One good thing about the movie was that it followed the book really well. Even the lines are fairly accurate to the book.
Another thing that was good was that Simon's death was very well done.
One thing that could be improved would be Piggy's death. His death looked very fake and unrealistic.
It was also very bad quality. It could be improved by making it in colour, if it was a higher budget movie
While Brook's film was a film that stayed rather true to the novel's plot, and feelings, I find that the characters and themes are lacking. Most of the story stays the same but there were parts of the movie where it would have been confusing or hard to understand if you haven't first read the novel. Such as the scene with Simon and the Lord Of The Flies. The feel of the movie was similar to the novel, the only difference was simply in the viewer/reader's interpretation of the story. I don't find that the characters were portrayed the best they could be as there were differences in appearance. Also, the theme of spiritual power wasn't as apparent with Simon until his death.
Brook's adaptation effectively captures the characters and themes by delivered convincing monologues and the quotes from the book are adapted well. Also the fact that the movie was in black and white made the film look older than it was. However I believe that the actors could have been chosen more effectively because they were very unconvincing. Also when Simon sees the Lord of the Flies, I think that the director could have included the conversation because if you had not read the book, you would not have understood what had just occurred or that the beast is inside the boys.
I think the movie was very true to the novel and the dialogue was accurate to the book. I thought Simon's death was well done and Piggy's death was very moving. However, the characters had poor acting and were unconvincing. I also think the director should've included the conversation between Lord of the Flies and Simon to make his death more understandable.
Brook's adaptation of the novel by Golding sticks to the novel like it was the script, meaning there is not much of a difference, as apposed to the adaptation done in 1990 by Harry Hook, where the speech is more to the times of its creation. I also think the way they singled out Simon from the rest of the boys giving him his distinct appearance compared to the others was nice. The other boys had their brown or black hair, its difficult to tell because of the pigmentation of the movie, but Simon, as far as I can tell, was the only boy with blonde hair, singling him out and giving him his own "halo" I guess you would say, solidifying his Christ-like image. The way Simon is "accidentally" killed, is also done nicely. One aspect of the movie that good be greatly improved on, is the way Piggy is intentionally murdered by Roger, because it's not portrayed as well as it is in the book. But to give it credit, it's portrayed much better than in the 1990 adaptation.
I think that Brook's film adaptation of LOTF was good considering that it captures the characters, themes and feelings very well. Some things that were done well are that the adaptation follows the story line really well. The key events are mostly there and the character's dialogue is the same as it was in the book. The film also captures the characters and their personalities nicely. Also, I think that some scenes were portrayed very well including Simon's death scene and the feast. However, some elements that were lacking were the dialogue delivery of the actors which was very poor and not very convincing. Some scenes were missing which would have helped the audience understand the film such as Simon and the Lord of the Flies scene or when Samneric find the parachutist for the first time. I also thought that the movie should have slowed down a bit and concentrated more on some of the significant characters.
Brook's film adaptation of Lord of the Flies captures the characters, themes, and feelings of Golding's novel very well. The characteristics of the characters are followed very closely in the film as well as themes. For example descent into savagery is shown in the scene where Simon is murdered. One element that works in the film is that the dialogue is closely followed to the book. The film is also in black and white which adds a dark effect to the movie that seems more wild. The movie may have been better if Brook had shown Simon's spiritual connection in the movie. Also, Piggy's death scene was not portrayed as dramatic as it had been in the book.
Brook's film adaptation of the novel does a good job of being true to the novel. There are many lines in the movie that can be found in the book, and the movie does not skip any of the important events from the book. Also the build up of tension around Simon's death was done well.
Unfortunately the positive aspects of this movie end here in my opinion. The acting is really bad which distracts from the themes that are prominent in the book. I felt that there was not enough attention around Roger. In the movie Roger did not have a big presence, the only two times I can remember him doing anything were him stabbing the pig and killing Piggy. Another thing that I found weird was the pacing. At some points the movie was going from chapter to chapter very quickly, while other parts were very drawn out such as when they find the naval officer.
