ggauld

(2013-05-21 01:37:56)

Oh dear

The fact that this version of Crusoe has big plot differences from Defoe'snovel is irrelevant. It states at the beginning that it is "based on" thebook and as a movie the (new) story tells itself well. It is attractivelyshot and a lot of the tropical scenes are impressive.However, Pierce Brosnan spoils this work completely with his bad acting andappalling Scottish accent. Non-Scots invariably make a total mess whentrying to copy Scottish speech patterns, even, it seems, highly paidprofessionals. There are plenty of talented Scottish actors out there whowould have shone in Brosnan's place. He was simply painful to listen to.Near the beginning of the movie, Crusoe's conversation with Mary is almostunintelligible - she at times sounds Russian/Welsh/South African. Adisaster, linguistically speaking.

(2013-05-20 10:20:29)

Robinson Crusoe in a new light

When I first considered buying this movie I was hesitant due to the fact that it had been remade so many times. However, I bought it anyway being curious about the change of acting venue for Pierce Brosnan. I have to admit I was very pleasantly surprised. I have watched it more than once and enjoy it more each time. While this is not typical of the Pierce Brosnan we know, ie James Bond type. It is a well done movie that the whole family can enjoy together. Of course it is not exactly true to the book, but then no movie is that I know of. Robinson Crusoe, is a story, just that and enjoyable to watch. To see Mr. Brosnan in another realm of acting is great, he shows his numerous talents throughout. I am glad I decided to buy it and look forward to other movies of the same caliber.

(2013-05-20 08:57:08)

Another Version of the Story

Daniel Defoe's Robinson Crusoe, 1996 filmThe story begins in 18th century Great Britain. A manuscript is read. It starts with a duel ni 1703 Scotland over the love and marriage to a woman. One man is killed. "Murderer!" Robinson Crusoe flees to avoid revenge from the dead man's relatives. [No mention of the law.] A ship will take him across the ocean and away from Scotland. A storm in the South Pacific causes the ship to crash upon the rocks. Crusoe alone survived. He buried the bodies. Then he boarded the ship to recover the supplies. He found black powder and arms, and carpenter's tools. He explored the island and found it deserted. Months passed. A ship passes but does not stop. Later he discovers a footprint on the beach! He arms himself and watches murderous rites performed by savages. He shoots a few and they run off. One captive escapes. Communication is difficult.Crusoe defends himself against attackers. [Why didn't his dog warn him?] While walking Crusoe is caught in a trap! He escapes after a while. He shoots a bat in the trees. A thrown stick works as well. Friday is taken into his home, but is not trusted at first. Friday knew a lot about raising crops and learned to speak English to explain his culture. Can they cooperate? What if the other savages returned in force? [Was that a waste of scarce gunpowder?] Friday knows about the danger from white men (they are greedy). Crusoe wants to build a boat and leave the island. He fashions the trunk of a tree into a dugout canoe. [Is it seaworthy? Not without an outrigger to stabilize it.] There is a strong storm. They prepare for a new attack at the time of the full moon. The primitive traps work. But Crusoe is wounded by an arrow. He dreams of the past.The recovered boat is filled with a sail and they steer for Friday's people on a remote island. Crusoe's wounds are treated. There will be a trial by combat to decide their fate. A shot from a white man ends this duel. These Europeans burn the village and enslave the natives. Crusoe is brought to Lisbon, then her returns to England after six years to write his story. He returned to his love and found nothing changed. He married and started a family. [Why did that woman wait if they thought he was dead?]I never read Defoe's novel so I can't judge how well this followed the book. It is an interesting story as it seems changed. Did Defoe mean to criticize his society by contrasting it to a primitive island? Note that Friday's people are threatened from enemies who are both near and far away.

phinegan

(2013-05-19 21:33:29)

