I haven't seen the film but after reading the synopsis on Wikipedia and I have almost finished the book I could tell that thouse was going to be bad. Turning english privat school boys into American Millitary-school attendee's (for lack of a better word) is the worst idea in history, and I can tell that this film will be horrible by that.
Your terminated!
yup!
the acting's pretty horrific at times too.
Its actually quite entertaining though, but (as I'm sure you know, given where we're posting) if you want a film that follows the book and is (IMO) much better (though really low budget, cheesy intro, etc etc) then watch the 1963 adaptation. I don't know where to get it *coughpiratebaycough*
[deleted]
[deleted]
i watched this film when it came out, and i loved it, agreed i was 12, which in some ways was a bonus as i wasnt cynical, i saw it as an adventure film, i hadnt read the book, i knew nothing about the story, but it always struck me as poignant and meaningful, even at a niave age of 12.
sharePeople are so inhumane. Especially Jack. It makes me sick to think that they didn't get into trouble after the movie ended. I mean come on, who would actually want this story to come to light and bring shame upon a country.
To truly create a memorable signature I'm going to need more than a hundred characters.
Watching... hating...
Your terminated!
You should be ashamed of yourself for reading anything off Wikipedia.
Then again I don't blame you if you're a Brit.
Keep this with you for future reference. Book > Movie. And that goes for any book that has been turned into a movie.
I liked the film, but the book was better. Typical brit, always bitching at anything that's related to America. Don't be mad your country's majority of the films are horrible.
P.S. Stay away from Wikipedia. You wont learn anything from there.
[deleted]
Why is a very minor citicism of American acting or film making taken as 'Brit bitching'?
Jeez, if you can't stand a bit of comment good or bad get a thicker skin.
Furthermore, you can learn a lot from Wikki. Just remember it's personalised information and not always down the middle or neutral.
[deleted]
You should be ashamed of yourself for reading anything off Wikipedia.
Then again I don't blame you if you're a Brit.
Keep this with you for future reference. Book > Movie. And that goes for any book that has been turned into a movie.
I liked the film, but the book was better. Typical brit, always bitching at anything that's related to America. Don't be mad your country's majority of the films are horrible.
P.S. Stay away from Wikipedia. You wont learn anything from there.
It was a good enough Brit-flick for Americans to re-make though??? It was more a case of spoiling what didn't need to be spoilt, though to get more money, Americans would re-make a good Brit novie, to make money at 'home'.Can't think of many American movies we here, gave thought to copy.
I don't know if there are alternative prints of the 1990 version, but the one I just watched on comcast on demand "free movies" has the movie ending just as the Marine unit arrives to the island, and asks Ralph, who's being chased by Jack and his tribe, "what are you guys doing?". Credits roll right there. So, as far as we know from this cut, they could be punished later. Is there an extended cut which shows the aftermath?
shareThe better word is Cadet, you dunce.
"Wisdom begins in Wonder"
-Socrates
We have to review this film for our English coursework. If we watchi it one more time I will have to gouge my eyes out, it's that bad!
This book will ALWAYS be better than this piece of rubbish.
Ahahaha. Sorry. It just had to be said. XD
Being a British book has nothing to do with it. Hollywood ruins all great books!
"I've been waiting for this day my whole life; this day of reckoning." - Nero
This film is an AWFUL interpretation of the book. As a matter of fact, this barely follows the plot at all. I wouldn't recommend that anyone watch this movie, it's terrible. The 1963 movie was better and much more accurate.
sharePeople say the 1963 version is boring, but I really have to disagree. I originally saw the 1990 version when I was about 10 or so, and I was fascinated by it. I read the book about a year or say later (6th grade), and I've been reading it at least once a year since then. I saw the 1963 version in 9th grade, and, after having read the book three times by then, I loved it. I didn't find it boring at all. A few days ago, I finally re-watched the 1963 version, then the 1990 version came on several days later (now going into 12th grade), and I realized how bad it was compared to the older version. I hated the unnecessary amount of cussing they did in the 1990 version, and I much preferred British schoolboys to American military-attendees that cuss too much. I hated Piggy in this one as well; the Piggy in the old one was adorable. I just wanted to give him a hug.
Never misjudge the most faithful
heart of your beloved. Forever yours, forever mine, forever us.
[deleted]
I could tell that this thread was going to be pointless by the cliched criticism in your title.
http://sanpacoblog.blogspot.com