because the "1" ratings are coming mostly from a bunch of teenage idiot numbnuts watching this in high school who can't appreciate good cinema.
There, I said it.
If the book and the movie weren't a staple of high school literature classes it would be at least in the upper "7's". 9/10 for me.
No, it's because the two different films are nearly equal in overall quality, though for very different reasons.
"I don't deduce, I observe."
There's not a single magical moment in the remake. The '63 version had several striking and eerie moments, though it may not have been 100% perfect, either. The only thing the remake had was more realistic language from the kids...and color.
shareJust goes to show how subjective everybody's perception of artistic quality is. I can think of several moments in the 1990 version that struck me as "magical."
"I don't deduce, I observe."
I am an American and I perfer the 1963 version. That said the 1990 had better acting and the violence was better. The thing is neither movie realy does the book justice. One a side note I like how in both versions Simon looks nice and Roger looks like a serial killer.
shareA 3 year gap between responses - I have literally just seen the 1990s remake - I dont think that version is terrible but like most re-makes it was just not as good as the original in practically all areas
Acting. Sorry but the kid playing Piggy in the modern version was quite pathetic at times. the overall level was slightly better in the original
Faithfulness to the source. The biggest problem with the remake is re-jigging the Brit schoolboys as US Military cadets. You take a group of over-privileged kids and dump them in that situation and compare the reaction to MILITARY cadets who would probably have some basic survival skills. The re-make seemed to re-arrange the story structure and some elements were just not in it - what about the body of the pilot?
Characterisation. In the original though we do not have a full back story we do actually get to find out a bit more about Piggy and co. The re-make seems to think you can place non characters into a situation and people will start to care
Cinematography. The black and white original was really well shot. As an example watch the closing scenes where Ralph is escaping and you will see its superior in the original. Plus the black and white gave it a sort of bleak quality at times
Violence. This one was erratic. In places the re-make was better though I LOL-ed when Piggy got killed in the re-make possibly due to bad execution, bad characterisation or bad acting.
and now the clincher, the trump card of the original over the re-make
The Supernatural/Religion. Although it is not done heavily at all the original implies some sort of supernatural force on the island. Religion as a theme is all over the place in the original. The title of the story - "Lord Of The Flies" is another name for Satan. The kids in Jacks group singing as a choir. Simon as some sort of Christ figure. Having faith that they will be rescued. Nowhere at all in the re-make
Overall the re-make was not terrible 6/10 but if you have the choice see the original 8/10
Which is more like the book this movie or the 90's?
shareThe original film is much closer to the book. The biggest difference is that the 1990 film had all American characters whereas the boys in the book were English. It changes the effect quite a bit. Also, the 1963 film had dialogue directly from the book with very few changes, unlike the remake.
share[deleted]
In reply to the previous post, with the original film the point was to make it remind the viewer of a documentary which is why it was not filmed in color. I think the director succeeded at this. You must remember also that Peter Brook was regularly a stage director and didn't know much about film and the cinematographer had never touched a movie camera before. I think you have to see the film more than once to appreciate its merits.
By the way, the original intention was to have it produced by bigshot Hollywood producer Sam Spiegel who had done Bridge on the River Kwai and other epics. He got called away to do Lawrence of Arabia. Imagine what Lord of the Flies would have looked like if Spiegel had done it.
I think the director who would have made the best film of this story was Alfred Hitchcock. Of course it wouldn't have had that "documentary aspect" but the suspense would have been incredible.
It didn't seem like a documentary at all. It seemed like a badly produced and directed school play. The scene where they introduce themselves on the beach is a perfect example, where the camera pans to each of them and they each wait an eternity for the cue to say their name. That's not realistic. The actors playing Jack and Ralph did ok, but the others were pretty bad, even for child actor standards of that time.
The film was badly reviewed when it came out for good reason. Some people look back on it fondly now like they do with many other older/original films, when the reality is that they are bad movies. The 1990 version wasn't great, but at least the production quality was improved.
Both version are equally good.
Esta es mi firma
Nah, it's because this movie is garbage. It's lucky to even have a seven.
share