Robinson Crusoe

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.

When will Hollywood learn to be faithful to timeless classics. The producers of this hap-hazard adaptation of the timeless classic had the audacity to include references to Daniel Defoe in both the title and the film itself - why then did they not stay true to his classic story?

From the very first to the very last, this films strays so far from the novel that i am surprised they can even retain the title.

Stick to the book, or any of the other adaptations of the tale - but stay well clear of this version.

I believe that the only way to enjoy this version is to watch it without ever reading the novel - but even then that's quite a stretch.

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.

I read the book many years ago and liked it. I was looking forward to seeing the movie version. I was very disappointed that the movie was so much different than the book. I guess the movie makers decided there wasn't enough action in the book so they added things (like defending the island against the natives and the fight at the end) that were not written by Defoe. I would have liked it better if they had just stuck closer to the original and concentrated on the details of how he survived on the island.