"There is a beast in man that should be exercised, not exorcised." ~Anton Szandor LaVey~This second movie adaptation of Sir William Golding's beloved novel is as epic as the main message in the book. The carnal desires of man will out, no matter what education, faith or good manners one is grown up with. "We've tried everything grown ups do. Why didn't it work?" is the famous line by Piggy in this movie, which was shot in the exotic and hypnotising backgrounds of Hawaii and Jamaica. It is the story that was meant as an allegory for World War II, but still is an allegory for human nature in every way. Man is an animal and the carnal side of man will out, no matter what. It is a beautiful story about Darwin's principal 'Suvrival of the Fittest', even though it is told in biblical images (Baal (Beelzebub) had flies as servants in times of The Philistines.The movie tells us the wonderful tale of human nature, set in a 1990 timeline. Even though many people of the young generations do not know about subtle things like the TV-show 'Alf' being mentioned, this movie is ageless.Wonderful acting by all of the kids and disturbing effects, like the rock on Piggy's head.One of my alltime favorits for sure!

This adaptation of William Golding's chilling novel, that bears the same name, is decidedly American. Although brilliantly acted, this American adaptation of the classic lacks the essence of the novel. The changes are obvious. There was no plane crash, no choir of boys, no symbolism that was the rich undercurrent of the novel.Upon arrival, in a raft that mysteriously disappears after the opening sequence, the boys; seemingly from an American military school, are stranded on an uninhabited island, presumably somewhere in the Pacific. The film moves quickly without allowing the viewer to develop any attachment to any of the boys. The vulgarity used by the boys was superfluous and unnecessary. Further detaching the viewer from the experience by setting them on edge by the verbosity of these boys. The vestige of the Captain? on the island with the boys veers us further from the novel. Although some thought was used to turn this "last adult" into Simon 's monster, the delicacy of the situation is manhandled until warped into obscurity. There is no symbolism, no hidden fear of the unknown. The viewer is lead to the conclusion rather than discovering it, as it occurs in the novel. The deaths of Simon and Piggy were almost as an afterthought, rather than chiefly main points. There is no frailty of Piggy, with his restrictive asthma. No idyllic beauty in Simon. The very features that endeared the reader were lost on the viewer who had no connection to the boys. And without doing so, their deaths were just relegated to gratuitous violence. The underdeveloped character of Roger made Piggy's death nonsensical. There was no shattering of the conch. No forethought that Roger was the true evil of the island. The reason the boys followed Jack. The threat of psychotic violence wrapped up in a tween wrapper. Jack and Ralph, albeit most developed characters, were shallow. The child actors portrayed their roles brilliantly. But we're underestimated by screenplay and director. An underlying fault within the entire project. Giving this film such a high ranking was out of love for the story. The enigmatic island, the poor tortured Ralph, and for the loss of innocence. Overall, if you have the means, seek the original 1963 version and skip The Lord Of The Flies, Gilligan's Island edition.

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.

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.