I don't know what it is with all the reviewers who seem to enjoy smashing this Hollywood remake of the 1960s version to pieces. Apparently they can't stand this adaptation for a more modern audience who - like me - found the earlier version technically poor, acted very poorly, and going at a stultifying pace guaranteed to put you to sleep long before the end. Yes, there's maybe a bit too much swearing in this version, and it takes several liberties with the scenario, in sharp contrast to the slavishly faithful earlier adaptation, but my feeling is that many reviewers failed to consider, for one thing, that this is an American adaptation made for an American audience and so, naturally, the Britishness of the story simply had to go out the window. Everyone does what they're best at, right? Having said this, it's time to point out why this version is actually, although far from a masterpiece, not so bad at all, certainly when compared to its predecessor: 1. It's in colour, and technically - sound, camera work, musical score - superior to it
2. It still has all the main themes and ideas of the novel despite the changes to the book plot
3. While none are for the clearly worse, several changes are actually for the better. Take the 'beast' who in the original comes falling out of the sky. In this one he's actually from among the boys, but unrecognizable, and so fitting in much better with the 'evil inside' theme (Simon: "what if there's no beast, what if it's just us"?)
4. The acting is infinitely better. Jack (and Ralph) may swear a lot but they are - and look - also very natural in their roles compared with the overall stilted acting in the other one. And Piggy - his glasses may be over-sized, but his performance is memorable. He is readily identifiable with, something that the 1963 Piggy never managed to achieve. (BTW It would have been nice to hear the 'dialogue' between Simon and the Lord of the Flies but this would have sounded ridiculous to anyone not acquainted with the book, so it was a wise decision to leave that out in both versions)
5. It seems to me that if you really wanted to adapt this novel to the screen and reach a larger audience you'd probably have to compromise even more in terms of authenticity. The story is just damn difficult to transfer, therefore this version does not deserve the kind of 'purist' criticism leveled at it on these pages. It's more entertaining and still thought provoking, and that was likely what the makers set out to create - it would be unfair to expect more than that, and the older version definitely falls short on the first of those counts.
2. It still has all the main themes and ideas of the novel despite the changes to the book plot
3. While none are for the clearly worse, several changes are actually for the better. Take the 'beast' who in the original comes falling out of the sky. In this one he's actually from among the boys, but unrecognizable, and so fitting in much better with the 'evil inside' theme (Simon: "what if there's no beast, what if it's just us"?)
4. The acting is infinitely better. Jack (and Ralph) may swear a lot but they are - and look - also very natural in their roles compared with the overall stilted acting in the other one. And Piggy - his glasses may be over-sized, but his performance is memorable. He is readily identifiable with, something that the 1963 Piggy never managed to achieve. (BTW It would have been nice to hear the 'dialogue' between Simon and the Lord of the Flies but this would have sounded ridiculous to anyone not acquainted with the book, so it was a wise decision to leave that out in both versions)
5. It seems to me that if you really wanted to adapt this novel to the screen and reach a larger audience you'd probably have to compromise even more in terms of authenticity. The story is just damn difficult to transfer, therefore this version does not deserve the kind of 'purist' criticism leveled at it on these pages. It's more entertaining and still thought provoking, and that was likely what the makers set out to create - it would be unfair to expect more than that, and the older version definitely falls short on the first of those counts.