IMDb > Robinson Crusoe (1997) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Robinson Crusoe
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
Overview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
Promotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Robinson Crusoe More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 4:[1] [2] [3] [4] [Next]
Index 38 reviews in total 

32 out of 42 people found the following review useful:

It's Crusoe, go check it out!

Author: Kristján Ragnarsson from Iceland
7 February 2003

Pierce Brosnan is a tough man to watch these days. Wherever he goes you can't help but hear the chanting of "Bond...Bond...Bond..." in the back of your head. It's really a curse, as the man is really a great actor.

Which is what makes this movie better than I thought it would be, because for the duration of this film I never once thought of good ol' James. Here, Brosnan has the difficult task of portraying a character even more famous than Bond and it must be said he does so with elegance. A job well done!

The story is well known to everybody, therefore I will not dwell on it. I will say, however, that it was fun to see how the liberty was taken here, as the movie somewhat fantasizes about how Daniel Defoe might have come up with the story about Robinson Crusoe. He's presented with a travel journal of a wayward seaman (Crusoe), and upon reading it (which is the narrative of the film) decides that he wants to write a book about the whole thing.

What this does is this allows the filmmakers a little liberty in changing a few dots in the well-known story of Crusoe. It somewhat protects them from being blamed for any changes that might have been made, because they can say "look, this is what actually happened and if you've read otherwise it's because Defoe changed it!"

Which is of course bollocks, as it is Defoe's NOVEL, but it works like a charm here.

It's tough to nail down a flaw here. Sure, with a bit more money & time they could have done this movie better. And it was weird seeing William Takaga in the guise of Friday making a few simple errors (like saying 'food' the American-way while Brosnan's been saying it in Scottish accent all the time, as in 'fu-ud' and not 'food'). But on the whole the movie worked and you believed it, which is no small feat.

I'd recommend that anybody interested in seeing a movie adaptation of this world-known novel check this movie out. It's certainly worth seeing, even though it may be far from breathtaking. Surely one day somebody will come along and do the book more justice but until then, you can't go wrong with Brosnan...

3/5

Was the above review useful to you?

19 out of 22 people found the following review useful:

Terrible Book adaptation. But not a bad movie.

6/10
Author: Lady Targaryen from Brazil
19 October 2006

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

If you watch ''Robinson Crusoe '', expecting it to be an adaptation of the novel written by Daniel Defoe, forget it, because you are really going to hate it. As a book adaptation, this movie sucks, since many facts were changed, and others, included in the movie, never existed. The character Mary and the fact that Crusoe was not in love when he went to the sea, Crusoe spending less then 5 years on the island( when he stayed almost 30 years)Friday being killed on the island ( when he went to Europe with Robinson), Robinson being a lord (when he was never a lord) and so on, are just a few to mention.

But as a movie,without thinking about the book,we can consider it good, with beautiful scenarios and a nice plot.

It all starts, when Robinson Crusoe needs to stay away from Britain, since he killed his friend over the love of Mary, a woman he knows since they are kids. Robinson and Mary are in love, but they cannot marry until Robinson stay away from Britain for a while, to the locals forget about his acts. So Robinson takes a ship and starts traveling to many places, until an ocean storm wrecks his ship, and leaves him alone on a desert island. Needing to know how to survive on that place and also trying to go home, Crusoe stays alone for years, until the day he saves a native man from being sacrificed, whom he calls '' Friday''. They start a friendship, and they both learn many things,specially Crusoe, who learns how to respect other cultures and religions besides his own.

Ps: ''Cast Away'', the movie where Tom Hanks is alone on an island, have many things in common with this movie,including the fact that both men let their women behind and needs to find ways to survive alone on a desert island. Probably if you enjoy ''Robinson', you are going to like ''Cast''as well(And Vice versa).

Ps2: READ the book. It is REALLY good and considered one of the most widely published books in history.

Was the above review useful to you?

34 out of 55 people found the following review useful:

Unimpressive

3/10
Author: br2brown from Toronto, Canada
10 March 2002

At the risk of repeating what others have already written, this movie is not the same "Robinson Crusoe" that Daniel Dafoe wrote. While some might question whether this matters, I think it is fair, at the very least, to complain that it falsely presents itself as being something it isn't. I rented this movie to see an adaptation of Dafoe's novel, which this isn't. Lest I leave the impression that the film's "artistic license" is my only complaint, though, I should mention that this isn't a very good movie by any measure. I guess they tried to punch up the book by adding romance, conflict, and action scenes that could best be described as a curious mix of the A Team and MacGyver. Suffice to say, there are better ways for viewers to spend their time and money. 3 out of 10.

Was the above review useful to you?

23 out of 36 people found the following review useful:

What a butchery of a classic tale!

Author: David R from Australia
15 November 2002

When will Hollywood learn to be faithful to timeless classics. The producers of this hap-hazard adaptation of the timeless classic had the audacity to include references to Daniel Defoe in both the title and the film itself - why then did they not stay true to his classic story?

From the very first to the very last, this films strays so far from the novel that i am surprised they can even retain the title.

Stick to the book, or any of the other adaptations of the tale - but stay well clear of this version.

I believe that the only way to enjoy this version is to watch it without ever reading the novel - but even then that's quite a stretch.

Was the above review useful to you?

16 out of 27 people found the following review useful:

Nice little movie.

