Robby

This movie is an obvious attempt to get children to understand that nudity is an acceptable form of dress (or that it is OK to be naked). In the later 1990's and beginning 2000's, this is NOT an acceptable lesson for children (in fact it never really was acceptable and should never be!).

I enjoyed this movie, but I observed a comment by another that indicates that this movie was made for people who desire to see young boys for sexual entertainment. I am sure that there are many that watch this movie for that reason, however, I do not believe that was the intent!

I am going to exclude this movie from my library only because I do not want people to question my motive for having it. I believe that it is a good movie!

Robby is a family film with heart. Near the end of the movie, with Robby and Friday in the back seat of the large family car, the automobile stopped in the driveway, and Robby said, "Friday, we're home. We're home!" That hit my heart strings, bringing emotion, feelings, and appreciation, and tears rolled down my face. Family is what this life is all about; our life orbits around our family, and going home is wonderful.

The first time I saw this move was when I was an age 8 boy with my Dad, on our living room television, in 1971. For armature actors, they acted well. Filming on location was a good choice. Filmed in 1968 with that technology, it turned out fine. Perhaps an improved title would have been "Robby Shipwrecked" or something similar. I enjoyed the family film.

This is a lovely touching film of how friendship arises out of necessity.

Shipwrecked by himself, a young boy find the only other inhabitant of the island is a local boy his own age. The two become friends, with the native boy teaching the American how to swim and fish, who in turn teaches the other English and what life is like in his home country.

Much of the film is taken up with daily life; the boys talk, fish, eat, swim, with some moments of adventure and suspense to keep us awake. In addition, there are some excellent shots of the island's wildlife.

What is wrong with the film? There's a lot that has been missed out, and the passage of time is somewhat awry. For example, the boy learns to swim in about five minutes. Or rather, in the next scene we find that he can. This jumping is a bit off-putting and spoils the narrative. Someone said that the film was originally half an hour longer; this might explain the missing portions, and I'd like to see the full version.

The ending was a bit up-in-the-air; having got there, we really, really, need to know what happened next! There is so much more to the story - there must be - that we don't know, and I'm afraid that for me it was a bit of a let-down, almost as though the writer lost interest at that point. I still cried at the end, though. (I'm a soppy old thing really).

A great work of art, it's not. A great way for you and your kids to spend an hour on Saturday morning, it is. There's not a trace of sex, violence, bad language, commercialism, junk food or indeed anything else nasty. It's a pity this film has disappeared into obscurity when much less wholesome material stays on.

This film is inspired by Robinson Crusoe story, only that this time it is two little boys who are stranded alone in an island.

The views of the island, sandy golden beach and crystal clear sea water are totally breathtaking. With the two boys swimming and running around the beach naked, the whole movie gives a feeling of nature coming home and a relaxing environment.

Some people seem to have a problem with the fact that the two little boys are nude on the island most of the time, and I believe this was precisely one of the intents of the movie, to challenge the wrong long held belief that nudity is a bad thing.

The last thing I would want is for my kids to be brought in a religious and repressive environment feeling shameful and guilty over what a naked body looks like, my kids loved this film too.

Paradise lost seems to be an appropriate second title for this not very famous movie. Why this lack of fame? Obviously because of what seems to appear as inappropriate content: the director has indeed decided that the description of the return to innocence of the children implied that they had to get rid of their clothes. This meant a lot of problems to distribute the movie and of course things have only gotten worse in our contemporary society. The background being set, I would like to insist on the cinematographic qualities of the movie, which are real: Bluemke intended to emphasize the beauty of nature and the strong link between the latter and people. There are a lot of general shots that are here to remind us of the close relation between the landscape and its `products', the children. And the director obviously thinks that mankind must not loose its memory and its origin: therefore the return of Robby to nature, when his friend teaches him to swim, is presented as a very positive thing, which Christopher Young's very moving and delicate music emphasizes. In such scenes the nudity of the children has certainly nothing to do with voyeurism: it is just an integrated part of the artistry of the movie. In a way it reminds me of the photographs Edward Weston made of his son (the famous `Neil' series): everyone recognizes today the value of this approach, which is very similar to the one developed by Bluemke, who wants to show in a very sober way the lines that constitute the human body. Of course the movie is not perfect: there is for instance some amateurism in the acting of the children and the director has not the eye of his greatest peers (Nicholas Roeg's masterpiece Walkabout which develops a similar theme). But it still is a commendable work which wants us to believe that return to nature may lead to innocence and not cruelty and madness, as it is the case in Lord of the flies for instance.