|Page 1 of 4:||   |
|Index||37 reviews in total|
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
your head. It's really a curse, as the man is really a great
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...
*** 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.
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.
When will Hollywood learn to be faithful to timeless classics.
The producers of this hap-hazard adaptation of the timeless classic had
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
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.
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.
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
7 out of 10
I first read Robinson Crusoe when I was a child, and I probably did not understand some very interesting details in the book. A couple of months ago I went to a bookstore in an airport to buy a book for a long trip, and I found Daniel Defoe's Robinson Crusoe and decided to re-read it. As I use to do, I rented the movie just after reading the book, and I became deeply frustrated with the movie. I understand it is difficult to express some aspects of Crusoe's life, such as the almost 30 years he spent alone in the island (before he met Friday!!!). The book is very descriptive, so it would be a kind of monologue in the movie, but it could have been closer to the book. Crusoe was not a lord as presented in the movie, he was not in love when he went to the sea, he had some adventures before wrecking in the deserted island (he wrecked near England, he was a slave in Saleh, he lived in Brazil and had a plantation), the island was not near Guinea but in Central America, he and Friday left the island in a Spanish ship and Friday went to Europe with him, there was no lady expecting for him, and so on and so forth. Besides, Defoe did not base his novel in Crusoe's diary, but in the history of another man who lived alone in an island for 3 or 4 years, and when was back to England, built a cave to live in alone. I also don't need to mention that Pierce Brosnam is a disaster as a Crusoe that was supposed to be deep in thought, in a movie that should have discussed the nature of mankind. So, even though the movie has some beautiful scenes, it is very frustrating for someone who read the book before. For those who haven't read the book yet, I can tell you: it is much better than the movie!
What we sometimes call "classics" are nothing more than irrelevant museum pieces. Defoe's "Robinson Crusoe" is such a novel. Yes,it gives us a very literate, often compelling glimpse into another time and places... and that has it's place. But a movie is another thing. There is nothing going on in the novel except a white "Bwana" walking along the beach with his black lackey, Friday, shuffling along, shading him with an umbrella, listening to Crusoe talk about his white God. How boring is that. The writer raised the question: what if Friday was a warrior with his own god who happened to be an alligator. Ah... there's some 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) the meaning of a friendship and fills out a drama that never existed in the original.
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
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.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
I will tell you something. I don't like the book. I don't know why. I
just don't like it. But I have liked some of the movie adaptations. I
really love good adventure movies. A friend of mine told me that this
movie was a great adventure. But it was not. It was mediocre at best.
Sorry. Not entertaining. And that is not the worst.
It is not a good movie and it is a TERRIBLE book adaptation. Really terrible. In the book Robinson Crusoe was not a lord, he was not a great swordsman and he was not a warrior. He was not in love with any girl. And, for God's sake, he did not fight Friday! If you want a good adaptation watch something else. This one is the worst you could choose.
That is it.
|Page 1 of 4:||   |
|Plot summary||Ratings||External reviews|
|Parents Guide||Plot keywords||Main details|
|Your user reviews||Your vote history|