Rating: 
Summary: The Spirit Is Lost.
Review: I have to admit, LORD OF THE FLIES is one of my favorite novels (it ranks just behind THE LORD OF THE RINGS and THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA as my favorite novels). If I ever have the opportunity to make big-budget pictures myself, LORD OF THE FLIES would be one I would make. Therefore, I don't really have a problem with this "Americanized" version of Golding's classic tale of good versus evil. I also found it interesting how the movie illustrates the friendship that existed between all the boys before the split in their society began. The acting is well done. The movie also has a good soundtrack and some excellent cinematography. Unfortunately, the whole spirit of the novel doesn't exist in the film and that is a severe detriment. The breakup of society is not really examined and the boys who end up following the Lord of the Flies seem more like rowdy schoolchildren rather than youth who have given themselves over to pure evil. I was also disappointed that Simon was reduced to such a small role and that his famous scene talking with the real Lord of the Flies didn't even take place (yes, it would be expensive to do, but that scene is crucial to the rest of the story's plot). Overall, a decent movie, but not a very good adaptation of the novel it's based upon.
Rating:
Summary: good boys gone bad & anarchy at it's best
Review: I can't believe the 1963 version got better reviews in this venue than the 1990 version. The 1990 cinematography, filming location, color photography, acting, music were all better by far. And since when does a movie have to match the book to be considered better? One only has to look at the 1938 Wizard of Oz and the 1985 Return to Oz to see that the converse is true. While both movies were well done in their own fashion, the Judy Garland older version is by far a more lovable movie even though many features did not match Frank Baum's original story. I was perfectly bored with the 1960's Lord of the Flies & never did finish that earlier movie. While I liked the 1990 version enough to buy the DVD for the superior wide screen and crystal clear sound. The lead characters Balthazar Getty (Ralph), Chris Furrh (Jack Merridew), Danuel Pipoly (Piggy) all gave perfectly believable performances. Especially Getty's portrayal of dismay when the helecopter pilot finds him in the end, and Furrh's portrayal of a bully, and Pipoly's naivite and amazement at his new surroundings. The main themes of "good boys gone bad" and "anarchy at it's best" are still alive bringing the story into the 1990's.
Of course nothing can come close to matching the characters that I dreamed & imagined when I first read the novel in my boyhood so many years ago, so why even attempt to match "everyone's version". Which I believe in the end explains so many negative reviews. I'm almost sure the Director & Producer were not planning on a "blockbuster movie" & this by it's very nature limits the time & attention that can be spent on a movie. So I believe if you want a movie to match a novel perfectly then you maybe should film it yourself & see how hard that really is & how perfectly dry & boring that might be! That's my "two cents" anyways.
Rating: 
Summary: What could have been
Review: As the Lord of the Flies is one of my favorite novels, I really wanted to like this movie. Unfortunately, it didn't quite do it for me. The first sign of trouble is the puzzling decision to make the core group of boys military cadets instead of choir members - completely losing some deep irony right off the bat. Although for the most part the core events still play out, there's just something missing. Perhaps part of it is that little of Golding's actual dialogue is used, although this isn't necessarily a death toll. Perhaps it's references added to the screenplay that terribly date this version. Some of the characters suffer from the rush to get to the more dramatic events of the story. Jack's change is a bit too abrupt. Simon's uniqueness is not played up enough, much of his kindness towards the other boys transferred to a lizard (!?). His health problem - which in the novel added to the whole mix that led up to the chain of events that occured - is not addressed, and he's instead given jarring visionary dreams that don't lead up to a confrontation with the Lord of the Flies. Granted, that may be an almost impossible scene to film, but it's the turning point of the story, and much is lost without it. Much must be done to make up for it's omission by any version cutting it. Some things don't turn out as badly. Ralph and Piggy are pretty much what they are in the book. Ironically, the characters that are perhaps done best by are Sam and Eric. Rightly portrayed as the only boys besides Ralph still standing at the end of the story who still have a bit of their souls left, their predicament - walk a tightrope between doing the right thing and keeping themselves and eachother alive - is presented neatly. There's a remarkable little scene in which they look into eachother's eyes as they reluctantly paint eachother's faces, their expressions saying everything as they wordlessly try to comfort eachother in an impossible situation, that makes you wish the rest of the movie was as good. However, the very fact that it's the twins - who are not the major characters - who work best says something about the movie. It's a film that should have been great but, in the end, is only o.k.
