Schoolboys marooned on a Pacific island create their own savage civilization.Schoolboys marooned on a Pacific island create their own savage civilization.Schoolboys marooned on a Pacific island create their own savage civilization.
- Awards
- 1 win & 1 nomination
- Director
- Writers
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Storyline
Did you know
- TriviaEleven-year-old Hugh Edwards, who plays Piggy in the film, landed his role by writing a letter to the director which read, "Dear Sir, I am fat and wear spectacles."
- GoofsAs Piggy is near-sighted, his spectacles could not be used as a "magnifying glass" to light a bonfire: lenses for near-sightedness would scatter, not focus, the sun's rays. (This error occurs in the original novel and was perpetuated in the 1990 remake of the film.)
- Crazy creditsThe opening credits list the entire production crew but none of the actors.
- ConnectionsFeatured in L'Oeil du cyclone: Cannibalisme, réalité ou fantasme (1995)
Featured review
May I start by saying a pox on those who do not love the cast.
I honestly can't see why you complain. I love the book; I didn't need to read it for school, but I read it anyway and enjoyed it. I understood the message Golding brought about. Then why am I not offended by this movie as I was by Lord of the Rings?
This film is an excellent translation of Golding's novel. It is stark, bold and well directed. The young cast are frighteningly talented, especially Chapin and Edwards. This has everything I expected and much more. Perhaps I was wishing for a more vivid "Lord of the Flies" scene, but it brought it's message across and kept everything in the book alive. I marvel every time I see Edwards' Piggy. I can't understand the capacity the boy had at such an age. Jack was well portrayed also, as was Ralph.
The ending was perfect. I admit the music did throw me off a tad but everything else just came so willingly. The emotions of the boys practically leaked out through to me, and that one little boy in particular (I've forgotten his name, I'm afraid - is it Percy?) looking up at the sea-captain just personified everything that the ending symbolised. This film is one of my favourites and I cannot see how anyone could fault it so drastically.
I honestly can't see why you complain. I love the book; I didn't need to read it for school, but I read it anyway and enjoyed it. I understood the message Golding brought about. Then why am I not offended by this movie as I was by Lord of the Rings?
This film is an excellent translation of Golding's novel. It is stark, bold and well directed. The young cast are frighteningly talented, especially Chapin and Edwards. This has everything I expected and much more. Perhaps I was wishing for a more vivid "Lord of the Flies" scene, but it brought it's message across and kept everything in the book alive. I marvel every time I see Edwards' Piggy. I can't understand the capacity the boy had at such an age. Jack was well portrayed also, as was Ralph.
The ending was perfect. I admit the music did throw me off a tad but everything else just came so willingly. The emotions of the boys practically leaked out through to me, and that one little boy in particular (I've forgotten his name, I'm afraid - is it Percy?) looking up at the sea-captain just personified everything that the ending symbolised. This film is one of my favourites and I cannot see how anyone could fault it so drastically.
- OscarBewildered
- Mar 27, 2003
- Permalink
Details
Box office
- Budget
- $250,000 (estimated)
- Runtime1 hour 32 minutes
- Color
- Sound mix
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content