Golding's story is entirely misrepresented. The makers of this film think it's about 'civilised' youngsters reverting to 'savagery' when left to their own devices, when really it's about the 'civilised' education and conditioning we receive which de facto brings about such behaviour in any circumstance, not just a desert island. Golding would not have made any distinction between military uniforms, ruffs and cassocks or body paint.
The film by itself has no tension, no horror, no development, no resonance, and the child actors fail with the script because it doesn't match the way they think and speak. Instead they are made to say politically correct rubbish like 'We have to work togetherrrr!'
The major achievement of these film-makers has been to render Golding's parable completely anodyne. The music score's liberal (and often literal) borrowing from Stravinsky's Rite of Spring is so cretinous it beggars belief.
Peter Brook's 1963 film, by contrast, is so powerful and disturbing you wonder why they bothered with a re-make. James Aubrey's portrayal of Ralph in Brook's film is astonishing - Robert de Niro could learn a lot from this performance. Brook's film has one of the most unforgettable and surreal sequences ever committed to celluloid: a line of fully robed choristers marching along the beach singing 'Kyrie Eleison'. The Hook film, on the other hand, has no striking image in it at all: the pig's head looks endearing rather than horrific.
So how could they have got it so wrong? Golding would probably know. So buy Peter Brook's film, and don't waste your money on this drivel.