Treasure Island

First, I have to say good on Eddie Izzard for not trying to copy John Newton's Silver. On the other hand, it would have been staggeringly foolish to try that *again* in this day and age. No, Izzard delivers a new interpretation of Silver and does rather a good job of it.

In many trivial ways, this production is more faithful to Stevenson's classic than the as of yet undefeated champion of dramatic productions: the Disney 1950 film. (More running time, I guess) In some important ways it's even more faithful, and even adds a few interesting ingredients. We get to meet Capt. Flint (both of them). We also get the meet the "woman of colour" that Stevenson had married to Silver--something Disney didn't acknowledge. Oh, and speaking of the race card, it was played with the likes of Billy Bones and Mr. Arrow (black as a bucc'neer's colours in bilge water, they is!) I guess it does add an important bit of realism, now present in a lot of recent 18c nautically-themed productions.

But in some serious ways it diverges from the the book. I can't say whether or not it was a mistake to make Trelawney a partial crook and "Bible-reading hypocrite". (It was definitely a mistake to have a gentleman using "who" in the objective) It certainly was important to the ending. Oh yeah, that ENDING!!

The ending loses it 2 stars easily (though as a TI purist, it was a challenge not taking off 4). It's perfectly understandable that they not use the book's ending, Disney didn't even do that, but this unique ending takes the whole story off course and changes the genre from pure adventure to something of a morality tale. In making a miniseries, there was the opportunity to rehabilitate the Treasure Island myth, as was done in 2000 with Frank Herbert's Dune. Unfortunately, what we have is probably the least Stevensian Treasure Island production to date. Sorry.

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.

Well,I only have a vague memory of the novel which I read when I was around 14-15. Therefore, while watching this I really couldn't compare the story and the characters with the original, which I guess was a blessing. I enjoyed this a lot because of several reasons. Firstly,it was quite realistic (esp.without supernatural elements as in POC.)Characters were depicted nicely and felt quite real and believable.Action scenes were decent without unnecessary flamboyance. Locations were wonderful and well matched with the images I had in my mind about the Treasure island since my childhood. If you liked "Master and commander", this is definitely for you. If you are still a fan of POC franchise, you may not like this.

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

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.