The obvious question always comes to mind when a remake shows up — why?

"Lord of the Flies" was a terrific book, and Peter Brook's 1963 film adaptation was a pretty good movie. The book is in libraries and the movie is available on video. So why do it again?

In this case, the new "Lord of the Flies" film isn't particularly improved and it's not even very different — except that the boys are American instead of British, one particular plot point is changed (for the better) and there are such modern elements as color, profanity and references to the TV show "Alf."

In fact, so many scenes seem frame-for-frame copies that it becomes apparent rather quickly that director Harry Hook has probably seen the old Peter Brook movie a few too many times.

Still, the story is so inherently compelling that all of this criticism isn't really meant to dissuade you from seeing "Lord of the Flies" if you are drawn to it. Despite the R rating, which is for the ever-popular "Eddie Murphy Word" (there is some violence as well), fans of the book — or even the first film — will likely accept, if not embrace, this new version.

The story has 25 schoolboys stranded on a remote island after a plane crash. In the Brook film there are no adult survivors, but this new version has the pilot surviving for a time, though in a feverish stupor so he doesn't interfere with the main storyline.

That storyline is familiar — the boys get together and begin making rules, nominally choosing a leader and attempting to keep a fire going day and night so any potential rescue party may spot them.

Eventually, the leader is challenged by a tougher kid, who forms a group of hunters — they kill wild boars for meat — and he gradually degenerates into savagery, taking most of the boys with him. They worship a fearful creature they imagine is lurking in a cave and even offer sacrifices to him. And ultimately there are a couple of killings.

Some of this, even when you know what's coming, is still fairly potent stuff, a sharp-eyed, if obvious allegory about civilization, such as it is.

Hook, who also directed "The Kitchen Toto," another film told through the eyes of young boys, creates convincing, largely sympathetic characters with his troupe of young unknown actors here. But some of the less prominent characters are not so well drawn, and, in comparison with Brook's film, seem more "types" than people.

In the end, it must be said that it takes more than color and profanity and "Alf" jokes to update an old movie, and there's nothing particularly original in this film's insights to warrant more than a moderate recommendation.