Lord of the Flies (1990) User Reviews

another heart of darkness

[mjneu59 · 6/10 · 2 December 2010]

William Golding's compelling adventure of the human beast untethered illustrates Darwinism at its most ferocious: this is truly survival of the fittest. The new film version updates the fable from a group of British schoolboys stranded on a tropical island to a team of young American military cadets, a switch Golding himself might have approved of. Watching little soldiers devolve into savages, with all their spit-and-polish discipline reverting to primitive barbarity, is a chilling reminder of the animal lurking just under the skin of any military man. The cast of young unknowns may at times look a little self-conscious in front of the camera, and some of the contemporary dialogue doesn't ring entirely true. But the film itself is beautifully photographed and very carefully arranged (director Harry Hook also served as editor), maintaining a simple mood of accumulating dread: knowing what's about to unfold doesn't make it any less awful to watch.

Don't get your hopes up

[mlle_lauren · 14 November 2002]

I've read the book so many times and after seeing the first 1963 adaptation of the movie I admit I was a little let down. I was surprised they didn't put in the Simon scene (which is probably one of the most important scenes in the book) and a lot of other important things they missed out on. But then, once I found out there was another version of the movie I quickly rented it. But let me tell you something; This is movie is much worse than the first one, and does an awful job of telling the storyline. Although the boys were very adorable (I'll admit that)that still didn't make up for the bad acting job they did. Plus, I was really confused on why the director chose to make a nonexistent captain the most important symbol in the book. Why he did that is beyond me. So anyways, my point is, if your looking for a good movie based on the book, you should probably just stick to the first one, and don't waste your money on renting/buying this movie.

A Disappointing Film

[GuitaristX456 · 6/10 · 25 May 2005]

I watched this movie during my English Class a few weeks back, and I have to say, it was rather disappointing. I loved the book, the story was very interesting, unlike anything I've ever read. When we watched the movie, I knew it would be different, but I didn't think it would be THIS different. The story almost completely changes, nothing but the bear bones of the book are left, and it made me sort of angry. It was cartoonish, and lacked any symbolism whatsoever. The book was great because of it, and here it lacks something. I feel that someone who hasn't read the book will laugh, they probably wouldn't understand what is going on. So much of the plot was taken out. The acting is okay though, Balthazar Getty does a good job as Ralph. Despite the boys being American here, he reminded me of the Ralph in the book.

I love this movie

[shaman1969 · 7/10 · 30 December 2006]

I love this movie and I don't know why so many people bag it.I have seen it several times and I actually own a copy.I must confess though that I have never read the novel or seen the original 1963 version.People who have read the novel have said that they found the movie disappointing.Movies are never as good as books.There are always different interpretations in movies and it is sometimes very hard to convey certain elements of a story in a book in a film.Several people have said they thought the acting was terrible.I thought the two lead actors Balthazar Getty(Ralph) and Chris Furrhr(Jack)were excellent and they both played their parts really well.Balthazar Getty is a great actor who I think is very underrated.Okay so they replaced the British kids from the novel with American kids.So what who cares.Its still a great story and the whole point and theme of the story which is to show how children unsupervised by adults can turn into savages and become uncivilized is still there.Also since when was swearing uncivilized?I noticed one reviewer commented on the fact that there was a lot of swearing and that the idea was that the kids were supposed to be polite and civilized before they became uncivilized.If swearing is uncivilized then we must all be because we all do it from time to time.There was not a lot of swearing anyway it was only occasionally.I have certainly seen and heard a lot worse.Get over it.I thought the cinematography was great too.If you like stories involving people stranded on a deserted island as I do then I recommend that you check it out.

Changes don't all improve story

[SnoopyStyle · 6/10 · 21 April 2015]

A plane crashes in the ocean. The pilot captain Benson and a group of military school cadets reach an isolated island. The injured captain is delirious. Ralph (Balthazar Getty) is the senior cadet who has an injured arms. He tries to organize the boys using the conch found by Piggy. Jack Merridew is the oldest and often fights with the argumentative Piggy. The popular Jack gets obsessed with hunting down the wild pig and the group starts to go wild while Ralph tries to maintain order. The sensitive Simon is shocked at the growing brutality. Captain Benson wanders off. When Jack neglects the signal fire to go hunting, the group splits in two.