Misleading title for pure financial gain

I thought the movie in and of itself was mediocre at best, but likeothers I have a grievance that can't be silenced by quoting artisticlicense.They didn't stay remotely within the concept of the book and no onesaid they needed to, but they erred when they attached the classictitle to their new invention. I would suggest far more than would seethe movie otherwise would watch it because they read the title andremember a powerful story that managed to survive with effect into themodern era. The use of Robinson Crusoe as a title is misleading andgreedy. For that they deserve the ire of their viewers.

oshkoshbgoshfan

(2013-05-18 22:14:14)

The movie exceeds the limitations of the book

What we sometimes call "classics" are nothing more than irrelevantmuseum pieces. Defoe's "Robinson Crusoe" is such a novel. Yes,it givesus a very literate, often compelling glimpse into another time andplaces... and that has it's place. But a movie is another thing. Thereis nothing going on in the novel except a white "Bwana" walking alongthe beach with his black lackey, Friday, shuffling along, shading himwith an umbrella, listening to Crusoe talk about his white God. Howboring is that. The writer raised the question: what if Friday was awarrior with his own god who happened to be an alligator. Ah... there'ssome conflict. And without conflict there is no movie, no story.Defoe's novel is a nice little journal. The movie brings life,instensity, raises questions about Friday's origins (his family) themeaning of a friendship and fills out a drama that never existed in theoriginal.

(2013-05-18 02:21:27)

This movie is an abomination.

I think others have summed it up quite well. I'm just adding this to have some impact on a scoring which has been defined by the puerile reviews of those unfamiliar with the works of Defoe. Maybe if this movie had been titled 'boring adventure on an island involving more PC feel good moments for the racially concerned' instead of usurping the title of a great novel I could feel otherwise.

vikpk

(2013-05-18 08:39:56)

The movies excels in ruining the book

This on screen interpretation of Daniel Defoe's masterpiece is amockery of the original. As typical of mainstream movie-making - theanti-Christian propaganda is badly veiled in artistic deviations fromthe book. Robinson's religious feelings are exaggerated and overblown.The pagan religion of Friday is presented as wiser and calmer. Onecannot but sympathize with the wisdom and maturity of the cannibal. Inthe original Friday becomes a Christian and leaves the island withRobinson. Here Friday converts (almost) Robinson to the bliss ofmulticulturalism and diversity. In the book Friday lives, here he dies. Otherwise the acting is good and believable - Brosnan and the manacting as Friday deliver. However, the ideological agenda of theHollywood of the late 1990s spoils the fun.

(2013-05-17 21:07:01)

Crusoe Crucified

I am sure Daniel Defoe would spin in his grave if he knew there were so many people so fanatic about his book they would crucify any movie titled after his book that did not follow his book to the letter and be many hours long and bore people to death. Consider this movie is more likely to get people to either read the book or to reread it. Keep in mind after all any movie that followed the book in detail would be longer than all three Peter Jackson Lord of the Rings movies together. Now that might be a good thing, but consider Peter Jackson did not follow J.R.R. Tolkien's books exactly. Somehow though either he is forgiven, or there are so many fans of the LOTR movies, the book readers figure they better keep there mouths shut about critical summations or they might wish they had. I suggest to anyone if they want to see an adventure movie that tries to convey some of the hardships that Defoe told of in his book, be sure to rent this. I think you will find the Brosnan is good and the production and story don't damage Mr. Defoe's reputation. I don't see to many decent versions of this story unfortunately and I consider this to be one of the better ones. You may want to check the Brunel version as well. this DVD is sharp and clear with good picture and sound quality. The DVD does not include much in the way of extras.

(2013-05-17 13:36:13)

Entertaining

I must admit that I never read the original story or saw any other versions of this movie. I knew nothing about the story other than it was about a guy stranded on an island who met a "savage" he named Friday. Because of this I had no real expectations from the start and I found the movie captivating. I was never bored, I thought the acting was good. (The one bad part was the "goof" in the sunset scene after the storm where you could see a "no swimming" sign and white painted palms on the beach.) Ooops!Overall, I think if you don't have certain expectations, it is an enjoyable and entertaining movie.

