Robinson Crusoé

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.

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 of your head. It's really a curse, as the man is really a great actor.

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...

3/5

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 shattered.

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.

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 end.

7 out of 10