There are a few changes from the classic novel. They don't all necessarily improve the story. The most troubling is the militarization of the boys. Ralph doesn't get his leadership based on a vote but rather by his cadet ranking. It loses some of the symbolism in the book. The theme of the lost of a democratic civilization is watered down by the boys being military cadets. The captain is an interesting choice and creates some good scenes. The best part of the movie is the use of real young boys. This movie needs the young kids. It is interesting to see a colored version. However if the movie intends to make changes, they should push more towards horror.

A Society Without Perspectives and Rules

[claudio_carvalho · 8/10 · 30 March 2007]

After a plane crash in the ocean, a group of military students reach an island. The boy Ralph (Balthazar Getty) organizes the other kids, assigning responsibilities for each one. When the rebel Jack Merridew (Chris Furrh) neglects the fire camp and they lose the chance to be seen by a helicopter, the group split under the leadership of Jack. While Ralph rationalizes the survival procedures, Jack returns to the primitivism, using the fear for the unknown (in a metaphor to the religion) and hunger to control the other boys. His group starts hunting and chasing pigs, stealing the possession of Ralph's group and even killing people.

I found this impressive movie very scary, since it shows the behavior of children (and human beings) fighting to survive in a society without perspective and rules. My immediate association was with my and other Third World countries, where many children are abandoned by the Government in their poor communities, and without education, perspectives in life and laws, become very young criminals working in gangs of drug dealers and thieves. In this movie, it is exposed how primitive a kid can be without the authority and respect, and this sort of violence is in the headlines of our newspapers almost every day. There are many discussions presently in Brazil about juvenile criminality. I have never the chance of reading this visionary novel; therefore I can not comment is it is a good or a bad adaptation, but I found this movie a frightening study of characters and sociology. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "O Senhor das Moscas" ("The Lord of the Flies")

This Version Bites

[leCagot · 3/10 · 21 March 2003]

Sorry folks, the 1963, low budget, English black & white version is much better. Hollywood can never leave a good story alone. On occasion they can do it better, sometimes on par , usually they blow it. This version blows. I give it 3 stars out of 10 for production value and some good casting, but it wasn't enough to save it. Rent the 1963 version or better yet read the book.

Really a good movie

[mattsimdb · 9/10 · 15 January 2012]

First of all, I never read the book. Both my older brother and sister read it in middle school, but somehow I missed it. I have been aware of the story for many years though. I am definitely going to go pick up the book now. Furthermore, can anything be more cliché than to pan a movie because it didn't live up to the book. Anyways, I had the luck of going into this movie without that bias.

I have read many other books that involve political analysis, such as George Orwell's 1984 and Animal Farm. I find these kind of topics fascinating.

First of all, I disagree with the people that saw this movie and see it only as "boys go savage". It shows that reviewers simply don't understand the deeper level this movie goes to, which is why do people behaved "civilized" at all. How does a democracy survive? How do dictatorships happen? What is civilized? How do you make people cooperate?

I personally have been in situations, such as adult recreational sports, where I volunteered as a team captain. It's a perfect analogy to Lord Of the Flies, because a team captain has no real authority. I'm not paying people, and I can't kick people off the team, and there are real limits to anything I can do. Every time I have done that there is always some punk that decides he wants to take over, or doesn't have to do what he is told. This happens regardless of how minimally I am trying to dictate anything.

So, how do you prevent anarchy? How do you keep from being overthrown? Every society starts out like this. Sure, once someone gets in power there are many people that can't compete with them, but at the top of any hierarchy is competition and relationships. How is order created?

So, after I watched this movie I thought, what did Ralph do wrong?

Here is my answer. First of all, Ralph should have not created a complete democracy. Instead he should have created a council subgroup of kids that would be elected into their positions. He should have also been elected, and would have easily won in the beginning.

