Hollywood does "It" again, sadly enough

Rating: Null/10 (1 March 2000)

Let me preface this by saying "DO NOT SEE THIS MOVIE BEFORE YOU READ THE BOOK." Luckily i read the book first.
First, it is totally unbelievable that they created the "relationship" between Richard and Francoise. The unrequited love for Francoise that Richard has in the book makes his descent into insanity that much more believable. Leo must have put in his contract that he had to have some "love scenes" His little fling with Sal would prove this theory. Both of these relationships are nowhere in the book.
What ever happened to Daffy? Almost every time Richard goes to sleep he sees visions of Daffy with his wrists slit. Daffy is the narrator of Richard's increasing madness. I know Boyle didn't want it to be as graphic as the book, but leaving out Daffy made Richards craziness even more unbelievable.
What about the chores too? One of the great conflicts in the Beach is the chores. The people who do the gardening hate it. They strive to be fishers. This conflict is heightened because Richard, Etienne, and Francoise start out fishing. When Richard has to lookout for the "new arrivals" everyone gets p***ed because he is not doing a chore. Not because they really want to know what he's doing. Logically people care more about themselves than what others are doing.
The list is longer than my patience. Inconsistency after inconsistency. I say again, read the book do not see the movie.
On a different note, the cinematography was not bad. Khondji has always delivered some good eye-candy and the Beach is no exception. Lots of candlelit scenes and of course sunny Thailand.
In summation, if you would like to see a good adaptation of beach Utopia gone awry watch the original B+W version of "Lord of the Flies" but whatever you do don't expect the Beach to be anything but Leo without his shirt on.