It isn't the best adaptation, regarding structure anyways, and the acting is almost all terrible but it captures the spirit quite well, making sure not to lose much in terms of thematics and commentary, at least coming from someone who loves the book but also hasn't read it in over a decade. Also, really great photography.

Hard for me to get into. I loved the book, but felt bored by the movie. Just horrible horrible acting, which kills this movie because it's almost completely revolving around the kid's and their dialogue. I also have some problems with the believability of what the kids would actually do. There were a few things I liked, but not nearly enough for me to ever want to watch again or recommend to anyone.

Kind of boring when I saw this as a kid. Not much happens and the dramatic pacing was a bit plodding. The last 15 minutes of the film were alright but overall this is one to miss.

Somewhat dated and dramaturgically old-fashioned movie, kind of disjointed feel at times. But when I saw it as a 12 year old in a cinema (a film-club in '86, I'm not THAT old) it left me floored. Some scenes still gave me a shiver now as I recalled how I experienced it the first time. Would have given it 90 then and 60 now - I merge them and give 72.

You can see the potential even amongst all the negatives (terrible acting, some cheap effects, a bit of really dodgy direction/editing), and given some time I'd like to give the book a go: I'm sure it's much better. In this age of rehashing every film ever made I'm surprised this hasn't had a contemporary version released.

Probably a NAMBLA favorite but didn't really work for me at all. Not only because the child acting is bad, but also because the text stinks. It miserably fails to imitate the way children talk and behave, which is no surprise, because Golding and Brook were obviously more preoccupied with creating a preachy allegorical moral tale than with believability. As with other cases of bad allegorical literature, the descriptive ineptitude undercuts a simplistic message.

This is an effective experiment in improvisation using non-professional child actors (Piggy and Ralph are particularly good), but Brook has always been a much better director of plays than he is of movies. And this movie just doesn't move. It is as simple as that.

This is a good film from a great story about survival, but it's unfortunately showing its age now. Things like audio synchronization and even the acting were just a little too sloppy and while some can look past that it kind of irritated me. The characters we were meant to like were quite likeable, especially Simon more-so than Ralph or Piggy. The storyline is better than the film itself so that where the film gets it's rating because everything else seems more like a hot mess these days.

So bad and cringe-worthy.

You know how you talk to someone and mention a movie you saw and they ask "have you read the book?" and you reply with "no" and then they immediately say "oh you should, it's much better, it... blah blah blah". Before you hit that self-righteous so and so square on the nose, realise that I'm one of those people, doing that to you right now. Check out the book first if you can. And my nose isn't even in your sights.

It took me a while to warm up to this - I was initially put off by the boys' lack of concern about the horrible plain crash they had just been in - but I eventually got into it. The stark black and white, the iffy acting and the poor audio actually created a raw feel well-suited for the film and its theme. And I have to admire the production as a whole; shooting in the harsh jungle and on steep jagged cliffs with a cast of dozens of young boys must have been quite an ordeal.

Kids killing each other. The only thing that could make this more fun is if it were live.