By tying the council members positions to his position, they would have supported him in case of any rebellion. True authority is cemented in affiliation. Also, if someone else wanted to take over they would have had a civilized means to do so, next election, and wouldn't have to resort to rebellion.

Also, anyone not doing their fair of work on the island would have to be judged before the council. This way his authority would have been enforced through a form of group discipline.

Many tribal societies function like this, despite the fact that some might judge them to be "uncivilized". In fact, this is also how modern democracy/representative governments work.

Jack on the other hand did just about everything right in building his brutal dictatorship. He built his own council out of boys that decided to rebel with him from the beginning. So, he already had his power base. He used fear of the monster to create a constant state of emergency to keep people from questioning his authority. He used violence to keep everyone in line, and he eventually attempted to kill off all his opposition.

Stories and movies like this are very important to keep us aware of the way we are manipulated by those who want power. By simplifying the situation they serve as a window to show us how our larger societies function.

If you learn anything from this movie at least learn to be suspicious of any political group that cultivates fear in you of outside forces. By making you afraid and convincing you that "we" are the ones that can protect you, they are using the oldest trick in the book.

Roast piggy.

[lost-in-limbo · 6/10 · 5 June 2008]

I usually read and hear about this Hollywood remake copping a real shellacking when compared to the original 1963 British b/w version and that of William Golding's 1954 novel of the same title. I don't mind this 90's update, but that's considering I haven't read the book or even watched the first film adaptation. The concept (civilized children struggling with order and reverting to savagery to survive and dominate) would have been disturbing back in those times, but now nothing is too surprising. What disappointed me more than anything was that the drama of the situation isn't as powerful or gripping as it should have been. While it's beautifully photographed in presenting the lush island and accumulates an expressively grandeur score, it still does feel a little empty, tidy and mundane when it needed to be raw, passionate and intense for any real impression. I guess there was too much easy-going scenic and textual activity on director Harry Hook's part. Even when it finally busts its guts (in the dying 15 minutes), you can say it was too late and too short to draw much empathy and dramatic suspense. There are exemplary performances by Chris Furrh and Balthazar Getty. Furrah as the bold, rebellious lad who counter-punches Getty's calm, persistently hopeful leader. Danuel Pipoly is the only one of the remaining cast to standout in some shape. Might not be anything grand or rewarding, but it keeps you watching to the very end.

Not a good adaptation

[DrConway · 3 February 2001]

I could nitpick for ages about this film - however I will confine it to mentioning that numerous anachronisms abound in the movie - while it's supposed to be reasonably faithful to the original novel to the point of the children not knowing what day it is, or what time it is, the actors can be seen wearing watches in several scenes. Add in the excessive use of swear-words among the children, and it definitely leaves something lacking that exists in the novel.

Ironically enough, I saw the movie first before reading the novel, but grew to enjoy the novel much more than the movie.

I hope to one day see the black and white 1960s-era version.

Fairly compelling; not as good as it could have been.

[gridoon · 7/10 · 4 January 2003]

I haven't read the book, which theoretically is an advantage (it is distracting when you have to compare all the time and locate "what they missed"), but in any case there IS something missing from this film, something that could have made it much better. Is it perhaps the fact that we never get enough background information on the kids for us to truly connect to them? The actors themselves are not bad at all, and the photography does achieve some beautiful contrasts between the sea and the land. But overall the film is not exceptional in any way. (**1/2)

What movie lives up to the book?

[rinke1971 · 6/10 · 5 August 2006]

