griz-259-175100 Don't make the mistake of thinking this movie is just parroting the book. It is a fresh, updated telling of a time-honored story. All of the key elements are there, just spun artistically into a different era. To enjoy this movie you will have to manage your expectations. If you go into viewing it with bias as to what it "must be" you will probably score it low as a lot of others have. The story line is good. The lead actors are quite good, delivering performances beyond their years that have them coming off as quite fluid and natural. Some of the other performances are strained . . . but I find it quite acceptable that such a troop of young actors would deliver a performance in keeping with their age. Perhaps we the viewers have become so spoiled with astounding performances, we're jaded against simple good performances. While changed up a bit, this is the same classic story of striving for civil order yet having it inevitably fall to struggles of power and ego and fear. Made all the more poignant for having it performed by such a young cast. A huge hats-off to the production crew. Filming with just one or two children and animals is said to be quite the monumental undertaking. Managing a young cast of over a dozen and coming out with such a good film deserves far greater notice than many reviewer are granting.

adriantorrance90 This film...This film really annoyed me.This film could've been great. It could've been amazing.But it was just...alright.Now being an alright movie isn't a bad thing.Unless it could've been much, much better.This film was so, so, so messy. I mean, this movie, it seemed like the film didn't really know what it was gonna be. The film was just so disorganized.On the other hand, the performances were pretty good. The kids are not bad actors.But this film was kinda dull. It seemed a bit meh.And when something did happen, it only happened because of STUPIDITY.I mean, this film could've been great if instead of killing off a couple characters, they'd slowly kill off the entire cast. That would've been fun.But we ended up with this.Lord of the Flies was a disappointment.I give it a 6/10. I'd give it a 6.5, but I'd have to round up to 7, which is too high, so I give it a 6.

chirpling You may notice that the above line is from the black-and-white 1963 adaptation of William Golding's classic book Lord of the Flies, rather than the 1990 update which I am reviewing. I regret to say that I have not read the book (don't worry, I intend to), but having seen both films, I safely have something to base my opinions on. The 1963 film is described, both by IMDb reviewers and the film's description, as a faithful and brilliant adaptation of the book. Certainly, it was powerful, bold, disturbing and contemplative, offering a range of great acting and filmmaking. If it is any reflection of the book -- and my upcoming opinion applies anyway in terms of film -- then the 1990 film I am (finally) reviewing is utter tacky garbage.I am not going to complain about the contorting of the plot into all sorts of odd shapes, for that is perfectly acceptable if the end result is mildly worthwhile, but in the case of this Lord of the Flies (LotF) it turns out a mess which puts a sour taste in your mouth. Completely it is destroyed, so that even the crucial underlying themes in the film and, for sure, the book are replaced with brash, overspoken, meaningless messages. Nor am I going to be deliberately obtuse and moan about the inappropriate use of profanity in the film. Rather, I will (rightly) point out the quaint Britishness of the original's characters, which gave the film a timely, sophisticated film and underlined the transformation into savages, and then ask you to look at the new LotF's bratty American tweens, who from the outset behave like the kids even kids want to shout at.Instead of the above "We're not savages!" and other well-written dialogue, we get a half dozen f-words thrown at each of the cast, dated teen gobbledygook that comes out as annoying and the failing attempts of the writers/directors to give the kids that never-get-it-right "badass" look, instead heartlessly Americanising poignant characters with such crude lines as "Shove his d**k in the conch!" and "Shut up, s**thead!", which culminate in two things. One, the "savage" state of the kids not being too different from their normal demeanour, except for violence too over-the-top for kids in a movie which was ignored by adults for starring nothing but kids. Two, mere minutes after the film begins you silently pray to yourselves that these idiots will starve to death as soon as possible.The child actors in this film, unlike those of the 1963 version who acted well and were nicely sympathetic, are plain unlikable and untalented. Although the people who played Jack and Ralph can more or less pass on this front, Piggy in particular has been portrayed as a snivelling, annoying, useless fool who, really, has come out as a crude and over-the-top caricature of the, well, real Piggy. The majority of the rest of the cast are typical plucked-from-in-front-of-the-TV brats (sorry for repeated use of this word). They sit around and their main function in the film is to serve as friction between the leads -- the actors pull this off well, but with a vicious arrogance, playing the role almost as if they are sneering at the people who do fall into this situation, and acting as if they are bullies in a schoolyard (refer to "Shove his d**k in the conch!" for an example of this).In the end, it is clear that the badly put out themes are only second to the all-powerful studio machine, which has blatantly tried to run an aged, classic novel through Hollywood and spit out a streetwise, teen-friendly money grabber (again, see "Shove his d**k in the conch!") However, the dark themes are constantly at odds with this crude method, dragging it down until the two juxtapose violently upon watching. The violence, again, is far more graphic than the original, depicting with stark nihilism the... you find out for yourself. The end result, a badly acted, cash-grabbing, shameful, overly American, crude, visceral, badly "hip" bomb balanced on wobbly, half-hearted gravitas, would be funny if it wasn't so ridiculously shameful.R.I.P. William Goldberg. 2/10

sanookdee a fan of the book, I also enjoyed the 1963 movie. But, watching this, it's seems very dumbed down. Much of they symbolism of the book is explained to the audience of this version of the movie and done poorly. The acting is sub par, the direction mediocre and the screenplay is just terrible.I would think that, with today's audience being more sophisticated and not was easily shocked as in 1963, they could stay truer to the book. But, the writers and director did what Hollywood usually does, ads symbolism of their own (military school) and removes the authors original intent.If you never read the book or saw the 1963 movie, you might enjoy it. But, if not, please stay away. It's just bad.