lauli
3Sep11
I totally agree. I think it's a good film overall, especially considering when it was made, but the book is much better.
Wall
Displaying all 10 wall posts
Tony Pauletto
15Sep10
Aside from the grisly sound design and some lofty compositions, there is nothing inventive about this adaptation. Peter Brook's approach of amateur actors and raw locations is the perfect incentive to capture the tone, but the film is nonetheless plagued with dryness and rigidity.
Jonuk Who
29Nov09
Did I miss something, because I didn't like this movie. It seems amaturish, and erratic. You can pertentiously pass off to me that the rough edges are intentional, but it was a major drawback to have kid actors half acting, unevenly paced editing, and oddly drawn out scenes. It was beautiful to look at, but for me that was the only thing I enjoyed.
DT likes this
Christopher Smith
8Apr09
Excellent adaptation of William Golding's classic novel from director Peter Brook. The raw, unfocused cinematic style, with its gritty black-and-white cinematography and amateurish - but still convincing - performances from its young cast lends a compelling documentary realism. A classic.
Phil Worfel
5Dec08
Difficult to get into at first because of the line delivery from the kids. They unfortunately recite lines and it doesn't sound natural in the least. The editing for the film is top notch and I'm sure essential, owing to the difficulty of getting long takes with children. The scene with the bonfire and the first kill is terrifying in it's chaos and the final shot of Ralph is incredible.