Writing this directly after ejecting the DVD, which in turn is about 4 days after reading the book, I can't say much more than what has been said on both sides. The book was excellent... as good as expected, and I read the "casebook" version, with all the critiques and interviews at the end. I found the boys they picked to be the lead characters to be very well-selected, except that Jack should've been Ralph and vice versa. In the book, it is Ralph that is tall, fair and well-built. The film didn't harken on much of the deep symbolism that the book unleashes on the reader, as is mentioned with the absence of Simon's conversation with the Lord of the Flies. Simon is a MAIN character to the whole spiritual presence in the story's purpose, him being a Christ-like figure, killed as he is bringing good news (to the tribe that the "monster" is only a dead man). Jack is the Satan, or devil, and in the book is the leader of a choir, not an officer in the cadets. It seemed as if the director couldn't get British boys to play in the film, so made them American cadets, had them curse and be ticked-off, and put Marines to rescue them instead of the British Navy. I loved little things in the book like calling the twins "Samneric" (Sam and Eric), and the littler boys, "littluns". There is no reference to this in the film. Substituting the pilot for the parachutist works out fine for viewers that didn't read the book, and I thought both Piggy and Simon's deaths were adequately portrayed. In all, not a bad translation, but I thought that more could've been done to accurately depict the book's intent. The movie is only 90 minutes long, and another 30 minutes of say, Simon's mystical experiences, and Roger's transformation to executioner would've played well. I guess I'm off to get the '63 version now...

Not A Bad Remake

[Richard_Dominguez · 7/10 · 13 November 2016]

First, I Have Seen All The Remakes, Retelling And Versions Of The Classic English 1963 "Lord Of The Flies" (I Have Always Loved The Implication Of That Title) ... There Is Something Horrific In The Idea That In The 1960's Children On This Large A Scale Could "Lose It" And Then Filmed In Black And White Sends The Imagery Over The Edge ... While It May Also Be True That Kids (At This Present Time) In This Large A Number "Losing It" Might (Sadly) Be Common Place, This Is Not A Bad Remake ... It Doesn't Have The Edgy Black And White Feel To It ... The Story Does Manage To Convey A Tingle Up Our Spine About How Fragile Society Is ... If You Hear My Words And Say To Yourself "Well They Were Kids", Pick Up A Newspaper Or Turn On The News Or Go Online ... Human Beings As A Species Is Bent On Destroying Itself And This Version Conveys That Message Well Enough ... I Once Read That The Only Thing Needed To Revert Present People Back To Savages Would Be To Take Away Electricity (Some How That Thought Seems Real Enough And Frightens Me) ... All In All I Found The Acting To Be Sufficient, The Scenery Well Selected And Direction On Key

Respect or even follow the book? Nah, why should we?

[Coventry · 3/10 · 20 July 2017]

I owned the DVD of "Lord of the Flies" for more than 15 years already, but for some reason I kept it wrapped in plastic and refused to watch it for as long as I didn't read the classic William Golding novel on which it is based. Now that I read the book, I sorely regret this choice. I'm not a big reader, but based on the few great works that I did read, I principally learned that you should restrict to one version only; - either the book or the film. By now I wish that I either watched this film, considered it to be just average and simply assume that the novel is similar. OR that I read the book, realize it's fairly impossible to make an equally powerful film out of it and never even bother to unwrap the film from its plastic! The issue with "Lord of the Flies" is that it's not a bad movie on itself, but in case you constantly compare it to the brilliant novel stuck in your head, it does become quite terrible!

I can't stop making the following reflection: why would one even bother to adapt a legendary novel into a film version if he plans to alter several small but crucial details, as well as simply eliminate most of the symbolism? The genius of Sir Golding's tale lies within the fact that it's the perfect allegory on humanity's true and dark nature! The story painfully illustrates how human beings, regardless of their age or social status, rapidly degrade towards violent savagery when confronted with difficult situations, extreme conditions, lack of surveillance and the increasing urge to rely on survival instincts. This heavy but essential fundament is almost entirely missing in the film. Here we have a bunch of kids running amok on an island, but I never sensed that atmosphere of hopelessness or that genuine fear of the unknown. Two seemingly minor and superficial changes ruin the entire story of the film, in fact. In Golding's novel, all the boys came from a traditional British boarding school, whereas in the film they are American military cadets. This makes a world of difference regarding how they interpret authority or how easily they turn rogue. It's a lot more petrifying to imagine how choir boys metamorphose into face-painted hunters, like the case in the book, rather than military cadets. Another downright dumb change in the script is how they set the events in the present day; late eighties/early nineties. Golding's novel, written somewhere in the early fifties if I'm not mistaken, thrived on the disturbing idea that WWII escalated into an all- devastating nuclear war. The boys still hoped to get rescued, but maybe there even aren't any adults left? Here, the kids are a little worried about Russian but otherwise there isn't any threat coming out of the world next to the island. The mental as well as physical descent into primitivism is missing completely. They boys hair doesn't grow wild, they aren't walking around filthy or wounded, the rivalry between "civilized" Ralph and "barbaric" Jack doesn't slowly mount, etc. But all the above isn't even half as scandalous as the fact that Golding's symbolism has entirely vanished! If you haven't read the book but only watched the film, you certainly won't be able to explain why the story is called "Lord of the Flies". So many aspects that are essential in the book are just mere footnotes in the movie, like the pig's head on a stake, the beach gatherings summoned via blowing on a giant sea shell or the immense fear of "The Beast".

