Entführt

Actually, comparing with the many filmed interpretations it is a fair representation of Robert Louis Stevenson's grand story. At least it was filmed for the most part in Scotland and the lovely scenic shots add to the authenticity.

I think there have been some unfair comments made on this particular interpretation but in general I would say it deserves a far better reception than some have given.

I have no problem with the English actors playing Scottish characters, Caine here is a passable lowland Scots as Allan Breck. Actors after all are judged by their skills and interpretation of the character and that's all that matters, it would be a sad day if we have to be Scottish solely to play a Scottish character. However, I'm not sure that Caine's costume would be one anyone would be seen dead in, it was clearly awful, and hardly the sort of attire a rebel would be running around in.

What matters is, that it is a fine interpretation of Stevenson's story.

The story begins just following the Scottish Jacobite loss to the mostly English forces at the Battle of Culloden in 1746. This battle, if you care, was the final conflict between the two nations and as a result, Scotland was forced into the new United Kingdom. To the Scots, it's among their most important event in their long history and it's not surprising that Robert Louis Stevenson placed his story following it, as he himself was Scottish.

One reviewer wrote all about how the battle was between Scottish and English (they were offended by the use of the word 'British' by some reviewers), but that isn't exactly correct. Some Scottish troops fought with the English and there would have also likely been Welsh and Irish troops fighting with them as well (nations the English had long before subjugated). As for the Jacobite Scottish, they apparently had a few English and Irish with them...very few and they were mostly Catholics who did not want Anglicanism imposed on them by the Church of England. The odds were definitely stacked against the Jacobites...and the loss seems, in hindsight, rather inevitable. Today, many in Scotland STILL mourn the loss at Culloden....but on to my actual review!!

The story begins just after this climactic battle, with a rather naive David Balfour arriving at his uncle's home in the border country to claim his inheritance. It' pretty obvious the uncle isn't a kind man and, in fact, he tries to arrange for David's 'accidental' death....though the young man manages to survive. Now you'd THINK David would throttle the elderly uncle or he'd leave the home and seek the law, but instead he foolishly stays the night. Not surprisingly, when morning arrives, the uncle has arranged for David to he 'shanghaied' aboard a sailing vessel headed for the Carolinas. But before he can be forced there, the ship stops to pick up a Scottish patriot, Alan Breck (Michael Caine)...and they plan on also robbing him and taking him to the American colonies. Fortunately, Breck and Balfour are able to prevent this and they escape from the ship and head back to Scotland. What's next? See the film...or just read the book...as the book is among Stevenson's best works (I actually like it better than his more famous "Treasure Island").

While Michael Caine seems okay in the lead, you do wonder why the story wasn't done with a Scottish actor. While most Americans, like me, probably wouldn't notice, I am pretty sure Brits noticed this casting decision.

So apart from the casting of Caine (which is NOT a serious issue for me), is the film any good? Well, considering the Stevenson source material is so good, it's hard to dislike the movie. Plus, it actually was filmed in Scotland unlike some versions of the story. I liked the lovely music as well...very moving and fitting to the story. All in all, a very good version of the story...along with some of its sequel tossed in as well.

This rendition is exceptional and belongs in the movie Library of anyone who loves the classics. Michael Caine makes the movie. As Allen Breck he made the character everything I felt when I read the book. He looks and talks just as I pictured in my mind. Splendid indeed. David Balfou was drab and shy in the story and I found Lawrence Douglas to be just that. I love that this version follows the true chronicle, especially in the beginning and I felt like I was truly along with the characters in every scene. Donald Pleasence played Ebenezer Balfour brilliantly and his scenes with David are true to the original story. No other movie of Kidnapped was the same for me. Captivating as only Robert Louis Stevenson can be.

This is an adaption of the famous Robert Louis Stevenson novel. I haven't read it myself but hear that this film is pretty faithful to the book. Set in the aftermath of the Battle of Culloden in 18th century Scotland, a young man is sold into slavery by his unscrupulous uncle. He is soon rescued by a Jacobite rebel who is presently an outlaw wanted by the British government. The two men form an alliance of sorts and subsequently become involved in an incident that creates various complications.

The first thing that stands out from the outset here is that the cockney actor Michael Caine is starring in the role of Alan Breck, the Jacobite rebel. It seems like it must be a bit of miscasting, as it is difficult imagining Caine in such a role, however, pleasingly he is very good here and his film star charisma is used to very good effect for this particular character. The film also benefits a lot from plenty of nice on-location photography from around Scotland. It gives the whole production more of an authentic feel. The story-line is compelling and the direction is well-paced, while the events depicted are less over-the-top than in later Scottish adventures set in historical times such as Braveheart (1995) and this for me is a good thing. The story-line eventually dove-tails to a very bittersweet ending that seems like the only appropriate way to round things off.

I enjoyed this movie very much. It is loosely based on two Robert Louis Stevenson novels, Kidnapped and its sequel Catriona. Those who would religiously stick to the contents of these novels will be disappointed in the adaptation. However, the film has, as it should IMHO, a world and plot of its own. Moreover, the plot is engaging and quite exciting.

The film movingly portrays a culture and political cause on the verge of destruction and the politics behind it. To a certain extent, it has to modify the plot of the two novels to effectively do so. Now it might have been nice if we could have heard the Scottish language spoken amongst the Highlanders. This absence makes it harder to portray the cultural conflict which was important both in the period and in the novels. However, we can forgive the film's makers by remembering that such was rarely done in the early 1970s.

The plot may not be entirely accurate in detail (the Appin murder, etc), but the portrayal of the Jacobite Rebellion is both very accurate and insightful, surprisingly so for a big-time film. The ending is a terrific and original attempt to convey the thoughts and psychology of a man through the medium of film.

All that aside, it is a historical adventure. One either likes that genre or doesn't. If the former, then the chances are you will like this.