Lord of the Flies (1990)

Don't Believe the Hype

Entertaining from beginning to end, it maintains the spirit of the franchise while establishing it's own seal with a fun cast

A film with more than the usual spoiler issues. Talking about it in any detail feels akin to handing you a gift-wrapped present and saying, "I hope you like it -- It's a thriller about a diabolical secret experiment."

The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

I read William Golding's book when I was 11 years old and it was a real shock for me. The movie shocked me too but with a negative way this time. I thought that I was watching the story of the book in fast forward. No character analysis. Many important parts of the story left out, some others changed totally. The scenery was nice, the kids performances were decent, the problem were on the scenario and the direction. You take a masterpiece and you turn it into a decent movie. I hope some day we will have the chance to see a really great adaptation of this marvelous book.

"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!

If you're reading this, then I'm sure that at some point in your life, you have either read William Golding's 1954 novel 'The Lord of the Flies' either as required school reading or for fun, or have seen the original adaption on film from 1963, which is currently part of the Criterion Collection. However, my first foray into this world was through this 1990 movie. It wasn't until a few years later that I read the book and saw the original 1963 film.'Lord of the Flies' has been referenced in countless books, magazines, television shows, and other films, where they're usually discussing a group of kids who are unruly and on a path of destruction and death. Needless to say, 'Lord of the Flies' has always been controversial, which it still is today, given the subject matter. This 1990 version is a bit different than its predecessors, as director Harry Hook wanted to give it a more modern appeal to younger audiences. Instead of a group of British choir boys surviving a plane crash in the ocean with no adults, and making their way to a deserted island, this 90's version has a group of young military cadets stranded with one gravely injured adult. It turns the tables a little bit as we get to see an assuming group of boys who might have some skills to survive in a dire situation along with a mental attitude for order and command, turn into something completely frightening and chaotic.It was a smart move on Hook's part here, as well as, making the young survivors American, rather than British. But the big story points are still there. Ralph (a young Balthazar Getty) and Jack (Chris Furrh) are the main leaders of the group of young survivors who turn into enemies, while Piggy (Danuel Pipoly) still acts as the collective groups moral and ethics board, trying to get these wild kids to survive and help, rather than become savage beasts with no rules. Hook wasn't bothered with telling a story with the amount of symbolism or depth here as in the original novel or even the original film. Instead, a captured the pure horror as these kids turned into monsters.The film succeeds in this aspect very well, because we can easily see nowadays that this kind of situation is far to real and hits close to home for most. Another interesting change is that this 1990 film was shot in color. The original film was in black and white, and painted a fairly bleak outlook from the get-go. But here, we have beautiful landscapes and luscious greens for miles, which is the place where these stranded kids go wild, which is an interesting notion in and of itself. How could these kids possibly become the murdering lunatics they are in such a rich and beautiful place? It's fascinating to watch.The young Getty, Furrh, and Pipoly all do a decent job here in their roles. Furrh is menacing for sure throughout, but also makes you believe he is still a scared little boy deep down, while Getty is constantly mixing a variety of emotions in order to stay alive. Then there is poor Pipoly, who does a great job of being the joke of the group who everyone picks on. It's still quite sad to see what that character goes through. Even a young James Badge Dale as Simon turns in a solid performance, however a few of the other kids still needed a week long acting class in certain moments.Still, this 1990 version of 'Lord of the Flies' is a very suspenseful and unyielding look at what pure chaos really is. The gut punch is that it's all young kids going through this and acting out these bizarre and violent behaviors. Needless to say after 25 years, this film still holds up quite well.

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