that I did read, I principally learned that you should restrict to one version only; - either the book or the film. By now I wish that I either watched this film, considered it to be just average and simply assume that the novel is similar. OR that I read the book, realize it's fairly impossible to make an equally powerful film out of it and never even bother to unwrap the film from its plastic! The issue with "Lord of the Flies" is that it's not a bad movie on itself, but in case you constantly compare it to the brilliant novel stuck in your head, it does become quite terrible! I can't stop making the following reflection: why would one even bother to adapt a legendary novel into a film version if he plans to alter several small but crucial details, as well as simply eliminate most of the symbolism? The genius of Sir Golding's tale lies within the fact that it's the perfect allegory on humanity's true and dark nature! The story painfully illustrates how human beings, regardless of their age or social status, rapidly degrade towards violent savagery when confronted with difficult situations, extreme conditions, lack of surveillance and the increasing urge to rely on survival instincts. This heavy but essential fundament is almost entirely missing in the film. Here we have a bunch of kids running amok on an island, but I never sensed that atmosphere of hopelessness or that genuine fear of the unknown. Two seemingly minor and superficial changes ruin the entire story of the film, in fact. In Golding's novel, all the boys came from a traditional British boarding school, whereas in the film they are American military cadets. This makes a world of difference regarding how they interpret authority or how easily they turn rogue. It's a lot more petrifying to imagine how choir boys metamorphose into face-painted hunters, like the case in the book, rather than military cadets. Another downright dumb change in the script is how they set the events in the present day; late eighties/early nineties. Golding's novel, written somewhere in the early fifties if I'm not mistaken, thrived on the disturbing idea that WWII escalated into an all- devastating nuclear war. The boys still hoped to get rescued, but maybe there even aren't any adults left? Here, the kids are a little worried about Russian but otherwise there isn't any threat coming out of the world next to the island. The mental as well as physical descent into primitivism is missing completely. They boys hair doesn't grow wild, they aren't walking around filthy or wounded, the rivalry between "civilized" Ralph and "barbaric" Jack doesn't slowly mount, etc. But all the above isn't even half as scandalous as the fact that Golding's symbolism has entirely vanished! If you haven't read the book but only watched the film, you certainly won't be able to explain why the story is called "Lord of the Flies". So many aspects that are essential in the book are just mere footnotes in the movie, like the pig's head on a stake, the beach gatherings summoned via blowing on a giant sea shell or the immense fear of "The Beast". Just to illustrate that "Lord of the Flies" isn't a complete an utter disaster; I have to mention a couple of positive points as well. The Piggy character is definitely the most properly developed one of the film, and truly resembles how he was created by Sir William Golding, although he still could have been even whinier. Most of the young actors certainly give away adequate performances, while the filming locations are breathtaking. I might still do my best to track down the film version released in 1963, as allegedly it's much more faithful to the book, but after that I'll follow my own newly invented rule: either the book or the movie, but not both.

This adaptation of William Golding's chilling novel, that bears the same name, is decidedly American. Although brilliantly acted, this American adaptation of the classic lacks the essence of the novel. The changes are obvious. There was no plane crash, no choir of boys, no symbolism that was the rich undercurrent of the novel.Upon arrival, in a raft that mysteriously disappears after the opening sequence, the boys; seemingly from an American military school, are stranded on an uninhabited island, presumably somewhere in the Pacific. The film moves quickly without allowing the viewer to develop any attachment to any of the boys. The vulgarity used by the boys was superfluous and unnecessary. Further detaching the viewer from the experience by setting them on edge by the verbosity of these boys. The vestige of the Captain? on the island with the boys veers us further from the novel. Although some thought was used to turn this "last adult" into Simon 's monster, the delicacy of the situation is manhandled until warped into obscurity. There is no symbolism, no hidden fear of the unknown. The viewer is lead to the conclusion rather than discovering it, as it occurs in the novel. The deaths of Simon and Piggy were almost as an afterthought, rather than chiefly main points. There is no frailty of Piggy, with his restrictive asthma. No idyllic beauty in Simon. The very features that endeared the reader were lost on the viewer who had no connection to the boys. And without doing so, their deaths were just relegated to gratuitous violence. The underdeveloped character of Roger made Piggy's death nonsensical. There was no shattering of the conch. No forethought that Roger was the true evil of the island. The reason the boys followed Jack. The threat of psychotic violence wrapped up in a tween wrapper. Jack and Ralph, albeit most developed characters, were shallow. The child actors portrayed their roles brilliantly. But we're underestimated by screenplay and director. An underlying fault within the entire project. Giving this film such a high ranking was out of love for the story. The enigmatic island, the poor tortured Ralph, and for the loss of innocence. Overall, if you have the means, seek the original 1963 version and skip The Lord Of The Flies, Gilligan's Island edition.

Lord Of The Flies is not an enjoyable book, but it's near impossible not to admire it. It's a powerful story but there's good reason why it's studied in so many schools. The second time it's been adapted for film, the black and white 60s version is apparently good but comparing this awful adaptation to the book is like comparing The Mona Lisa to a crayon drawing. This decides to ignore it's source material. The boys are now American. They have an adult with them on the island. Simon's barely in it. The twins are barely in it. The themes of the novel and the various motifs are given little to no attention. The dead pilot is never on the island. The beast encounter is reduced to a boy getting frightened by the adult. The boy's arrive on a raft yet decide not to use it to get off the island again. There are virtually no hunts. The Lord Of The Flies never actually speaks to Simon. Many of the key scenes and hints of savagery are left out. The boys... you get the idea.What were they thinking? The acting for the boys is surprisingly good and it's well photographed but the script is terrible. It's totally lacking in what makes the book so raw and powerful. It doesn't explore themes at all and is just a simple story of boys devolving into savagery. It feels rushed and since it's only 90 minutes long too much of it is missed out. It may be unfair to keep comparing it to the book when books and films are 2 different mediums, but even ignoring the book this isn't a very good drama anyway. The story is a bit dated and therefore perhaps another adaptation wasn't necessary in the first place. The finale is good, and you get the odd powerful moment here and there but there's not a lot of tension as the boys descend into savagery. We all know what's coming and we don't care. Ralph is well played but too soft, Jack is too obsessed with fun, Simon is underutilized and so are Sam and Eric. They pretty much got Piggy right. This is just a bad adaptation all together, even worse than Of Mice And Men (1992). Don't use this film for revision if LOTF is in your exam, as this ignores the book.4/10