NOT True to the Book
This movie version of "Lord of the Flies" is a prime example of how a screenwriter can completely destroy a classic novel.

This movie is a major disappointment . So many liberties are taken with the plot that one might say that the book and the movie are shadows of each other. I've taught this book in English class for about twenty years on and off, (Mostly off) and this year decided to show the modern version rather than the outstanding black and white sixties version.

Big mistake.

The acting is not bad, but the script has been completely reworked, to the point where much of the original symbolism and dramatic impact is lost. Why? My students---juniors and seniors in high school---were universal in their condemnation that this movie does not do the book justice.

Don't buy this version. Get the original black and white version. It is true to the book.

On the plus side, the cinematography is excellent. But that's little consolation for what has been done to Golding's book. If I had been Golding, I would have sued.

Great Teaching Tool
I purchased the movie as a supplement to the unit I taught on Anarchy. The stduents related to it and fully understood it. IT is important that we teach not only the fact that we have rules, but why they are so important and and what life would be like without rules. This movie did just that

Ultimately unsatisfying
Of course there is the inevitable comparison to the original b/w film, but even in absence of that, this version just doesn't cut it as an adaptation or re-imagining of the novel.

The color photography does not help at all. The Jamaican island scenery is too pretty, given the subject matter and the boys' behavior. Changing the boys from British schoolboys to American military academy brats does nothing for the film.

Worst of all, having an adult show up at the end and ask aloud, "What are you guys doing?" just provokes unintended laughter besides being unnecessary.

Skip this and rent the older version instead.

Save your money
I purchased this item because I love the novel by William Golding. In fact after I read the book, I listened to the audio book read by Golding. In a toss up between this DVD and the 1963 black and white version, the choice ultimately came down to cash.

After reading the reviews I was nervous but willing to give it a shot. If you have never read the Lord of The Flies and never really plan to, then I recommend this movie. It is what it is and one's best bet is to have no prior experience with this work.

With that said, to those who have read the book and want to watch the movie I recommend saving your money and purchasing the 1963 version. There are elements taken from the novel, but it feels so pieced together, so choppy, that it flows poorly and fails to develop any real energy. I think its the way in which Golding weaved his tale that really creates the charged atmosphere one gets from reading the novel, and if a movie does not take advantage of that underlying current, its nothing more than a series of dis-joined elements and that is where this DVD falls short.

Lord of the Flies - Criterion Collection


Best of luck

An Important Exploration of Human Nature
I have seen both the 1963 movie and the 1990 movie, and have also read the book, so I may be able to shed some light on which movie is "truer" to the book.

When you're trying to bring to the screen a book that was written several decades ago, and which was set in the contemporary society and culture of its day, you have to choose between keeping its original setting (i.e., making it a period piece) or keeping it contemporary (which means updating the story). If you prefer the first choice, then the 1963 movie is unquestionably "truer" to the book. But I can't think of a story for which the first choice makes less sense.

Lord of the Flies is, to my way of thinking, not so much a story as a thought experiment: Imagine that a group of boys, much like boys we may know in real life, are stranded on an uninhabited island with no adult supervision. What happens?

If you simply told someone the outcome, I think they'd be incredulous. But Lord of the Flies takes you there step by step and incident by incident, with no step seeming improbable given what has gone before. And when you see where it ends, you find yourself thinking back over everything that happened, trying to figure out if there was a false step somewhere. And if there wasn't, what does it say about all of us?

Unfortunately, the thought experiment gets significantly distorted if the boys seem different from the boys that you encounter in real life. And the boys of the book, and of the 1963 movie, are different from the boys I encounter in real life! Because of this, I think the 1990 version of the movie does a better job, for modern day viewers, of preserving the thought experiment. The use of color film also allows the 1990 version to depict the way that the activities of the boys defaces the beauty of the island at times (which is definitely depicted in the book). And the character of Piggy (who in the book is both physically unattractive and poor at expressing himself) is also better depicted in the 1990 version, in my opinion.

Some parts of the story did have to be changed a bit because of the change from wartime British boys to peacetime American boys. (And, frankly, I think the story was changed a little more than was needed, which is why I only gave the movie a four star rating.) But the essence of the thought experiment is still very much intact!