MovieChat Forums > Lord of the Flies (1963) Discussion > Awful Film. My second 1/10 ever.

Awful Film. My second 1/10 ever.

posted 13 years ago by sdsigma
31 replies | jump to latest

I haven't read the book. I just thought I should mention the first. And, apparently, not reading the book gives me a unique perspective on the film in that I am able to judge the film and not the book as SO MANY fans of this movie seem to be doing! You might love the book and just love the idea of a movie based on the book, but defending it is a joke. Praising it should be punishable by death! Just kidding, kind of.

---

1. Horribly forced dialog
I gather the movie took the lines identically from the book. If it didn't, then that is honestly the poorest writing I've ever seen. I'm sure it 'sounds' better on paper, but you cannot ignore the fact that movie is a different medium where different thoughts and ideas are represented through different things (i.e. expressions and)

2. Sound
Did whoever even try to make it sound like they were on an island? I read the other topic which says the voices had to be re-recorded. Even still, just a sound of wind blowing against trees or something gives an idea of how seperate they are from the world. Nope. The movie is silent and very dead!

3. Annoying cinematography
There are several terrible moments, such as the introduction of that stupid crew or when Ralph runs into the sailor and it takes *beep* to look at the guys face. I can't really express what was terrible about it without sounding like an illiterate tit so I'll just say this - I've seen Indian films with better cinematography and those films are seriously pathetic.

4. Disgustingly bad acting by everyone.
I understand that this is down to opinion. I am usually the person to defend actors as I can almost always enter a movie and forget about the world I occupy. And these are child actors, so its actually pretty impressive that I was facepalming at the actors throughout the film.

-----------

All of that is my opinion, obviously. That's only some of the things too.. So, if you have anything to shout, please do! I want feedback and some golden message stating why I'm an idiot and have completely misunderstood the film.. because I really hope such a thing exists. Otherwise this film is genuine garbage.

[–] willywilly 13 years ago

Easy. All your criticisms are technical in nature. I too though jeeez what a rudimentary production. But the story came through perfectly despite all that and said everything it had to say.

[–] sdsigma 13 years ago

I guess I didn't have the same experience as you :P Its only because I read reviews from people that have read the book that I know that symbolism even existed in the film. To me, this film is nothing more than a bunch of children doing silly things.

[–] willywilly 13 years ago

Well maybe that's all the world is.

[–] selfademus 12 years ago

whoa.

[–] davidwile 12 years ago

Hey folks,

I first read the novel as a young lad when it first came out about 1955, and I have read it several times in the decades since. I also saw the 1963 film sometime in the mid-1960s, and a few times since then.

I liked the book, and I liked the film. I do not want to sound like a book snob, but there were some things I liked more about the book than the film. One of those was the characterization of Ralph. Ralph seemed "stronger" to me in the book than the film, but please do not interpret that to mean I did not like the film. Both have been favorites of mine for decades.

Best wishes,
Dave Wile

[–] Zuider_Zee 9 years ago

Scenes which developed Ralph's character were cut from the film; this might explain why Ralph seemed stronger in the novel.

No matter how many times I see this, the ending still unnerves me. I must read that book again. I haven't read it since 1977.

[–] d-perkinz 12 years ago

I've always suspected that, children that never grew up.

[–] bfroberg 11 years ago

Mind. Blown! :o

[–] iKnowFilm 10 years ago

Children doing silly things is a huge part of the symbolism and what the book is all about.

While I understand where you're coming from with not liking the movie because you didn't read the book I think you really ought to read the book then watch the movie. I don't necessarily recommend that procedure with all book-to-movie adaptations but with this one I do.

This is one of those movies that are awesome to watch just to see an adaptation of a beloved book...not to get a great movie experience. This kind of movie definitely has it's place.

[–] ralecar 12 years ago

I completely agree with sdsigma. Horrible on many, many levels.

[–] SnoozeAlarm 11 years ago

I fully agree with the OP. An absolutely dreadful film. No redeeming value whatsoever. When I saw it, I remember feeling that it was if someone had turned on a camera to capture whatever random things happened to be going on. And now I read this from the trivia, and think: no wonder it's such a stinker!

"Once filming began, Peter Brook largely dispensed with the script and encouraged his young cast to improvise. He shot over 60 hours of footage which was then edited down into a 90-minute film. Consequently, there is no screenplay credit."

I cried because I had no shoes until I met a man with no sole. ~ Ancient Disco Proverb

[–] g_dekok 11 years ago

Then why didn't you change the channel? This movie is NOT a "stinker", it is a classic.

[–] SnoozeAlarm 11 years ago

Why did you assume that I didn't. I watched it for about 10-15 minutes and then I did change the channel. A true stinkeroo.

I cried because I had no shoes until I met a man with no sole. ~ Ancient Disco Proverb

[–] mandeep_basarke 11 years ago

Why did it stink?

"Gentlemen, This is a War Room, There's no fighting allowed in Here!"

[–] llanwydd 11 years ago

That would seem a shortsighted judgement if you only watched it for fifteen minutes. If you can accept the fact that it is a low-budget film made with non-actors then you might be able to watch it for the whole hour and a half.

[–] ABetterDay 11 years ago

Can't disagree; this is one terrible film. It could only appeal to those who also find "All-Star Championship Wrestling" to be quality entertainment.

Don't waste your time on this garbage.

Remember When Movies Didn't Have To Be Politically Correct?

[–] MisfitDoll 11 years ago

This is a movie I'd always meant to see, but never did, until an airing last night on TCM. The issues the OP had with it, I understand. He's right. But, I thought it was fabulous and harrowing, and I appreciated it on the same level I would an experimental film done in a cinema verite style. The black and white photography was stunning. The passages without sound didn't bother me. The fact that it seemed like a silent film, with dialogue and some sound dubbed in later, didn't detract from the story. I thought it was pretty shocking for something filmed in 1960 and released in 1963, when many films still had the prurient nature of the stylized melodramas of the 1950s.

I put the hair in the bag

[–] rikajessie 11 years ago

I thought it was really good. While the production values seem amateurish, it was very faithful to the book. It would have been better in color I think, and maybe some more dramatic feeling in some of the scenes, but overall, I think it's excellent for the fact that they really stuck to the book. I liked it much better than the remake.

[–] vispateresa 11 years ago

I saw this film for the first time as a teenager in the early 80s, and it left me both disturbed and fascinated. It's one of those films you hardly forget after watching it.

I love black and white films (I hate todays's films with special effects), so what you call "annoying cinematography" was probably an attempt to be true-to-life, focusing more on the story rather than the show itself (something that happens often in today's films where you have beautiful cinematography and beautiful scenery, but very little substance).

I think the director wanted to show the naked truth, rather than make it appealing. I haven't seen the newer version of the film, but I doubt it will be better.

It would be interesting to hear what your favourite films are (I'm not ironic).

[–] mattiasflgrtll6 11 years ago

Actually, I think it's quite the opposite. When it DOES come out a really good film today the cinematography is still pretty boring. I don't really see where you got your idea of the opposite. The latest James Bond-movie succeeded on both levels though.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]