After reading this book in English Class I loved it. The book is in my opinion one of the best ever, and when I saw this film I felt that it did the book, and everything it says, a great disservice. The main problem with it is that so much is missing. This is perhaps necessary to fit it into two hours, but I think that in cutting it, it looses its moral message to the extent that the film was not worth making. Aulthough there is some excellent use of imigary and some scenes did represent the book very well, (As in the choir walking along the beach scene), the film misses the point. I'm sure that Aubrey fully understood its tragedy and purpose, but he failed to communicate what Lord of the Flies really means. The film focuses on the aspect of the book which tells us that if uncontrolled, children descend into barbarity extremly quickly, this was not the main point of what Golding says. I think the main point of the book is to say that humans are essentialy floored and that evil is intrinsic to human nature. That man is never more than two words away from war. The film is incapable of working on the number of levels that the book does and does a great disservice to the character of Simon. In the scene where Simon is attacked and killed, he screams and appears rather pathetic. This scene in the book, is supposed to parody Christ's crucifixtion yet the film does not give this impression. Aulthough the boys are represented down to a tee, Simon, aulthough well acted, is misinterprited and fails to have the impact he did have in the book.
In conclusion this film is probably worth seeing, but I plead with you to read the book first because I don't think it will have the same impact if you have had the imigary decided for you by the film.