2 out of 5

Director: Peter Brook

Really, Criterion? Lord of the Flies works as a book because the concept is timely in text and the commentary is… more juicy in its representation. Put to the screen it becomes thinner, and while the use of children was perhaps shocking (both in the book and maybe moreso on film), the unhinged savagery of the imagination makes the themes more compelling on page than is easy to direct on film. Especially when you choose to allow improv in most of the scenes. Peter Brooks Lord of the Flies does a good job of staying true to the text – a flight of male children crashes on an unnamed island, and without supervision the children soon break into packs and divide between those wanting order and those seeking a more savage environment, with ill results due to the clash in opinions and challenge for leadership. There are also key images that are very effective – the representation of the beast, and the location does feel remote. But while Ill never say that Id be able to direct a group of kids well, Im also not attempting any directing jobs to do so… and here the method is effing apparent in every scene – okay, kids, act angry. Now you – youre upset. Good, good. Now yell. Okay. The lack of convincing anything from the kids ruins any momentum and, as mentioned, the plot just feels thin onscreen – moreso with the overdubs and poor acting – making this a long 90 minutes to sit through with only a few moments that actually connect.