Let me save you some money: Skip the movie, buy the novel.

Rating: Null/10 (15 February 2000)

I was quite surprised to see so many people disliking this movie, but I did discover that a lot of the people who were most forgiving were those who have mentioned that they'd read the novel. I was so intrigued by that, as I had also read the novel, and I decided to give it a chance.
Bad idea. I wonder how much money Garland accepted to sell out his creativity. I mean, if I had worked long and hard at writing and promoting a novel, and especially seeing it rise to bestseller status, I think I'd HAVE to ask myself: Self, what is it about the book that Hollywood decided it didn't like. I mean, here was a book that was a nice read, but it was nothing to stir the soul. Let's get real here, it was a remake of Lord Of The Flies. But it was an easy read, and a decent piece of work, especially for his first novel. But to take the book to the big screen, and have the lead character sleep with the two female leads??? Did this happen in anyone else's copy of the book? Maybe I accidentally bought the censored version. I also have to ask, what was the point of omitting entirely one of the characters. Richard gets put on lookout detail alone??? In the novel, isn't there already a character permanently stationed in the forests?
I guess I am more than a little disappointed that the movie seemed more a vehicle for Leonardo's virility than for a decently crafted bestseller novel. Just another novel chopped apart to feed us poor saps confetti.
My advice: Don't see the movie. Skip it entirely, save your money and buy the novel; then keep saving it, and actually fly to Thailand to see the sights in person instead.