Treasure Island

Stevenson's Treasure Island was one of my favorite childhood books I used to read over and over again. Currently I can't remember its nuances - the plot of course I do - and I enjoyed the 2012 version. Background and costumes seems realistic and one can notice at once that it non-US movie - compared to Pirates of the Caribbean, for example.

Izzard, Regbo, Sutherland and Wood are very good, the rest are just above average - or their characters are too "simple" to make some real shine out of them. On the other hand, it is good that no one really steals the show as Depp does when portraying Jack Sparrow. Fight scenes, collusions etc are also more "medieval" here.

In short, highly recommended for those fond of historic adventures, and not seeking deep philosophy or reasoning.

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.

I'd like to have seen a faithful adaptation but it's still engaging. Found the background music helped do what it was supposed too without being overly intrusive which is always nice and far too rare an occurrence these days. Loved the accurate use of an actual sea shanty (they were work songs and to see them used as such in drama is wonderful). Also nice to see people with a range of accents as would have been the case rather than just the stereotypical bristol accents.

To address some accusations of historical inaccuracy. 1)pirates with Mohawks: this set in the mid 1700's the Mohawk as a tribe would have have a reputation as a people to be reckoned with that would likely have spread to pirates familiar with the America's I can well understand a pirate adopting the hairstyle of a of a nation of fierce warriors. 2)Black people in position's of authority: Sailor's especially outside the navy were much more egalitarian being largely concerned with skill rather than colour or social class (a poor man if skillful might not be able to buy a commission straight off but through saving up prize money and wages may be able to manage it after a few years). Yes there probably would have racism but, particularly on pirate ships, prizes were shared reasonably equally in theory so it would be entirely possible for a black man to become first mate. Equally black sailors would likely not have been as uncommon as all that as it would make sense for an escaped slave to attempt to take to the sea as a way of avoiding pursuit and a good way for a freed slave to make a living.

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

"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.