Product Description

With 'sharply expressive performances (Peter Travers, Rolling Stone) by its young cast, this stunning adventure explores the deep dark corners of the human soul, as a group of adolescent castaways are thrust into an intense world where law and accountability are governed by the rules of survival. After a harrowing plane crash into the sea, a group of American military cadets finds itselfmarooned on a deserted island. Realizing the minimal chances of being rescued, the boys band together out of fear and desperation. But as the island paradise becomes their own, competition and power struggles split them into two packs. Ralph (Bathazar Getty) leads one group and preaches civilized ingenuity and togetherness, but Jack (Chris Furrh) wants nothing of it and builds a faction of barbaric hunters who ultimately go to war with Ralph. This powerful shift in conscience transforms ordinary kids into primal killers, setting off a devastating battle of good versus evil and presenting a haunting metaphor for the savage in us all.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #6384 in DVD
• Brand: MGM HOME VIDEO (UNDER FOX)
• Released on: 2001-11-20
• Rating: R (Restricted)
• Aspect ratio: 1.85:1
• Formats: Anamorphic, Closed-captioned, Color, Dolby, DVD, Subtitled, Widescreen, NTSC
• Original language: English
• Subtitled in: Spanish, French
• Number of discs: 1
• Dimensions: .20 pounds
• Running time: 90 minutes

Features

• Based on William Golding's novel, a group of prep school boys become stranded on an island and pitted against nature after surviving a plane crash. And with no rules or adult supervision, the young boys eventually turn against each other. System Requirements: Starring: Balthazar Getty, Andrew Taft, Badgett Dale, Chris Furrh, Danuel Pipoly, and Edward Taft. Directed By: Harry Hook. Runn

Amazon.com
Harry Hook's adaptation is not as faithful to the William Golding novel as you'd wish (they excised the Lord of the Flies dialogue with Simon!) and because of it, the movie is less allegorical and less resonant. A group of young men from a military academy are stranded on an island. The group quickly becomes fractious with a passive section led by Ralph, trying to get rescued, and a hunter faction, led by Jack, trying to procure meat and "have fun." Peter Brook's 1963 filming seemed to get closer to the Darwinist sense of this cultural disintegration. Here, the hunter faction seems more like Peter Pan's Lost Boys than the bloodthirsty murderers they are. The performances, particularly young Getty, don't quite carry the weight of the situation. It's still, however, sobering to slowly watch the school uniforms traded for war paint, and the little boys turn into little savages. --Keith Simanton

Customer Reviews

Lord of the What-the-heck-was-the-director-thinking?
One cannot criticize the cinematography of this move. It is, at times, lush, humid and tropically, oppressively beautiful. All of which are good things...

...but that's all I can say good about the film.

Golding originally conceived "Lord of the Flies" as an xploration of Human nature, and how people are inheirently evil. To drive this point home, he took English school boys (some of whom were members of a church choir) crash landed them on an island during a wartime evacuation and said, "Have at it!" (metaphorically speaking). The book and indeed the 1963 movie version asks how if even children can become cruel and violent and evil with very little prompting, are humans as advanced as we like to think? Are we really all that different from animals? Readers/viewers are shocked to see how far such a small child can fall.

Weeeeeeeeellllllll...

This, the 1990 version of Lord of the Flies, puts American military students on an island during a conflict of some sort, so when the first blow is struck it's not all that surprising. This removes the impact of Golding's ideas, and this becomes another adventure story (of sorts. Like "The Hun Family Robinson"). Further, the "updated" material doesn't really work: the glo-sticks, kids talking about watching "ALF" on TV (which seriously dates this movie. I guess the screenwrighter thought ALF would be around forever. Another example of the narrowness of this version. It is already obsolete, while the book perseveres.), Simon having a vision of a stealth bomber, etc.. It's all a bit too uneven, too naive almost, but totally lacking in charm (if such a word can be used here). In essence, this is a visceral film that lacks guts.

Nothing upsets me more than movies that violate the basic premise of a book ("The Handmaid's Tale" also comes screaming to mind), and this movie goes out of its way to be "different" but identifibe by its title. Really, this should have been called something else for as much as the story is like the book; perhaps "Ishtar" would be more appropriate.

One weird editing glitch I noticed was an image of a sunrise - the viewer sees it from a cliff with a tree interveing the space. Well, that night at sunset we see the same tree, the same cliff, but reversed!! Like the sun rose and set in the same place in the sky and the tree had turned to meet it. It's very disconcerting.

So, unless you're taking a class in comparative cinema, don't bother with this one. An, whatever happened to Balthazar Getty? I thought his name guaranteed his career longevity. Weird...

What does this movie have to do with the book?
This movie has basically almost nothing to do with the book. Half of the script seems to be completely made up. Acting is also nothing to howl about. The only good acting was from a kid who played "Piggy".

You should stay away from movie as far possible. Read the book, or watch 1963 version of the movie - it's alot better.

READ THE BOOK
You'll get so much for out of it if you read the book, I promise you that. And I also recommend watching the 1963 orginal lord of the flies, the acting is pretty dull, but it's so much better then this one guys!!
TRULY READ THE BOOK AND THEN THE 1963 CLASSIC!!!
IT'LL BE WORTHLESS JUST TO SEE THIS!!!!!