As we know, the movie is never the same as the book. One thing that was similar in Brook's film to Williams novel is Simons death. The chanting around the fire with spears and the savagery in the boys made me feel the darkness and tension in the scene. I find that Brook did a really good job at getting the main plot aspects and character changes. One of my characters in the movie is Jack. he was one of the better actors out of the boys.
In my opinion there are many things that could be better with the movie but one main thing is the quality. First of all, it's in black and white. Colour would have added more to the mood. To have the coloured war paint, the red blood smeared and the colour of the fire would have added a better affect to the watchers. Also, there should have been more dialog in some parts of the movie.
I think Brook's did a pretty good job of adapting the novel by Golding into a film. It included all important details in the plot such as the rise and fall of Ralph's Tribe, including the death of our beloved Piggy. The actors for each character did an excellent job portraying the character from the book, however they were horrible actors. The filming techniques were awful in my opinion, however they could have been considered excellent for the time of the release of the film. Overall, the movie was a good adaption of the novel. Does it mean the movie itself was good? No. However, I did enjoy watching it more than I did reading it. 10/10.
In my opinion, the transition made from Golding's Lord Of The Flies to Brook's film was not too bad, but there was definitely a lot of room for improvement. One thing they did well was adhering almost directly to the novel, even including specific details without adding too much filler. The children that act in the movie are fairly young, and even though they weren't amazing, their acting was considered pretty good for the 1960s. I felt they did a great job of portraying the characters correctly. Such as Ralph being the mature boy, while on the other hand, Jack becoming a tyrant. However I believe they could have added a bit more screen time to a few of the secondary characters like Simon and Roger, as their presence wasn't as large in the movie. One thing I didn't like about the film was that it was shot in black and white. Obviously it was intentional, but I think it ended up taking away from the visual aspect of the film. A deserted, jungle island is a perfect setting for bright colours and wide vistas, so by having the film in black and white kind of ruined that part of the movie for me. For the time period, It did what it was supposed to, even if that's not up to today's standards. 5/10
Brook’s film adaption of Lord of the Flies does accurately capture the themes and feelings present in Golding’s novel, however I believe the characters could have had more thought put into them. I believe the deaths of both Simon and Piggy were well done considering how the tension was built up strong enough before them, as well as at the end when Ralph is running out of the forest and stumbles upon the Naval Officer. The film stayed true to the themes and the novel itself. I think there could be improvement for the scene where Simon is ‘talking’ to the Lord of the Flies. Because we have read the novel we are aware of Simon’s spiritual ways, however for someone watching the film for the first time, they might not have caught on to that right away. I think when he is staring at the pig’s head it would have been better to show him going off into a trance and having the voice of the pig actually talk to him at that point.
Over all it was a good adaptation of the novel. Almost all the important scenes that were in Golding's book were in Brook's film. Some scenes would be a little confusing if you hadn't read the book, but you could still have a well enough understanding of what's going on. The characters were well chosen and represented their own personal themes, as well as a combined them for the novel. The film would've had a better affect in some situations, such as Simons death, if it was in colour. When the boys murdered Simon it wasn't as intense as the book and I believe that was due to the lack of colour. Piggy was another very significant character, with a very graphic death in Golding's novel, his death in the film could've been improved and shown more of, it was quick and didn't have as great of an affect on the viewers.
The film adaptation of Lord of the Flies was overall horribly done. Though it does capture the themes of Lord of the Flies in certain ways, the movie ultimately falls flat due to terrible acting and questionable design choices (making the film black and white), render it an awful film at best. Though many of the scenes from the book are present, this element is overshadowed by multiple instances of poorly acted scenes.
I think that the film adaptation of Lord of the Flies was really well done. One of the best elements of the movie for me was definitely the actor that played Piggy, this is how I pictured Piggy and the actor played the role of Piggy very well. Also I found that it really showed the boys turning into savages with all the face and body paint. Another thing was lead up to Piggys death was very well done because you could tell something was coming. Also the way that Ralph watched Piggy fall into the water and not being able to do anything was very moving. Something that could of been improved would definitely be the music they used, I think that the music was cheesy and poorly done. I think that the movie would've been better in colour. Overall I think that the movie was very well done.
Write something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview.