A plane carrying schoolboys from a military school crashes into the ocean. A group of them make it to an island. After taking stock of their surroundings they settle into a regimen and order, with Ralph as their leader. However, after a while a splinter group emerges, lead by Jack. Jack is hardly a benevolent leader and fascism and barbarism follow... A reasonably interesting adaptation of William Golding's classic novel. I haven't read the book or seen any other adaptations of the novel, though am familiar with the basic plot. So the story is quite original and thought-provoking to me. I did think it would be a more powerful metaphor for society though, so, even without having that background knowledge I sense that this is not a great adaptation of the book.This said, it is quite entertaining and you can see how it mirrors human behaviour.

A plane crashes in the ocean. The pilot captain Benson and a group of military school cadets reach an isolated island. The injured captain is delirious. Ralph (Balthazar Getty) is the senior cadet who has an injured arms. He tries to organize the boys using the conch found by Piggy. Jack Merridew is the oldest and often fights with the argumentative Piggy. The popular Jack gets obsessed with hunting down the wild pig and the group starts to go wild while Ralph tries to maintain order. The sensitive Simon is shocked at the growing brutality. Captain Benson wanders off. When Jack neglects the signal fire to go hunting, the group splits in two.There are a few changes from the classic novel. They don't all necessarily improve the story. The most troubling is the militarization of the boys. Ralph doesn't get his leadership based on a vote but rather by his cadet ranking. It loses some of the symbolism in the book. The theme of the lost of a democratic civilization is watered down by the boys being military cadets. The captain is an interesting choice and creates some good scenes. The best part of the movie is the use of real young boys. This movie needs the young kids. It is interesting to see a colored version. However if the movie intends to make changes, they should push more towards horror.

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.