Treasure Island

I enjoyed this short series even though, like another viewer, I have not read the book or seen other film interpretations. Having watched it, I am going to read the book. After, I might rant at the screen for 3 hours as another reviewer says, but as a first impression, I thought it was good entertainment.

I particularly liked how the film had these moments which hinted at sinister forces and "black magic"—how they break into a haunting, mournful sea shanty as they're weighing anchor etc.

Eddie Izzard is superb—very likable and very real. A hard but pragmatic man, he steals the show. Yes, it must have been easy money for Donnie Sutherland but what the hey.

The difference between this film and Pirates of the Caribbean, is that this is a drama (gutsy, real) and Pirates is a comedy. Sure the film has it flaws but it gripped me from the beginning to the end. Very good.

Previous to this Treasure Island, I saw three other versions of the classic Robert Louis Stevenson story, the 1950 film, the Muppet film and the 1990 TV film. Of the three the best was the 1990 one, though all three have many good merits with the performance of Long John(especially Robert Newton's) being the main good asset in all three.

This Treasure Island I did enjoy compared to the mix of treasures and disappointments that were on Christmas TV, but I personally don't consider it in the same league in the above. I don't think it is perfect, and I can understand why some have been disappointed, while most of the camera work is good and fluid, some of it in the sped up action scenes looks odd and somewhat frenzied.

Dr. Livesey is also a much less interesting or likable character compared to his novelistic counterpart. Dr. Livesey in the book was one of my favourites but his rather "wimpy" persona here made me quickly irritated by him. The sound is serviceable, though I do agree that it is sometimes hard to hear what the actors are saying.

However, the locations are really striking and effort is made to make them authentic. The costumes are likewise sumptuous, and the music while not exceptional is suitably rousing. The story, complete with an interesting opening that was a welcome addition to the storytelling I thought, gripped me throughout and the script is witty.

Casting-wise, I thought it was fine, likewise with the acting. Dr. Livesey may have been disappointing, but I blame the writing more than Daniel Mays. It is not a great performance by all means, but Mays is much better than he was in his miscast role in the awful Outcasts, and tries his best. If anything for me, Elijah Wood was the weak link in the cast as Ben Gunn, I can't place my finger exactly on why it is, maybe the wooden delivery of the lines or the lack of charisma but his performance came across as bland.

However, while he was deserving of more considering his calibre, Donald Sutherland does a good job playing Flint. Toby Regbo is appealing also as Jim, Phillip Glenister is excellent as Captain Smollet, and while like Livesey(though not as badly affected) Trelawny is not as interesting as he is in the book Rupert Penry-Jones, ever the conscientious and reliable actor he is, gives his all to the role and it works.

I do agree with those who say that Eddie Izzard steals the show. Long John is such a delicious character to portray, but also one that can easily fall into caricature. Izzard I admit I wasn't expecting to work, I worried he would be too hammy as well as the falling into caricature trap. But no, there is a sense of menace to him, but also some humanity as well, not to mention a good deal of humour and understatement; he mayn't quite erase the performances of Robert Newton, Charlton Heston and Tim Curry, all great performances in their own right, but it is a worthy take and enough to make this Treasure Island even more enjoyable.

Overall, I enjoyed it. Is it great or outstanding? No. Is it good and worth watching? I think so. I understand the disappointment of some, but as much as I love the other three versions and the book, I did try to judge this on its own terms and found it helped to enable me to enjoy it. 7.5/10 Bethany Cox

This is a pretty good film as it goes but the main character of Long John Silver was the worst casting error in Eddie Izzard that l have ever seen, there was no 'Ey Jim Lad' Izzard just spoke in a cultured English accent, l have noticed that a lot of remarks on this film say they had never seen any version of Treasure Island before this, let me recommend the Disney version made in the 50's in colour with the wonderful Robert Newton, now here is an actor who 'was' Long John Silver, eyes rolling, the right type of accents, and as sly as they come.

The other actors in this 2012 version did a fair job, Daniel Mays was good as Dr Livsey, as was Phil Glenister and Penry-Jones, so in all this film was good but Eddie Izzard as Silver oh no.

7/10

Having read the book to my children, now teenagers, when they were younger we all watched this having saved it on DVD - can't abide adverts. Though there were inevitable departures from the book it is a pretty faithful rendition and Eddie Izzard confirms his status as a charismatic actor well cast as the complex Silver. The idiocy of the Squire's venture and motley collection of adventurers are ably brought to life by an impressive array of top actors - though of course that means it suffers from 'recognition distraction' on first viewing! (My rule of thumb is always watch a film twice before drawing conclusions - and if you don't want to see it again that tells its own story.) The locations, ship and costumes are superb and really bring to life the squalor of the times and the urge for riches as the only way out. Arguably the Squire becomes too nasty and the Doctor too insipid in this version but Philip Glenister is excellent as Capt Smollett. The incorrigible nature of the pirates and Silver's restless intelligence are well portrayed. Memorable.

"Treasure Island" is one of those stories where reading the original novel beforehand is crucial to really savoring any film version, and this is especially true of this divergent adaptation. Although it retains the basic skeleton of the original plot, much has been added, and many key characters have undergone fundamental changes. I was initially hostile to said changes but soon came to appreciate and enjoy the new sub-conflicts, many of which address universal themes (e.g., greed,loyalty) which are more relevant than ever today. I didn't particularly like the way "TI" (2012) hurries through pivotal scenes from the book, yet, with all that's been added, suppose that was necessary in order to limit its already 3-hour length.

This version is also full of small anachronisms in clothing and hair design, as well as some bigger ones in the ethnically diverse ship's crew ("all Englishmen!" in the novel), some of whom sport Mr. T-style Mohawks (!?) While it seems the makers wanted to address the additional modern theme of diversity here, the un-pc truth of the matter is that your average European person of the 1700s would not have taken kindly to such a mix, and the way the crew, including its rich officers and financiers, blithely accept differences in nationality and complexions is, well, unconvincing. At the same time, there are also some added details (e.g., prostitutes, thieves, and hanged men along the filthy Bristol quayside) which, although avoided by Robert Louis Stevenson in a novel intended largely for a younger audience, add a great deal of realism in this version.

In the end, "TI" (2012) is well-filmed and well-acted despite its various weak spots. While this revision is obviously to be avoided by those rigidly attached to the original story (or just wanting to see a film version of RLS's actual book), it should appeal to audiences in search of a less dualistic, more complicated tale, created in an age that tends to appreciate anti-heroes like Long John Silver.