Kattiera Nana I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Interesteg What makes it different from others?

HeadlinesExotic Boring

PiraBit if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.

the amorphousmachine I remember reading William Golding's book back in my youth as well as watching both versions of 'Lord of the Flies', and I actually remember thinking the American version was pretty good. Re-watched it again and my feelings remain the same, but I did forget that the "monster" in the movie was actually called the "beast" in film, and I was questioning my decision to revisit this film at the beginning of the movie. Checking out IMDB, it's disappointing to see most of the child actors didn't have great careers, except Getty who was prominent in the 90s, and the kid who played Simon resurfaced in 2002 to have career in TV and movies. The film was adequately directed and location felt genuine. For the most part, the acting was pretty good, particularly from Danuel Pipoly who played Piggy. The problem with the updated version is some of the script -particularly at the beginning of the film where I felt wasn't realistic enough to set the premise. Realistically, more kids would be terrified and crying, particularly the younger ones. I also didn't understand the relationship between Ralph and Jack, or the inclusion of the pilot which didn't really gel for me as it established days had passed. I think Jack should have been more antagonistic in the beginning before his metamorphosis into a power-hungry hunter. The script got better as the story developed and I'm glad the film potentially introduced a new audience curiosity for the book. Some great imagery, such as the beach bonfire scene, or smoking out the "prey" scene, but the film did have a television movie feel rather than a cinematic one. I personally would recommend both the 1963 version and this one for fans of the book. I give it extra points for a young cast enduring the elements and holding this film together. If you haven't read the book, you should read it, as I plan to hopefully read it again soon.***½ out of *****!

SnoopyStyle 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.

Rickting 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

fethullahzeybek i personally think that most of these IMDb users are being far too generous in rating and reviewing this movie. i even think that the people who rated this a 1/10 are being just a little too positive with their reviews. now you're probably wondering if this is the worst movie i've ever seen. the answer is a clear and obvious yes. i'll even go as far as saying that 6.2 rating should be a 2.6 rating. why?the acting is abominable. most definitely the worst i've ever seen. we figure out without any effort of giving it any thought that the actors are doing their job SOLELY for the money.in the thirty minutes of the movie that i watched i found that ALMOST EVERY ELEMENT OF THE STORYLINE was changed. there is a pilot or captain who's not supposed to be there because he's not in the book. We are supposed to see a storyline where everyone except Ralph and Piggy turn into savages. but right from the beginning, they're swearing like there's no tomorrow.the script is what keeps you entertained. it was so dumb and so badly written that it often makes you laugh. a lot of the things they say are dumb and pointless. i don't care about how jack got caught driving a car on a highway.the characters in the movie AWFULLY developed. we're supposed feel remorse for the way in which Piggy is treated, but his character is so badly developed that we can only laugh at his problems.i should also mention the fact that because of the things mentioned above, the director did not even seem to have a clue as to what in the world he was doing. i've seen videos of people making "little movies" that are supposed to be scary and they actually seem to know what they're doing, UNLIKE THIS DIRECTOR.now, as for my recommendations, i would certainly recommend viewing this. why? because while watching this movie, you get to laugh at how badly they failed, especially when it comes to script. that's why this movie can pass as a great comedy!i've tried to keep this review fairly simple but ended up having a lot more to say about this movie, and i guess even this review is a bit positive. but oh well, now you know how abominable this movie is. as of now, you can enjoy this nicely made comedy film!