Lord of the Flies

Name: Lord of the Flies
Genre: Adventure, Drama, Thriller
Released: March 16, 1990
Duration: 90 min
Rating: 49
Cast: Andrew Taft, Angus Burgin, Balthazar Getty, Braden MacDonald, Chris Furrh

1990

METASCORE

Mixed or average reviews based on 20 Critic Reviews

See All

USER SCORE

Generally favorable reviews based on 8 Ratings

See All

7.4

VOTE NOW

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

7.4	Your Score
7.4	User Score Generally favorable reviews based on 8 Ratings

Would you like to write a review?

There is a 75 character minimum for reviews. If your review contains spoilers, please check the Spoiler box. Please do not use ALL CAPS. There is no linking or other HTML allowed. Your review may be edited for content. 0/5000

Check box if your review contains spoilers

Play Sound

Please enter your birth date to watch this video:

You are not allowed to view this material at this time.

Lord Of The Flies

Now Playing: Lord Of The Flies

Movie Details & Credits

Columbia Pictures | Release Date: March 16, 1990 | R

Starring: Andrew Taft, Angus Burgin, Balthazar Getty, Braden MacDonald, Chris Furrh, Danuel Pipoly, Edward Taft, Gary Rule, James Badge Dale, Terry Wells

Summary: Stranded on an island, a group of schoolboys degenerate into savagery.

Director: Harry Hook

Genre(s): Adventure, Drama, Thriller

Rating: R

Runtime: 90 min

See All Details and Credits

Watch Now

Buy on

Stream On

Metascore

Positive:

Mixed:

Negative:

Critic Reviews

Owen Gleiberman

As a novel, Lord of the Flies never was much more than a Brat Pack Heart of Darkness. It’s doubtful a screen version could be any better than this one. Read full review

Jay Boyar

This new film version of Lord of the Flies is far from a disgrace. It may not hit a home run, but it doesn't strike out, either. [16 Mar 1990, p.5]

Jay Carr

Like the earlier film version, this one often exchanges the dark poetry of Golding's writing for action and connect-the-dots social anthropology, but it's crisp, taut and involving nonetheless. [16 Mar 1990, p.39]

Michael Upchurch

Like its predecessor, this new screen version of the book may work well enough for those happy with a simple story, simply told. But for Golding fans, it can only feel like another opportunity missed. [16 Mar 1990, p.3]

Staff (Not Credited)

Director Harry Hook’s literal, unimaginative visual approach makes the tale seem mundane and tedious. Read full review

Michael Wilmington

This version not only doesn’t surpass or match Brook’s, it makes the material look bad. Read full review

TV Guide Magazine Staff (Not Credited)

A lovely-to-look-at photo album treatment of Golding's heart of darkness pessimism, this movie misses the point and mood of Lord of the Flies completely. Read full review

SEE ALL 20 REVIEWS

Write a Review

Negative:

User Reviews

RogueOneBest

May 24, 2021

This movie very good I love the inclusion of the pilot I was extreamly sad he was not in the book and he is the best character in the movie he adds so much development to the other characters. But this movie does have problems for example they could just eat piggy to survive and also thisThis movie very good I love the inclusion of the pilot I was extreamly sad he was not in the book and he is the best character in the movie he adds so much development to the other characters. But this movie does have problems for example they could just eat piggy to survive and also this movie copied the conjuring when the tree burnt down it was in the exact shape of the conjuring tree but still greatest movie I have ever seen ALSO can we talk about the actors I don't understand why this movie dident win any Oscars the child the actors are amazing I have never been so convinced it honostly makes me cry… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

DogeGamer2015

May 16, 2021

Es una película muy buena y entretenida; la trama es buena, los escenarios de la isla son preciosos y las actuaciones de los niños son excelentes; está muy infravalorada; la recomiendo mucho.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

JLuis_001

May 10, 2022

More than 30 years after its release and 57 years since the first adaptation, this film feels surprisingly inferior.

It's ironic, but the execution of the plot feels disconnected, almost robotic, especially because even though if you know the story beforehand, the build-up to its path seemsMore than 30 years after its release and 57 years since the first adaptation, this film feels surprisingly inferior.

It's ironic, but the execution of the plot feels disconnected, almost robotic, especially because even though if you know the story beforehand, the build-up to its path seems careless and uninteresting.

As I said about the first adaptation, the most important part of this story is its message, and the message will work one way or another when everything in the film has been constructed with that intention.
However, there's a total lack of effort from the director to make the experience relevant enough, despite the fact that it was not going to feel innovative at all.

That was crucial for the malfunctioning of this film.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

SEE ALL 3 REVIEWS