User reviews

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'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.

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.

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.

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.

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")

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.

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.

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.

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 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)

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...

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

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-)

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.

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" 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."