9/10
Author: ergomane from Finland
13 August 2007

I really don't understand people who always complain about "it's not accurate to book". If it would be 100% accurate to book it would SUCK big time. Somethings just don't work on movies that worked on the book and vice versa. For a good example, Lord of The Rings - Fellowship of the Ring, Bombadil wouldn't work on the movie at all.

As a TV movie, this is very well done, for example the storm and shipwreck scene felt great. And overall the scenery is great and all settings are made with care and look very real.

Actors do pretty good job, though maybe little overacting from time to time, but nothing to complain really. I liked Brosnan's Scottish accent it gave a spice to the character and made more real.

The movie is about love and friendship, and really worked on me. I highly recommend everyone who like about adventure movies.

Was the above review useful to you?

17 out of 30 people found the following review useful:

What this is (in the aspect of: Is this what Defoe wrote?) I do NOT care, How it is, I CARE

7/10
Author: stamper from The Netherlands
28 August 2000

And how is it. It is good. The story, about friendship and loneliness and also society as it was then, is good of course even if it is slightly modified. But I do not care if it is, for the actors are good and the filmmaking is too. I especially like William Takaku (Friday). He is very good and plays his role perfectly and he is of course in the best scenes of the movie, which actually doesn't start until Crusoe meets Friday. Before that meeting there are some scenes of lesser quality. But there are far more good or very good scenes, favourite scenes are: the burial, the readying of the boat, the last fight scene on the island, the last shot plus the afterwards inserted text and especially the DUEL at the end.

7 out of 10

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Until civilization intrudes

7/10
Author: bkoganbing from Buffalo, New York
3 August 2013

Although this is far from a faithful adaption of Daniel Defoe's classic novel from the 18th century, this version of Robinson Crusoe holds up fairly well and captures what that polemic writer was trying to say about cultures and how they clash. A number of assumptions about what his character Crusoe had about the superiority of his civilization are shattered.

Two men from totally different worlds manage to communicate and establish a friendship. To be sure it is one of necessity as Crusoe is cut off from his world and Friday, the cannibal he befriends is exiled from his tribe. Still they do get along until civilization intrudes.

Pierce Brosnan is in the title role and aborigine actor William Takaku plays Friday. Defoe himself is written into the film as he is given a purported journal written by Crusoe and as he reads it Brosnan narrates the story. Defoe is played by Ian Hart and Defoe as political polemicist as well as novelist had some advanced views considering the time he lived in.

Brosnan and Takaku do very well in their roles. It's a good story with moral if not plot intact.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Okay movie but not a classic

6/10
Author: duraflex from Ohio
5 February 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Brosnan is excellent as Robinson Crusoe and the actor playing Friday also does a decent job. There's plenty of adventure and excitement and the movie really chugs along.

There is excessive violence and some very implausible battling of the cannibal tribe that comes to the island.

Overall however, it makes for a rather entertaining film.

My big problem is that it's titled "DANIEL DEFOE'S ROBINSON CRUSOE". It is not. It is well beyond an adaptation or artistic license.

It has been many years since I read the book as a kid and as I watched the movie I was thinking - I don't remember a duel with swords. I don't remember this or that. Didn't Crusoe convert Friday to Christianity? And I don't remember Crusoe and Friday going back to Friday's island. In the book, they didn't. It wasn't my memory, it was the movie.

The book is a true classic - the movie is okay but not at all true to the book.

Was the above review useful to you?

12 out of 22 people found the following review useful:

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

4/10
Author: jcriss from Huntington Beach, CA, USA
4 January 2002

I read the book many years ago and liked it. I was looking forward to seeing the movie version. I was very disappointed that the movie was so much different than the book. I guess the movie makers decided there wasn't enough action in the book so they added things (like defending the island against the natives and the fight at the end) that were not written by Defoe. I would have liked it better if they had just stuck closer to the original and concentrated on the details of how he survived on the island.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Deserted islands... they have "no swimming" signs, don't ya know!

5/10
Author: Rob_Taylor
23 November 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

So. This is an adaptation of Daniel Defoe's story. A rather loose adaptation, I must say. It has the basic plot, but veers a little off course throughout in order to make the movie more entertaining and give it a little action.

In itself, that's not a bad thing. I think the spirit of the book was kept, if not the letter. But hey! It's a reworking of a book written nearly three hundred years ago, so of course it's going to be prone to modern storytelling techniques and manipulation.

It's basically a TV movie but they managed, somehow, to rope Pierce Brosnan into this. Not a bad thing, since he lends some credibility to the character of Crusoe.

Since its been more than thirty years since I read the book, I won't try 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 the book, 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 DVR for that. But there it is. A shockingly badly chosen piece of stock footage with the aforementioned sign right in the foreground! Actually, it was too blurry to read anything other than the "NO" part. But it says "NO" something, that's for sure! I'm wondering if a second watch through 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 bit out. It only lasts a second or two! But its glaringly obvious. Talk about ruining immersion! Awful editing aside, Crusoe is not a bad film. It tries to send a message of tolerance and understanding, of friendship and love. For the most part, that succeeds fairly well but it is a trifle overdone. Crusoe's (Brosnan's) narration is sometimes needless but not distracting and the movie is fairly good entertainment if there's nothing better to watch.

SUMMARY: Fairly decent TV movie. One hideous editing screw-up. Not too long. Worth watching if you have a couple of hours to kill.

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 1 of 4:[1] [2] [3] [4] [Next]

Add another review


Related Links

Plot summary Ratings External reviews
Parents Guide Plot keywords Main details
Your user reviews Your vote history