Absolutely Fantastic

The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

Blistering performances.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

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.

If you're reading this, then I'm sure that at some point in your life, you have either read William Golding's 1954 novel 'The Lord of the Flies' either as required school reading or for fun, or have seen the original adaption on film from 1963, which is currently part of the Criterion Collection. However, my first foray into this world was through this 1990 movie. It wasn't until a few years later that I read the book and saw the original 1963 film.'Lord of the Flies' has been referenced in countless books, magazines, television shows, and other films, where they're usually discussing a group of kids who are unruly and on a path of destruction and death. Needless to say, 'Lord of the Flies' has always been controversial, which it still is today, given the subject matter. This 1990 version is a bit different than its predecessors, as director Harry Hook wanted to give it a more modern appeal to younger audiences. Instead of a group of British choir boys surviving a plane crash in the ocean with no adults, and making their way to a deserted island, this 90's version has a group of young military cadets stranded with one gravely injured adult. It turns the tables a little bit as we get to see an assuming group of boys who might have some skills to survive in a dire situation along with a mental attitude for order and command, turn into something completely frightening and chaotic.It was a smart move on Hook's part here, as well as, making the young survivors American, rather than British. But the big story points are still there. Ralph (a young Balthazar Getty) and Jack (Chris Furrh) are the main leaders of the group of young survivors who turn into enemies, while Piggy (Danuel Pipoly) still acts as the collective groups moral and ethics board, trying to get these wild kids to survive and help, rather than become savage beasts with no rules. Hook wasn't bothered with telling a story with the amount of symbolism or depth here as in the original novel or even the original film. Instead, a captured the pure horror as these kids turned into monsters.The film succeeds in this aspect very well, because we can easily see nowadays that this kind of situation is far to real and hits close to home for most. Another interesting change is that this 1990 film was shot in color. The original film was in black and white, and painted a fairly bleak outlook from the get-go. But here, we have beautiful landscapes and luscious greens for miles, which is the place where these stranded kids go wild, which is an interesting notion in and of itself. How could these kids possibly become the murdering lunatics they are in such a rich and beautiful place? It's fascinating to watch.The young Getty, Furrh, and Pipoly all do a decent job here in their roles. Furrh is menacing for sure throughout, but also makes you believe he is still a scared little boy deep down, while Getty is constantly mixing a variety of emotions in order to stay alive. Then there is poor Pipoly, who does a great job of being the joke of the group who everyone picks on. It's still quite sad to see what that character goes through. Even a young James Badge Dale as Simon turns in a solid performance, however a few of the other kids still needed a week long acting class in certain moments.Still, this 1990 version of 'Lord of the Flies' is a very suspenseful and unyielding look at what pure chaos really is. The gut punch is that it's all young kids going through this and acting out these bizarre and violent behaviors. Needless to say after 25 years, this film still holds up quite well.

a fan of the book, I also enjoyed the 1963 movie. But, watching this, it's seems very dumbed down. Much of they symbolism of the book is explained to the audience of this version of the movie and done poorly. The acting is sub par, the direction mediocre and the screenplay is just terrible.I would think that, with today's audience being more sophisticated and not was easily shocked as in 1963, they could stay truer to the book. But, the writers and director did what Hollywood usually does, ads symbolism of their own (military school) and removes the authors original intent.If you never read the book or saw the 1963 movie, you might enjoy it. But, if not, please stay away. It's just bad.

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.