Just to illustrate that "Lord of the Flies" isn't a complete an utter disaster; I have to mention a couple of positive points as well. The Piggy character is definitely the most properly developed one of the film, and truly resembles how he was created by Sir William Golding, although he still could have been even whinier. Most of the young actors certainly give away adequate performances, while the filming locations are breathtaking. I might still do my best to track down the film version released in 1963, as allegedly it's much more faithful to the book, but after that I'll follow my own newly invented rule: either the book or the movie, but not both.

The Ultimate Social Science Experiment

[view_and_review · 9/10 · 19 February 2020]

Like many people, I read "Lord of the Flies" in high school. It was required reading, not that I didn't enjoy it. I also watched the 1963 movie "Lord of the Flies" and, sadly, I wasn't impressed. So, I really appreciated the 1990 remake--if we can call it that--or maybe we can say the 1990 version. It was so much better. It was in color, it had modern language and references (such as the Rambo reference and the ALF reference), and it did a lot better job capturing the viciousness and animal behavior of the kids.

"Lord of the Flies" is the optimum social science experiment. I liken it to movies such as: "The Purge," "Die," "Hunger," and others (which all came later) in which you can witness the different behavior of people when put in extraordinary situations, whether intentionally or unintentionally. "Lord of the Flies" is really the study of how quickly a group of boys would devolve into a state of animality, insanity, and barbarity after being stranded on a deserted island for weeks. To be fair, I would expect adults to regress as well given certain personalities and psychological profiles, so I don't want to unfairly indict young boys.

"Lord of the Flies" the book is a classic and rightly so. I think the 1990 version of the movie, with its profanity and violence, was a superb rendition of the literary work. Not that I'm a fan of profanity and violence, I just think it was far more realistic. I know how I talked and behaved with my peers at ten, eleven, and twelve-years-old, so far be it for me to be moralistic about the kids in this movie.

I just wonder how many hours of therapy those boys would require after that experience? That would be a great follow up book or movie: "Lord of the Flies: Back in the Real World."

Lord of the Flies doesn't match the brilliance of the book, it's still a compelling watch

[kevin_robbins · 7/10 · 14 January 2024]

My daughter and I recently watched Lord of the Flies (1990) on Tubi. The storyline follows a group of kids stranded on an island after a plane crash. Initially striving for civility, they face hostility as resources dwindle.

Directed by Harry Hook (The Last of His Tribe), the film stars James Badge Dale (The Departed), Balthazar Getty (Feast), Charlie Newmark (Trees Lounge), Danuel Pipoly (3 Ninjas: Knuckle Up), and Chris Furrh (A Family for Joe).

The casting, setting, props, and circumstances feel authentic throughout. The film effectively conveys the desperation, triumphs, and challenges of the children. The child acting, especially considering the lack of child stars, is excellent. "Pig" delivers an outstanding performance and was my favorite character. The movie skillfully uses music to build intensity, and the ending is excellent.

In conclusion, while Lord of the Flies doesn't match the brilliance of the book, it's still a compelling watch. I'd score it a 7/10 and recommend it once.

Nothing special this time around, but not a complete failure as some claim.