(2013-05-16 18:03:39)

Get your popcorn out!!

This review is from: Robinson Crusoe (DVD) Greetings All, I'd never saw this version and I didn't expect much but it turned out to be a good movie! A very good copy sharp and clear, sound was also good! A good movie to add to your list. Cheers! William

(2013-05-16 14:23:40)

Ruined a great story

Don't waste your time or money on this one. They took a great story and ruined it with political correctness.

(2013-05-15 22:22:25)

Stranded: Flat and Insipid Re-Telling of Classic Novel

This review is from: Robinson Crusoe [VHS] (VHS Tape) This `Robinson Crusoe' film stars handsome Pierce Brosnan, but though it was shot in 1994, it remained on the shelf for more than three years before finally released straight-to-video in America The film is distributed by Miramax, one of the powerful studios in Hollywood, but few people have heard about it. And TWO directors were attached to the project - Rodney K. Hardy and George Miller, the latter being the one who directed `Never Ending Story 2,' no, not the Australian director who did `Mad Max.'The film's history suggests something very awful. The fact is, `Robinson Crusoe' is not as awful as you might think it is, but it is still awful all the same. Not that it is boring. It has lots of actions - a Scotsman dueling his best friend, a shipwreck, meeting with a native, fighting against the tribesmen, etc. -- but the storytelling of the entire film is so flat that the film looks as if being cut, edited, and put together by computer software. Crusoe's adventures are all on autopilot, allowing very few moments to make us care the hero and his friend Friday.The back cover of my VHS of the film reads `SWEEPING ACTION AND HIGH ADVENTURE!' `BARABARIC SACRIFICAL RITUALS!' `SAVE A DOOMED TRIBESMAN FROM CERTAIN DEATH!' `SURVIVE AGAINST IMPOSSIBLE ODDS!' And look at these phrases with exclamation marks added to each of them. Yes, all of them surely happen in the film, but none of them is as thrilling as these four exclamation marks suggest. Even a dog appears to share the adventures with Crusoe, but the subplot about poor pooch ends up with a very misguided (and poorly done) conclusion which will leave you speechless.Brosnan is a decent actor, and he is OK here (though his Scottish accent comes and goes), but more impressive is William Takaku as Friday. The supporting actors are Polly Walker (about 5 minutes), James Frain (about 1 minute), and Ian Hart (about 1 minute). Sean Brosnan, son of the star, briefly appears as cabin boy. So, after all, what can you expect from a filmed version of `Robinson Crusoe'? You think you know the story, and probably have read the original book of Daniel Dafoe when you are a child. Whatever your memory might be, the film must have adventures, and lots of them. This film attempts to show as many as it can, but none of them is exciting as it should be.

Rob Taylor

(2013-05-15 14:17:28)

For the love of Mary!

So. This is an adaptation of Daniel Defoe's story. A rather looseadaptation, I must say. It has the basic plot, but veers a little offcourse throughout in order to make the movie more entertaining and giveit a little action.In itself, that's not a bad thing. I think the spirit of the book waskept, if not the letter. But hey! It's a reworking of a book writtennearly three hundred years ago, so of course it's going to be prone tomodern storytelling techniques and manipulation.It's basically a TV movie but they managed, somehow, to rope PierceBrosnan into this. Not a bad thing, since he lends some credibility tothe character of Crusoe.Since its been more than thirty years since I read the book, I won'ttry and pick faults with the screenplay's differences from the novel.Except just this one thing....I don't remember the book well, but I'm almost positive that, in thebook, there isn't a beach scene with white-painted palm trunks and a"NO Barbeques on the beach" sign. I blinked and had to rewind the DVRfor that. But there it is. A shockingly badly chosen piece of stockfootage with the aforementioned sign right in the foreground! Actually,it was too blurry to read anything other than the "NO" part. But itsays "NO" something, that's for sure! I'm wondering if a second watchthrough will reveal tire-tracks in the sand, or discarded drinks cans,etc! Whoever left that in needs to be sacked. C'mon! Just cut that bitout. It only lasts a second or two! But its glaringly obvious. Talkabout ruining immersion! Awful editing aside, Crusoe is not a bad film.It tries to send a message of tolerance and understanding, offriendship and love. For the most part, that succeeds fairly well butit is a trifle overdone. Crusoe's (Brosnan's) narration is sometimesneedless but not distracting and the movie is fairly good entertainmentif there's nothing better to watch.SUMMARY: Fairly decent TV movie. One hideous editing screw-up. Not toolong. Worth watching if you have a couple of hours to kill.

