source: Lord of the Flies

Lord of the Flies

If you have read the book or even seen the 1963 movie, you know how awful this one is. It twists the plot to the point that its structure is completely demolished. It changes the characters almost entirely, both by making them American and military students, but also by making them swear all the time. Jack isn't even the leader of the choir, which is one of his most important character traits from the novel. In fact, the majority of what drives the plot and creates Golding's theme of the evil of savagery and the evil within us is gone in this movie. It was made into a worthless shell of the 1963 movie. If you were aggravated by missing scenes from the 1963 movie, you'll completely hate this movie. 90% of the important scenes are missing the characters are not themselves, and most of the dialogue is changed. Even the pilot is alive for a large part of the movie! I would not recommend for anyone who even remotely enjoyed the book or 1963 movie to see this movie. It WILL ruin it for you. Even as a movie, it is not a good one. The musical score is alright, but the acting doesn't make the movie worth watching. All in all, it's a terrible movie and an abomination of a Lord of the Flies interpretation.

Nice adaptation, bolstered by an amazing score by Philippe Sarde. Great cinematography and breathtaking visuals.

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.

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.

This remake of the classic William Golding book "Lord of the Flies" is not only bad, but it doesn't measure up. They have a glow stick on the island, and there's an adult survivor too. What really got me on my nerves was the constant profanity. The book and the 1963 version had only one swear word in it, but this movie adaption of the book was non-stop. If you've already read the book and want to see one of the movies the 1963 version is the better version. Don't bother with this version it sucks.

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.

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.

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.