Rating: 
Summary: I want my 1 1/2hrs back
Review: What a terrible movie. The dialogue was terrible, the direction was terrible, the acting was terrible. Harry Hook should not have wasted my time with this remake. The motivation for the childrens' savagery was not explored nor was the identity of the 'Lord of the Flies' in this film version. Go to Peter Brook's 1963 original version. It's in B/W but so what?
Rating: 
Summary: CAN YOU SAY LOSS OF INNOCENCE
Review: lord of the flies is one of the best books ever written if not the best. The movie strangly is just as good as the book, no better no worse. Its an amazing tale of a bunch of little boys who get stranded on an island and baby THIS AINT GILIGANS ISLAND. They start out trying to act like their parents would until a plane comes to take them home but things go on for longer than they thought it would and they begin to fight and after a while tribal instincts take over and they get violent. They have a total complete loss of innocence. As a matter of fact they have a total loss of civilization (except for one or two characters, who are just trying to keep from getting killed and get home). Kids stranded on Island, kids miss home, kids forget home, kids go insane... Its one of those movies that at the end you are left wondering how the children would ever be able to live outside of mental institution walls again and you pretty much gather that the majority will be put in maximum security mental hospitals shortly after coming home because they had totally lost it and you wonder how it is broken to the parents thats children were savagly murdered by their schoolmates. Its mind trippy. It will stick with you for the rest of your life...
Rating: 
Summary: Useful as a classroom aid
Review: If you want to familiarize young people with the story of Lord of the Flies, do it with this 1990 version. Kids (and many adults) tend to relate to images to a greater extent than they do to the printed word, and while reading the book will be perceived by many as a chore, watching an entertaining Hollywood film will seem like a fun way to spend the class. While the 1963 film version is, by artistic standards, far superior (and I do recommend it over the 1990 version for any serious, discriminating film-lover), it may not fare well in the classroom. Black-and-white pictures, save perhaps for slapstick comedy, are automatically associated by many young people with dull, "sophisticated", documentary-style video. They might close their minds to it before they even see it, and thus miss out on the powerful message that Lord of the Flies would otherwise convey. After the screening, while discussing its contents in class, you can tell your pupils of the book and the 1963 film version, and encourage them to consult these for further, perhaps more profound angles into the same parable.
Rating:
Summary: Bloody Brilliant movie!
Review: Utterly brilliant movie, seriously not to be missed. Just an overall a very powerful, saddening, and ulitmately rewarding movie, something to be treasured...for years to come!
Rating:
Summary: ~*~ My Review~*~
Review: This was the best movie i have EVER seen! the first time i watched it i fell in love with the plot and the characters!
(Balthazar Getty is really hott!!) i believe this movie is a extrodinary film about a group of young boys becoming stranded on an island. this movie is heart-warming and action packed.
it makes us ask questions such as "What if i became stranded on a deserted island? What would i do? How would i survive?"
I'm the only one out of like everybody in my school who has seen or heard of this wonderful movie. My advice to everyone who reads
this review is to read the book or buy the movie! Those of you who dont are missing the time of your life!! All i can say is i wish i was on that island with them to experience the adventure of a life-time!!!!
Rating:
Summary: ummmmm.....hi?
Review: it was good i think. I liked it better than the old version...(I like things in colour:)) But some of the actors over acted.
The two main characters were good though! I like Chris Furrh :)
Rating:
Summary: Bad Bad Bad
Review: This is possibly the worst film adaptation ever. If you would like to see a good version, buy the b&w British edition. It's meaningful and dramatic. This version likes the "F" word a lot, confusing, as it never appears in the novel. Also, Simon's dialogue with the Lord of the Flies was a confusing omission.
| 
