Lord of the Flies (1990)

To me, this movie is perfection.

Don't listen to the negative reviews

Admirable film.

A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

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.

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 shockingly terrible adaptation. All of the pieces might be there on screen, but nothing and I mean NOTHING that makes any sense translates onto screen. It's amazing how someone could miss all of the interesting themes. I'm pretty sure the child actors wrote the script without any understanding of the book. So it starts off with American Military Cadets, rather than prim and proper British Schoolboys. This is the first huge mistake as it completely craps on the transformation that every student goes through. Jack is reduced to a villain. We even here he was bad before getting to the island. The children don't fail at creating a society, they're all just a bunch of disgusting little twerps. Arguing at the slightest little thing. The kids also start with a grown up on the island...I can't even begin to explain how damn stupid that is. It adds literally nothing. The fighter pilot is excised, losing the irony of Piggy praying for a sign from the adult world, only to have an adult killed in war appear. As well as Jack being the villain, Simon's just a weirdo, with every nod toward religion now gone. So what's left? A bunch of horrible children stuck on an island and acting like turds, which they were before they got to the island. Pointless, painful and frustrating.

i personally think that most of these IMDb users are being far too generous in rating and reviewing this movie. i even think that the people who rated this a 1/10 are being just a little too positive with their reviews. now you're probably wondering if this is the worst movie i've ever seen. the answer is a clear and obvious yes. i'll even go as far as saying that 6.2 rating should be a 2.6 rating. why?the acting is abominable. most definitely the worst i've ever seen. we figure out without any effort of giving it any thought that the actors are doing their job SOLELY for the money.in the thirty minutes of the movie that i watched i found that ALMOST EVERY ELEMENT OF THE STORYLINE was changed. there is a pilot or captain who's not supposed to be there because he's not in the book. We are supposed to see a storyline where everyone except Ralph and Piggy turn into savages. but right from the beginning, they're swearing like there's no tomorrow.the script is what keeps you entertained. it was so dumb and so badly written that it often makes you laugh. a lot of the things they say are dumb and pointless. i don't care about how jack got caught driving a car on a highway.the characters in the movie AWFULLY developed. we're supposed feel remorse for the way in which Piggy is treated, but his character is so badly developed that we can only laugh at his problems.i should also mention the fact that because of the things mentioned above, the director did not even seem to have a clue as to what in the world he was doing. i've seen videos of people making "little movies" that are supposed to be scary and they actually seem to know what they're doing, UNLIKE THIS DIRECTOR.now, as for my recommendations, i would certainly recommend viewing this. why? because while watching this movie, you get to laugh at how badly they failed, especially when it comes to script. that's why this movie can pass as a great comedy!i've tried to keep this review fairly simple but ended up having a lot more to say about this movie, and i guess even this review is a bit positive. but oh well, now you know how abominable this movie is. as of now, you can enjoy this nicely made comedy film!