Lord of the Flies (1990) User Reviews

I have very mixed feelings about this movie

[FrankBooth_DeLarge · 6/10 · 26 June 2005]

When I was in 10th grade, I read the novel Lord of the Flies in English class, and right after that, we watched this movie. I really loved the novel so I was excited about seeing the movie.

The novel Lord of the Flies is very provocative. While it stands as one of the greatest novels of the 20th century, it also stands as one of the most controversial and frequently banned novels of the century. For a novel of that much greatness, it is hard for a movie to do it any justice.

Part of the reason for why Lord of the Flies is a classic and is still read today is because of its theme, which involves kids killing each other. There has always been a sensation and terror about that kind of theme. This movie tries to catch that theme, while it succeeds at being a disturbing movie, it fails at living up to the novel. There is also a lot of symbolism in the novel that isn't really present in the movie as well.

The directing in this movie isn't done very well. The beginning of the movie just kind of opens up and never really gives you much background. As the movie goes along, there isn't much of a flow to it. The book had a great flow which kept the story moving, but the movie was pretty choppy, and as you watch it, you don't think the director even cared about keeping the flow of the novel.

The child actors aren't much better. The kid who played Ralph was good, as well as the kid who played Jack. The kid who played Piggy was pretty good, but not quite up to par with the other two that I mentioned. The kid who played Piggy fits the description pretty well, and I kind of feel bad for him because his performance in the movie sort of affects how people look at him as a person. All of the other kids in this movie didn't do very well at all.

One of the key elements in the novel is done very poorly in the movie. In the novel there is a scene where the kid Simon sees a pig's head on a stick and has a conversation with it. In the movie all that happens is Simon looks at the pig's head and you see a flash of lightning. The director sure expects a heck of a lot out of the audience if he wants them to believe the kid is having a conversation. Another key scene from the novel, Piggy's death, was also done very poorly in the movie. In the novel it was shocking and depressing. In the movie it is depressing that he dies, but the scene looked pretty fake. There are also a few random things that were put into the movie and had not much impact on the story, like the glow stick, and the pilot who survives the crash, unlike the novel.

A couple of scenes in the movie are done pretty well. There is one scene where the kids are all gathering around the fire at night and are reenacting a hunt that took place. This scene is done pretty well, but the real key to that scene is the score in the background. The score is pretty good and helps guide the movie at times. At the very end, when the kids see the marine standing on the beach and they realize what they had done, the director did pretty well at showing the kids' emotions over what had gone on at the island. Unfortunately, the ending is very sudden and is over before you would expect it to be.

I loved the novel, but I have very mixed feelings about the movie. There are plenty of things in the movie that you will be disappointed by, but there are also some redeeming factors. It is worth watching once, but only if you have read the book. If you haven't read it, this movie will ruin it for you, so read the book first and then see the movie.

Not great but reasonably watchable

[Devilsdance911 · 5/10 · 17 December 2009]

I read the novel in tenth grade English class and remember watching both of the movies in class the week after finishing the book, but it had been several years since I'd seen this version and when it came on TV last weekend I decided to watch it.

The first thing that I noticed was that so much of the symbolic imagery was either lost or heavily modified, I'm not sure if the writer really understood the story's themes or got the meaning of some of the imagery of the story with important scenes changed and a great deal of the character development was left out entirely which makes the script feels like the cole's notes version of the story.

Among the more glaring changes were:

In the book Simon was an allegory for Jesus while in the movie he's looked at as being "weird", they completely ignored the mystical almost Buddha like qualities of the character.

In the book Jack represented the darkness that exists within us all and our hidden desire to pretend to be what we aren't while in this movie he's just an arrogant jerk.

In the book the pigs head represented the pure evil of Satan (lord of the flies is a translation from a Hebrew word that literally means the devil)while in this version of the movie it's really just set dressing that does not convey the horror that it's supposed to.

In the book Roger starts out as a minor character but slowly builds into being a sadistic psychopath who represents the pure evil that we all possess but control, in this movie he is portrayed as being sick and twisted monster who revels in the pain of others almost right from the start and in the novel he's first described very subtly as being dark (meaning evil not African American)but in this version of the movie he's written as the stereotypical violent black kid.

The whole scene of Simon's death was presented in the book in a subtle way as a semi-satanic right (the whole setting was indicative of an ancient pagan right of animal/human sacrifice)while being described as "accidental" it's left up to the imagination of the reader as to what happened, in this movie it comes off as being a frenzied accident.

In the book Piggy's intellect is the glue that holds Ralph's civilization together, in this movie he 's written to be a whiny simpering sort of buffoon.

But the biggest changes that actually hurt the movie the most were a combination of two things first changing the time setting and second making the boys American,

The thing that made the novel so shocking was the idea that prim and proper English school boys in the late forties or early fifties could become uncivilized savages capable of horrific acts of brutality and violence committed against each other.

Updating the time setting and making the boys American really took away from the shock value of the novel because by the late eighties and early nineties it wasn't so uncommon to hear stories on the evening news about preteen gang bangers shooting people or middle school kids violently attacking each other on the school yard, these factors really desensitized the audience to the violence that the boys are doing to each other in the story and make it much less impactful to the viewer.