[youroldpaljim · 28 April 2001]

When I saw this remake I did not find it as bad as some said it was. Basically its like so many remakes of classic films, they rarely live up to the original. There is little new thats added here. Most of the virtues of this film are just repeats of the virtues of the first film. New to this film, on the plus side is the use of vivid colour, as oppossed to the original films harsh, grainy black and white. The colour photography beautifully captures the lush tropical surroundings. On the negative side are the silly dreams of the kids being rescued. Also having the piolet survive and wander around like rabid dog looks like it was thrown in to provide a few cheap shocks, or something.

A decent adaptation, but confusing story alterations

[anonymous_reviews · 6/10 · 2 March 2023]

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.

Beautiful adaptation of a chilling story

[mridula_sehgal-1 · 7/10 · 7 August 2001]

Beautiful is a word only too often used. In the context of a movie that is so horrifying, it may seem quite inappropriate. But this movie with its picturesque cinematography and spine chilling sound recording, becomes beautiful because it takes one to those recesses of our mind which we shudder to acknowledge the existence of. It disturbs one, makes one uncomfortable... I felt like switching the channels, lowering the volume... anything to prevent me from experiencing the movie or acknowledging how disturbingly close we are and have always been towards unleashing the thinly disguised Dr Jekyll within us... the children behaved as children do while facing peer pressure, just the consequences were much greater this time.

Not even close to the book, but an interesting spectacle it can be at times

[rantherandomartist · 6/10 · 3 March 2019]

When I saw this movie after reading the book, I was astounded by how most of it was not even close to the book. Like, not even there. It has good cinematography and music, but other than that, with some enjoyable moments from the cast, this movie was just not worth watching. If you want something better, look up the 1963 one on YouTube or somewhere else.

Definitely, far short of the previous Peter Brook b&w version

[jgcorrea · 7/10 · 12 July 2022]

"Lord of the Flies" tells the story of a group of English boys evacuated from a city targeted by an atomic bomb. After suffering a plane crash, they are confined to a deserted island in the Pacific. There they reconstitute the values of their own society, splitting into two groups that fiercely dispute power: one led by the peaceful Ralph, the other by the violent Jack. Author William Golding defined his story as "an attempt to show that the defects of society accompany those of human nature. The moral is this: the face of society depends on the ethical nature of man, not on the political system, however logical and respectable it may seem."

Shakes you to the bone

[ishy2080 · 10/10 · 24 August 2000]

Well I happened upon this movie by accident and started watching it because I fall for the kinds of movies where someones stuck on a desert island etc. Over all it's an extremely good depiction of humanity and the psycological behavior of children left alone without guidance. The acting was wonderful, and I'm sure anyone who sees it will agree that that kind of situation is difficult to imagine let alone act out especially with the actors being so young. I recommend this movie for anyone looking for a creepy survival story.

Why was this made?

[bandw · 1/10 · 2 December 2012]

I have read Golding's book and seen the 1963 movie. You may ask why I watched this remake and, after suffering through it, I have to ask myself that question. Remakes of excellent movies are always risky, but if you are going to do a remake at least you should aim to create something better, or offer a different and interesting interpretation. This movie does neither, it follows in the footsteps of pretty much all remakes--it is a disaster. The real tragedy is that someone who sees this before reading the book or seeing the 1963 film will be inclined to give a miss to those superior works.

For whatever reason major plot points of the book have been reconfigured. This is all well and good if the final result is engaging, but here the changes are a degradation, resulting in a loss of dramatic effect and allegorical meaning. Instead of having proper English schoolboys stranded on the island, the boys here are cadets from some United States military school. The story has been updated from the early 1950s, apparently to sometime in the 1980s judging from the language used, mention of TV series like "Alf," and the talk of being captured by Russians. The main point of Golding's book was to show that even the most civilized English boys (one group among them having been the school choir), can behave savagely when civilization is stripped away. It is less surprising here that boys from a military academy come to behave badly, particularly in the 1980s. Using about every major swear word in the English language, the kids are not at all likable.

