Lord of the Flies (1990)

Don't make the mistake of thinking this movie is just parroting the book. It is a fresh, updated telling of a time-honored story. All of the key elements are there, just spun artistically into a different era. To enjoy this movie you will have to manage your expectations. If you go into viewing it with bias as to what it "must be" you will probably score it low as a lot of others have. The story line is good. The lead actors are quite good, delivering performances beyond their years that have them coming off as quite fluid and natural. Some of the other performances are strained . . . but I find it quite acceptable that such a troop of young actors would deliver a performance in keeping with their age. Perhaps we the viewers have become so spoiled with astounding performances, we're jaded against simple good performances. While changed up a bit, this is the same classic story of striving for civil order yet having it inevitably fall to struggles of power and ego and fear. Made all the more poignant for having it performed by such a young cast. A huge hats-off to the production crew. Filming with just one or two children and animals is said to be quite the monumental undertaking. Managing a young cast of over a dozen and coming out with such a good film deserves far greater notice than many reviewer are granting.

Lord Of The Flies is not an enjoyable book, but it's near impossible not to admire it. It's a powerful story but there's good reason why it's studied in so many schools. The second time it's been adapted for film, the black and white 60s version is apparently good but comparing this awful adaptation to the book is like comparing The Mona Lisa to a crayon drawing. This decides to ignore it's source material. The boys are now American. They have an adult with them on the island. Simon's barely in it. The twins are barely in it. The themes of the novel and the various motifs are given little to no attention. The dead pilot is never on the island. The beast encounter is reduced to a boy getting frightened by the adult. The boy's arrive on a raft yet decide not to use it to get off the island again. There are virtually no hunts. The Lord Of The Flies never actually speaks to Simon. Many of the key scenes and hints of savagery are left out. The boys... you get the idea.What were they thinking? The acting for the boys is surprisingly good and it's well photographed but the script is terrible. It's totally lacking in what makes the book so raw and powerful. It doesn't explore themes at all and is just a simple story of boys devolving into savagery. It feels rushed and since it's only 90 minutes long too much of it is missed out. It may be unfair to keep comparing it to the book when books and films are 2 different mediums, but even ignoring the book this isn't a very good drama anyway. The story is a bit dated and therefore perhaps another adaptation wasn't necessary in the first place. The finale is good, and you get the odd powerful moment here and there but there's not a lot of tension as the boys descend into savagery. We all know what's coming and we don't care. Ralph is well played but too soft, Jack is too obsessed with fun, Simon is underutilized and so are Sam and Eric. They pretty much got Piggy right. This is just a bad adaptation all together, even worse than Of Mice And Men (1992). Don't use this film for revision if LOTF is in your exam, as this ignores the book.4/10

it is not the perfect adaptation. and that is its virtue. because, out of acid remarks about it, this Lord of the Flies remains a honest film. the acting of boys, the tension, realistic atmosphere, crumbs of facts, savage nature as mirror of feelings, all is precise, delicate and fresh. the film keeps all virtues of novel. but it remembers that is work of a director, with his vision and way of affective translation of lines. it is , like novel, a cruel cold parable. but , for the performance of its young actors, a challenge. so, in this case, good intentions are really admirable. and final result not disappointed. a travel in heart of society. and an unforgettable verdict.

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.