The acting is alright, it's nothing terribly special but watchable it's obvious that the director wasn't going to pull Oscar winning performances out of the kids but the leads manage to put in convincing performances and bring some life to their characters despite being saddled with a relatively flat script that omits much of the character development from the novel.

The direction and photography are good, although the bright lush colors sort of take away from the darkness of the story and make it seem like a tourism Hawaii commercial at times.

The negatives slightly outweigh the positives but it's a decent movie and is at least watchable which is more than I can say for some movies today.

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.

Beware of falling rocks.....

[FlashCallahan · 6/10 · 20 January 2013]

After a plane crash in the ocean, a group of military students reach an island. Ralph organises the boys, assigning responsibilities for each one.

When rebel Jack 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 rationalises the procedures, Jack uses the fear of unknown to control the other boys, and hunting and chasing pigs, stealing Ralph's group and even killing people.....

For purists of the source material and the original movie, it's going to irk a few people. Here we don't really have the metaphors of religion and the fear of growing old, it's just a load of boys in pants running amok in the jungle.

But it still sort of works. Getty and th other one are really good as Jack and Ralph, almost Cane and Abel in stature, they are friends, then become the best of enemies, for no good reason.

Soon the island is split in two, one lead by head, the other by heart, but as the heart is deceitful above all things, the 'head' camp gets gradually smaller as the days go by.

It starts off as an adventure for the boys, but soon becomes a nightmare, when people start getting killed.

and this is where the film falters, its too dark and grim and savours too much on the deaths of characters.

Yes, they have to die to keep the material true, but does it have to be so graphic?

Other than that, it's a very wheel made film with some good central performances and quite a good final act.

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")

not great but watchable

[marinus-2 · 6/10 · 9 April 2005]

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.

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 bad... But 1963 version far superior

[Hollerbach · 4/10 · 1 March 2007]

Having read Golding's novel, and being a fan of the original film version I approached this remake with some apprehension. It is flawed, but I wasn't disgusted with the result. It is OK. Doesn't hold a candle to the original, though, which kind of defeats the purpose. Much of the story is the same, and follows the same pattern, of the original, in which scenes, and plot turns are directly from the novel, and which are left out. The strengths of this version lie mostly in the photography, and use of colour. The tropical island, and physical changes are captured well. The opening shots, underwater, are particularly well done. The characterizations are not bad, overall. The chase at the end, is well depicted. The problems with this rendering, however, do tend to outweigh the good points. Most notably- The concept of "The Beast", and the more simplified relationships, and characters. In the novel, and 1963 film, there is no Adult survivor. This alters the story altogether, and casts doubt on the motives and actions. It does not work within the framework of the novel. The "beast" is meant to be a mystery, to the reader and the viewer. The presence of the wandering "captain" establishes from the get-go, that the "beast" is human, and in fact the "captain". It is doubtful that all the older boys would not make the connection. This in turn ruins the mystery for the viewer. In the novel, and the 1963 film, the "beast" (or "monster" in this version), is at first a puzzle, subject to conjecture. But initial encounters are presented as quite hair-raising, in no small part due to the knowledge that the boys are alone, on the island. Final confirmation of the nature of the "beast", is both gruesome, and terrifying. Despite the obvious fact that it is not supernatural, or actually "monstrous". The "Beast" is, as discovered by Simon, a downed pilot, possibly from an air battle. Many pilots were MIA during WW2, and the "Beast" is one of them, having come down on the island, and entered the cave/grotto through an opening in the canopy. Still strapped to his parachute harness, and clad in a leather flying helmet, goggles, boots and suit, the dead and decomposed airman continues to be animated by the wind, the chute and rigging emitting ominous flapping and groaning noises. The scene of Simon's discovery is both vivid and memorable. In the 1990 version, this is completely abandoned, for the notion of the delirious "captain". Some of the symbolism regarding society, and power is left out of this version. Most notably in the treatment of the relationship between Jack and Roger. In the novel, and to a somewhat lesser extent, the 1963 version, the roles of Ralph and Piggy are mirrored by those of Jack and Roger. As Ralph and Piggy rely on each other to maintain civilization, and "democracy", Jack and Roger likewise collaborate to bring about totalitarianism. In this version Roger is a relatively minor character, doing little but following the "chief". In the novel/original, Jack leads, but relies almost completely upon Roger, the physically strongest boy, to enforce his rule. Roger is quite sociopathic, and as the story progresses, Jack, rather than gaining power, actually loses it. Jack becomes little more than a figurehead, allowing more and more displays of autonomy by Roger. Finally, when Roger kills Piggy, Jack fears not just usurpation, but assassination. Jack is the Dictator, installed by Roger, the military, which becomes increasingly arrogant and violent. It is Roger that encourages Jack to hunt down Ralph, and kill him, although Jack would be content to banish him. Jack can no longer reign in his muscle. All of this is missing from the 1990 version, and replaced with the more streamlined narrative, and reduced characters. Overall, not bad adaptation, and would serve well to inspire to read the novel. However the 1963 version is far superior, and would be more satisfying for those who are familiar with Golding's book.

