Change Your Image
anonymous_reviews
Reviews
Lord of the Flies (1990)
A decent adaptation, but confusing story alterations
The 1999 adaptation of "Lord of the Flies" presents a mixed offering that captures some essential elements of William Golding's classic novel while simultaneously falling short in critical areas. Regrettably, the film barely covers one of the most poignant scenes in the book: Simon's hallucination and conversation with the pig head on a stick, which diminishes the story's impact. As a pivotal moment, this scene adds depth and complexity to the themes of power and human nature that are central to the story, and really portrays the degradation of civil society, which is lost in the film's shorter version. Similarly, the death of Piggy didn't feel nearly as meaningful as the book, and just comes of as a half-hearted and fake scene
The film's pacing is unbalanced, with some scenes feeling rushed and underdeveloped while others drag on for too long. While the cast of young actors delivers serviceable performances- in fact, the actors of Ralph and Jack are quite good as far as child actors go- they do not fully capture the complexity of the characters, particularly in comparison to the book. Considering they are in fact child actors, this is to be expected, but it still detracts from Golding's strong character building.
However, the cinematography is still quite impressive and captures the beauty and danger of the island setting, and the use of natural lighting and wide-angle shots of the jungle creates a sense of realism and immersion that enhances the movie's impact. The scenes of the boys building shelters and hunting for food are particularly well-done, bringing the story to life on screen.
Overall, while the film offers some redeeming qualities, such as its stunning cinematography and portrayal of the island setting, the drastic shortening of key scenes and lack of depth in the characters are significant flaws that detract from the movie's impact. It is a decent effort, but it falls short of the novel's complexity and depth. While it is in no way a substitute for the book or it's tragic message, as far as adaptations of modern classics go, it is still worth a watch.
Animal Farm (1999)
Corporate answer to
The Hallmark adaptation of "Animal Farm" is a disappointing movie that fails to capture the complexity and nuance of Orwell's novel, and it does a disservice to the powerful message of the story. The movie simplifies the characters from Orwell's novel, portraying them in a one-dimensional manner that lacks the depth and complexity of the source material. The humans are far too prevalent in this adaptation, and their flippant appearances undermine the movie's ability to provide a meaningful commentary on human behaviour and the dangers of totalitarianism. Additionally, the human actors in the movie deliver weak and wooden performances that further detract from the overall quality of the movie.
The movie's ironic happy ending, where new humans return to the farm following Napoleon's downfall feels forced and contrived. Orwell's humans represented an old oppressive regime, and their return undermines the entire message of the story. It feels like a cheap attempt to add a happy ending to a story that doesn't and shouldn't have one, and it robs the movie of any sense of authenticity or honesty. The irony of a corporation such as Hallmark adding this ending and the lack of depth in nearly any aspect of the movie throughout is fitting: hand waving away the deep political exploration of the book, and suggesting that the old regime wasn't 'that' bad, it just needed an American face and the loving care of corporate greed: a return of the human dictatorship is fine, as long as they do it in a nice car and American rock music.
The Hallmark adaptation of "Animal Farm" is a weak adaptation that fails to capture the depth and nuance of Orwell's masterpiece. The characters lack complexity, the performances are wooden, and the ironic happy ending undermines the story's powerful message. This movie is a disservice to Orwell's legacy and does not do justice to the thought-provoking themes of the novel, and it does not do much to hide that it exists solely for corporate profit.