Lord of the Flies (1990)

A Masterpiece!

Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

The book, Lord of the Flies is a very complex novel, and to completely grasp it the complexity of the novel, you have to have a higher understanding of English lore. The movie is the same way, to understand it you have to understand the book and the symbolism. The movie is alright just on its own, but the book is just on another level that the movie never seems to reach.

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

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.