Sergey

(2013-05-14 23:15:07)

Total waste of time.

What a pathetic peace of junk! I wonder if someone in Miramax ever readthebook and understood main idea behind this wonderful story by Daniel Defoe.There is nothing left form original script and I'm very disappointed toseePierce Brosnan wasting his talent on this crap.

(2013-05-13 22:26:32)

True or False?

Everyone is pretty much familiar with the classic tale spun by Daniel Defoe.... (Or, if not, they should be.) If such is what the viewer expects from the "Robinson Crusoe" movie, or if you wish to enjoy a good moral, this is not the film for you. As a person who is fond of all whole and decent tales, I can say truly, after watching this movie, (dubbed inaccurately "Robinson Crusoe") I felt ill. Not that the story was completely re-written, for, as we all know, a re-written story can be excellent at times. But, that through this lame attempt to make the racial issues in "Robinson Crusoe" (the book) palatable to the modern mindset; instead of focusing on the gracious example of Friday, or the moral of the story, this movie seems to wish to overlook any true illustration of decency.... offering, instead, the crippled climax of man's incompetence. Not wishing the reader to assume this review was written in a furious attempt to squash any chances the movie might have for some mischievous reason of my own, I would like to assure all who may look upon these words, this is as unprejudiced and accurate a report as possible. The best that may be said for this film is that the actor, (Pierce Brosnan) did show some talent in portraying George Miller and Rod Hardy's mediocre account of Robinson. Though other of Pierce Brosnan's rolls are a deal more enjoyable, no one can quite dislike him, no matter the ruffian he plays. Though it comes close, I admit. For the storyline itself, I leave you to rely on previous reviews, which, I'm sure will do a thorough job depicting and dissecting this fable.

(2013-05-13 03:05:39)

I think...

This review is from: Robinson Crusoe (DVD) ... I would have cast the roles a little differently. But it works with these Actors.

ergomane

(2013-05-13 00:38:59)

Nice little movie.

I really don't understand people who always complain about "it's notaccurate to book". If it would be 100% accurate to book it would SUCKbig time. Somethings just don't work on movies that worked on the bookand vice versa. For a good example, Lord of The Rings - Fellowship ofthe Ring, Bombadil wouldn't work on the movie at all.As a TV movie, this is very well done, for example the storm andshipwreck scene felt great. And overall the scenery is great and allsettings are made with care and look very real.Actors do pretty good job, though maybe little overacting from time totime, but nothing to complain really. I liked Brosnan's Scottish accentit gave a spice to the character and made more real.The movie is about love and friendship, and really worked on me. Ihighly recommend everyone who like about adventure movies.

(2013-05-12 07:14:20)

An interesting variation

The slavery aspect was offputting, but the pleasure of the other natives at hearing Friday's story raised my rating.

(2013-05-10 01:43:09)

unreal

although I like the actors I would not waste money on this film.Not only is it a far cry from the classic I loved as a child they even kill off Crusoe's dog!!!

jcriss

(2013-05-09 11:22:11)

I liked the book. I was disappointed with the movie.

I read the book many years ago and liked it. I was looking forward toseeingthe movie version. I was very disappointed that the movie was so muchdifferent than the book. I guess the movie makers decided there wasn'tenough action in the book so they added things (like defending the islandagainst the natives and the fight at the end) that were not written byDefoe. I would have liked it better if they had just stuck closer to theoriginal and concentrated on the details of how he survived on theisland.