Lord of the Flies (1990)

Ultimately unsatisfying

Of course there is the inevitable comparison to the original b/w film, but even in absence of that, this version just doesn't cut it as an adaptation or re-imagining of the novel.

The color photography does not help at all. The Jamaican island scenery is too pretty, given the subject matter and the boys' behavior. Changing the boys from British schoolboys to American military academy brats does nothing for the film.

Worst of all, having an adult show up at the end and ask aloud, "What are you guys doing?" just provokes unintended laughter besides being unnecessary.

Skip this and rent the older version instead.













March 27, 2008

Save your money

I purchased this item because I love the novel by William Golding. In fact after I read the book, I listened to the audio book read by Golding. In a toss up between this DVD and the 1963 black and white version, the choice ultimately came down to cash.

After reading the reviews I was nervous but willing to give it a shot. If you have never read the Lord of The Flies and never really plan to, then I recommend this movie. It is what it is and one's best bet is to have no prior experience with this work.

With that said, to those who have read the book and want to watch the movie I recommend saving your money and purchasing the 1963 version. There are elements taken from the novel, but it feels so pieced together, so choppy, that it flows poorly and fails to develop any real energy. I think its the way in which Golding weaved his tale that really creates the charged atmosphere one gets from reading the novel, and if a movie does not take advantage of that underlying current, its nothing more than a series of dis-joined elements and that is where this DVD falls short.

Lord of the Flies - Criterion Collection


Best of luck
February 23, 2008

An Important Exploration of Human Nature

I have seen both the 1963 movie and the 1990 movie, and have also read the book, so I may be able to shed some light on which movie is "truer" to the book.

When you're trying to bring to the screen a book that was written several decades ago, and which was set in the contemporary society and culture of its day, you have to choose between keeping its original setting (i.e., making it a period piece) or keeping it contemporary (which means updating the story). If you prefer the first choice, then the 1963 movie is unquestionably "truer" to the book. But I can't think of a story for which the first choice makes less sense.

Lord of the Flies is, to my way of thinking, not so much a story as a thought experiment: Imagine that a group of boys, much like boys we may know in real life, are stranded on an uninhabited island with no adult supervision. What happens?

If you simply told someone the outcome, I think they'd be incredulous. But Lord of the Flies takes you there step by step and incident by incident, with no step seeming improbable given what has gone before. And when you see where it ends, you find yourself thinking back over everything that happened, trying to figure out if there was a false step somewhere. And if there wasn't, what does it say about all of us?

Unfortunately, the thought experiment gets significantly distorted if the boys seem different from the boys that you encounter in real life. And the boys of the book, and of the 1963 movie, are different from the boys I encounter in real life! Because of this, I think the 1990 version of the movie does a better job, for modern day viewers, of preserving the thought experiment. The use of color film also allows the 1990 version to depict the way that the activities of the boys defaces the beauty of the island at times (which is definitely depicted in the book). And the character of Piggy (who in the book is both physically unattractive and poor at expressing himself) is also better depicted in the 1990 version, in my opinion.

Some parts of the story did have to be changed a bit because of the change from wartime British boys to peacetime American boys. (And, frankly, I think the story was changed a little more than was needed, which is why I only gave the movie a four star rating.) But the essence of the thought experiment is still very much intact! January 22, 2008

Brilliant

This is one of the best stories about primary school boys. It is a must see. Just show you how kids can be if they are left alone in the wild. Airplane crash ended their lives in a Second, all the boys came out the aircrash alive. After one boys took command. There were others that thought why do we have to obey his commands, they then divide them in two groups. Then the survival began, war was declared between the two groups, and they need to hunt for food. The island was devided into two areas. As the story goes along poeple started to die of stupid mistakes. This is really good please check it out, you will sit on the edge of your chair if the war starts. The worst death is the death of a boy called " Piggy " he was a chubby boy that is why his name is " Piggy ".

Enjoy

Anton January 7, 2008

Good vs. Evil

William Golding's novel, Lord of the Flies, was a very enjoyable book. It started out when a group of boys got in a plane crash on an island. Ralph and Piggy were the first ones on the island. Piggy started out being the odd ball of the group. "`He's not Fatty," cried Ralph, `his real name is Piggy'" (21). From then on he was called Piggy, which he hated. The boys built forts to survive and a fire for rescue. They used Piggy's glasses to start the fire, "His specs. Use them as burning glasses" (40). Once they became more comfortable on the island they started hunting, painting their faces, and becoming barbaric. They accidentally killed Simon at the bonfire, and after this there was more death and violence. Roger pushed a rock that killed Piggy and Jack's tribe was trying to kill Ralph. All of this ended when a navel officer saw the smoke from the fire, landed on the island and rescued them.
One theme in Lord of Flies is good vs. evil. One of the characters, Simon, represented good. He always helped, and he never got into fights with the other boys. He also took are of the littleuns. Jack was one of the boys who represented evil. An example of this is when Jack and the boys were at the bonfire and saw a thing crawling out of the woods. They had been dancing with their faces painted and thought the thing was the beast. Jack encouraged them to beat the figure. They started chanting, "Kill the beast! Cut his throat! Spill his blood!" (152). The boys started stabbing the figure and after it was all over they noticed it was Simon. Ralph was involved with this and he realized that evil was taking over the boys. Ralph said, "I'm frightened. Of us. I want to go home. Oh God, I want to go home" (157). I believe that this book does a good job of showing how people can turn to evil without rules. It made me think about how easily one bad thing can lead to another.
December 20, 2007

More reviews at Amazon.com ...