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...

Good subject, but no.

[raulfaust · 6/10 · 3 May 2011]

You know, the book this film was inspired and it's subject are really interesting. It's a sociology/anthropology class. Instead of cherishing this well made book, the filmmakers seemed to be a little lazy and made the movie without commitment. The actors are okay, but the plot and the development of this story were too superficial.

The film basically shows how a society without a punitive power would interact. They didn't approach it very deeply, but they (fortunately) approached the "Only the power breaks power" thinking that Monstesquieu said when suggested the separation of powers.

About what the kids did to themselves, I personally don't know if that's what would happened if some young boys got lost in an island. I'm not sure if they'd act like they did here, I kept myself thinking about it for hours but got no where. I may ask some professors of mine.

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

What golding was going for

[Da_Piscator · 8/10 · 16 February 2006]

Though this movie could of been better in many areas it still fit into what Author William Golding was going for.

The transformation of the language in the movie is just to keep up with the time. Does any one believe this movie would gain any respect in this day and age if 9-12 year old children were going "Wizard!, Wacco!, Doink!." (Actual quotation from point when they are excited). No of course not (By the way 9-12 year olds enjoy swearing more than any other age group). I know personally I would be laughing all the way through the entire movie, which would not portray the decay of mankind to politely. So, yes they came onto the Island swearing. But if you remember Jack was never innocent. Though he was eviler at certain points, he always had the evil side.

I believe other than the fact they were missing Simon's epileptic episode, the movie was a fine representative of the book. The beastie though clearly not a dead parachuter like in the book, still provided the same role as in the book. That is a source of false power to Jack.

Though the movie was a bit of a modern adaptation it still provided the same dark and hopeless feel of the book. I personally loved the book, the movie changed a few important events that I feel should of been left in. Either way the movie painted many of the scenes exactly how I imagined them and for that I give them credit. I just hope that if they make a modern adaptation they should be more creative, possibly change the setting, and the characters, but still have a similar plot. That way the audience has to fill in the blanks between the book and the movie so they are in suspense not critization of the dissimilarities between the two.

-

[coolboi908 · 6/10 · 4 March 2005]

i have watched both the 1990 and 1963 version of lord of the flies and i think that the 1963 version is nothing like the newer version. comments about the 1963 version say that is it child porn, i think not. yes there are a few scenes where you can see 2 boys asses and a penis but i don't think that that would be classed as child porn, i went on the net the other day and did some research and i found some pictures, the pictures were showing more nudity then the film was. does anyone no what rules the boys broke whilst on the island? i think that the newer version could have been a bit more longer and that the producer should have followed the first movie.

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."

Good Movie Overall

[Mr_Sensitive · 6/10 · 21 February 2005]

A straightforward story no hidden massage - trying to tell us about the innocent lost, human society and civilization.

The movie starts off straight as the boys first landed on the island without tell us why or how. The movie continues through out with survival of the fittest and end with no consequence.

Overall it was a very satisfying movie and did offer the audience a great deal of reality. Though the acting is not great, I still very recommended for most people to watch it, if you can bear with the facts that the movie trying to bring.

Reason To Watch: · Adaptation of the good book, · Pretty Entertaining

Reason Not To: · Animal being harm (for pig lover), · Pretty abrupt ending,

Rating: 6.5/10 (Grade: B-)

Horrible.

[prettymaryk · 1/10 · 1 April 2005]

I read the book a couple of years ago, and found it to be very dark but not by any means boring. Now, we are studying it, and our teacher brought both movies for us to watch. Unfortunately, we watched this one first. Right after the first scene, I knew that this movie would be terrible. None of the actors fit their description, and every single one of them cannot act; not that the script helps. Eery scene is rushed and senseless - I cannot imagine how anyone who has not read the book can understand what's going on. Then there is the fact that they swear. A lot. Believe me, I have nothing against swearing, but the whole point of the book was that these were more or less polite, normal, *British* boys, who turned into monsters in a very short period of time. Here they were so bossy and arrogant already, that it was hard to tell the difference. Jack was made into some sort of "bad guy" who "steals cars", robbing him of any sort of dignity that he retained in the book even after his descent into monstrosity. Piggy... Piggy had a high, whiny voice, and the sight of him slobbering over his broken glasses was enough to make me sick: another good character wasted. The Piggy in the book, at least, was not stupid. And the scene of his death lacked the horror and the suspense of the book. It is funny how only a few written words can contain more emotion than a five-minute movie scene. Simon's character was also ruined; the most awesome scene in the book was simply not there. Why? And what is with the pilot? His presence took the place of the beast - not a good replacement. The beast itself was barely mentioned. There were two scenes which I somewhat enjoyed - Simon's body floating in the water (not the scene of his death), and the chasing of Ralph through the burning forest - both these scenes take less than a minute. This movie is not worth watching. I suggest you don't.