49
Metascore
20 reviews · Provided by Metacritic.com
- 83Entertainment WeeklyOwen GleibermanEntertainment WeeklyOwen GleibermanAs 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.
- 63Boston GlobeJay CarrBoston GlobeJay CarrLike 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]
- 63Chicago TribuneChicago TribuneThe tale, while oversimplified, is told with visual style, particularly in the use of the boys' dream sequences, having to do with rescue and the comfort of adult authority. [16 Mar 1990, p.F]
- 50The New York TimesJanet MaslinThe New York TimesJanet MaslinAs directed by Harry Hook, the new Lord of the Flies offers much spectacle for the eye and almost nothing to keep the mind from wandering.
- 50Time OutTime OutThe film, simplistically assuming the book's central metaphor to be imperialism - hence the military slant - retains the bare bones of Gollding's narrative, but that's all. There's little attempt to hint at the deeper issues.
- 40Los Angeles TimesMichael WilmingtonLos Angeles TimesMichael WilmingtonThis version not only doesn’t surpass or match Brook’s, it makes the material look bad.
- 38Chicago Sun-TimesRoger EbertChicago Sun-TimesRoger EbertHook's visual sense is not acute here; he doesn't show the spontaneous sense of time and place that made his first film, The Kitchen Toto (1988), so convincing. He seems more concerned with telling the story than showing it, and there are too many passages in which the boys are simply trading dialogue.
- 25TV Guide MagazineTV Guide MagazineA 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.