The acting is sub par, even for kids with little experience. They don't really talk to each other, they just read their lines. There is no spontaneity in their behavior. I have never seen a more pathetic attempt at crying than what is on display here. Chris Furrh is much too much of a pretty boy to be believable as the blackguard Jack.

This movie offers a classic example of where color can be markedly inferior to black and white. In this movie, where the focus should be on the kids, they are swallowed up by the lush vegetation. After over forty years I still had vivid memories from the 1963 movie; after only a week I have had few specific memories of this movie.

Perhaps the most irritating thing about this production is the obnoxious score. It is exceedingly distracting, constantly drawing your attention to it in trying to make up for lack of any dramatic tension provided by the script. In some of the final scenes the music is a flagrant ripoff of Stravinsky's "Rite of Spring."

If I had not read the book nor seen the classic 1963 movie, I might not be so hard on this, but having had those experiences, it is impossible not to make comparisons, and this falls short. A great effort made to take a step backward.

Underrated Masterpiece

[shawshankboy · 10/10 · 17 September 2000]

I can't believe that this movie has recieved such bad reviews, and has only a 5.9 rating. And the fact that I am the only one to write about this film makes it truly underrated. When I first saw this movie when I was nine, I was blown away by it. it was the ultimate boy movie for me. The acting was very realistic. It was about a group of boarding school boys get shipwrecked on an island with no parental supervision. It showed us how truly savagely and animalistic we can become when their is absolutely no rules or restrictions. And how our survival insticts want to take over. The end was very touching and summed it all up, without any words being spoken.

Can't understand the bashing

[gab_vcor · 7/10 · 5 February 2009]

I've just seen the movie and I certainly can't understand why there's so many people hating this movie with so much fervor. I've seen angry comment about them being American and not British, about leaving some things out and putting some things instead. Comments about the hair color of the kids, the skin color of the characters, the variety there is in the film that isn't on the book.

Well, if this is about judging an adaptation (or translation or version of the novel), then I believe it's to be expected to have different elements since novels and films are different languages. What we have to see here should be if the message was passed along. Did the money achieve that? We could see how these seemingly educated boys turned into savages, even when a minority tried to do things'as grownups would've done". I think that wasn't as emphasized as it should've been since the boys seemed a little wild from th beginning, so the change wasn't as shocking, but the message was there. And even if it was lacking some directing skill in making some scenes more moving than they were, it came off pretty well.

As I just read today, the idea that books are always better than movies should be one that must be erased. Films are a different thing, even when using novel arguments. There are as many great novels turned into hideous films as hideous novels turned into great films. Sad thing is, is very hard to find great novels turned into great films, but great novels turned into fairly good films aren't as hard. Plus, what's there to lose with an adaptation? "For the fans of the book, it won't change the love for it. For the ignorants, they'd either be content with the movie or check out the novel". That was Bazin speaking.

So, all in all, it was a fairly good movie, maybe getting some degrees outside of Golding's world and into Hook's world, which is fine since it's HIS movie. Just illustrating the book as it was, as incredible as it is, would be somewhat of an insult since it'll mean that it touched the director so little that he'd have to make a mechanical characterization.

Somehow this turned into a book-isn't-necessarily-better-than-the-film comment, but I think it fits to this case. If you liked the book, I recommend to watch the film. Both of them. It's all a matter of sitting and analyzing the motives of the director for changing. Why are they Americans? Check out the time line, the public it was directed to.

BTW, I don't know why everyone was so mad about the acting. The children playing Ralph, Jack and Piggy were pretty good, even if they had to play some scenes that didn't entirely convince (the sobbing after the breaking of his glasses?). And the colors were a pro instead of a con, as some pointed out, since it gave realism to the movies and a contrast between a beautiful place and horrible behavior that made the idea of making Hell on Eden all the more understandable.

*sigh* All this could be summarized in: 1. Watch the movie, whether you've read the book or not. In the best of cases, you'd want to read it (again, if you're a fan) 2. Stop bitching about differences and similarities and try to understand why were they made and what did they cause. If not, you're merely on a quantitative and impressionist level that readers of this novel shouldn't have (or allow)