Herr der Fliegen

Some people may dislike this movie because of the cursing, or the fact that the whole story has been twisted around. However, it was way more entertaining than the 1963 one. I am currently in English in high school, and we read the book, then watched both movies. I think some people don't realize how complex this story is. You cannot just watch this movie, or the original. Read the book. Analyze the story, every detail. Then watch the movies. The 1963 movie does follow the story from the book, but I almost fell asleep. Although the new one may be an insult to the book, it was far more enjoyable. However, I was displeased at how the boys were acting. I do think there was way too much cursing, and some rather inappropriate comments for 12 or 13 year old boys to be making. This isn't a good movie for children. Regardless, if you are into the book watch the movie!

I've read the book so many times and after seeing the first 1963 adaptation of the movie I admit I was a little let down. I was surprised they didn't put in the Simon scene (which is probably one of the most important scenes in the book) and a lot of other important things they missed out on. But then, once I found out there was another version of the movie I quickly rented it. But let me tell you something; This is movie is much worse than the first one, and does an awful job of telling the storyline. Although the boys were very adorable (I'll admit that)that still didn't make up for the bad acting job they did. Plus, I was really confused on why the director chose to make a nonexistent captain the most important symbol in the book. Why he did that is beyond me. So anyways, my point is, if your looking for a good movie based on the book, you should probably just stick to the first one, and don't waste your money on renting/buying this movie.

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.

William Golding's compelling adventure of the human beast untethered illustrates Darwinism at its most ferocious: this is truly survival of the fittest. The new film version updates the fable from a group of British schoolboys stranded on a tropical island to a team of young American military cadets, a switch Golding himself might have approved of. Watching little soldiers devolve into savages, with all their spit-and-polish discipline reverting to primitive barbarity, is a chilling reminder of the animal lurking just under the skin of any military man. The cast of young unknowns may at times look a little self-conscious in front of the camera, and some of the contemporary dialogue doesn't ring entirely true. But the film itself is beautifully photographed and very carefully arranged (director Harry Hook also served as editor), maintaining a simple mood of accumulating dread: knowing what's about to unfold doesn't make it any less awful to watch.

When I saw this remake I did not find it as bad as some said it was. Basically its like so many remakes of classic films, they rarely live up to the original. There is little new thats added here. Most of the virtues of this film are just repeats of the virtues of the first film. New to this film, on the plus side is the use of vivid colour, as oppossed to the original films harsh, grainy black and white. The colour photography beautifully captures the lush tropical surroundings. On the negative side are the silly dreams of the kids being rescued. Also having the piolet survive and wander around like rabid dog looks like it was thrown in to provide a few cheap shocks, or something.