This review contains spoilers. 

Any survivor of high school English classes has likely heard of, if not read, William Golding’s novel “Lord of the Flies.” Three movie adaptations and 72 years later, Netflix and BBC, with “Adolescence’s” Jack Thorne, have adapted the story into its first television series.

Often, with remakes and readaptations comes a question of, “Do we really need to do this?” The miniseries, however, justifies its existence. Across its four episodes, the show stays faithful to Golding’s original text while also taking some risks to expand characters and relationships that give the new adaptation purpose beyond giving the characters fresh faces.

A major part of the show’s draw is its talented young cast. In an age where it feels like every teenager on screen is actually a 30-year-old, it is refreshing to see age-appropriate actors given the chance to flourish. And flourish they do. The performances are natural and believable, and I struggle to name a weak performance among the main cast.

My favorite is Winston Sawyers’ portrayal of Ralph, which is complex and real. His character both feels right out of the 1950s novel and also like a boy I’d encounter on the street today. Lox Pratt’s performance as Jack was strong enough to give me hope for his role in the upcoming “Harry Potter” adaptation. While I am still skeptical, I am now heavily considering tuning in to see Pratt’s take on Draco Malfoy.

When the source material is as strong as Golding’s, I feel it is best to let it stand alone and speak for itself. While much of the show does let the original writing speak for itself, there were a few artistic choices that took me out of the story. In one instance, there was a random reversal of a scene that felt similar to something I would do on Video Star when I was 10. Perhaps there was a deeper meaning to reversing a scene of boys swimming, but all it did was throw me off and out of the story.

The show, like any adaptation, had some changes from its source material. Most of the changes are only things you would notice if you had just read the novel, but there were a few that will stand out regardless of whether you know the story.

Most notably, the show does a lot to humanize and show vulnerability in Jack, the book’s antagonist. Through flashbacks and his expanded relationship with fellow choirboy Simon (Ike Talbut), the audience learns a lot more about his troubled relationship with his father and his unseen kindness to Simon at school.  

While the added nuance was received well by many, I am not convinced it was necessary. Yes, things are not always black and white; someone is not just “good” or “bad.” But the story of ordinary boys descending into violence and cruelty without any extraordinary trauma or ulterior reason is diluted by emphasizing Jack’s personal pain. What makes the novel so poignant is Golding’s suggestion that the capacity for cruelty exists in everyone, not only those with difficult pasts.

Still, some additions do strengthen the emotional impact. One boy survives longer than he does in the novel, giving him a deeper relationship with another boy and even a burial. Yes, I cried, and you will too. Deaths are only briefly explored in the book and brushed aside for the progression of the plot. The miniseries lets us sit with the weight of these deaths for a little longer and truly absorb the consequences of what is unfolding.

Ultimately, the miniseries does a fantastic job. I feel like the world is extra sensitive to adaptations, so let me say this: No, it is not a word-for-word direct copy-and-paste of the novel. But it is a striking and fresh take on a classic that will satisfy fans of the original and proves “Lord of the Flies” is still relevant.

Email: [email protected]

Related Stories:

— Reel Thoughts: ‘Euphoria’ Season 3 is disgusting, beautiful, wildly entertaining

— Reel Thoughts: ‘The Devil Wears Prada 2’ struts its stuff with style — and just enough substance

— Reel Thoughts: ‘Running Point’ shoots and scores with its new season