Robinson Crusoe (1997) User Reviews

Average rendition freely based on the known novel by Daniel Defoe , well starred by Pierce Brosnan

[ma-cortes · 5/10 · 17 August 2018]

A mediocre adaptation stars Pierce Brosnan: Robinson Crusoe , telling the well-known story of how a Brit becomes stranded on a desert island . As Robinson escaping from England aboard a ship , after killing a man .Then , a wreckage happens and Robinson washes at a mysterious island .There he frees a native , William Takaku , who is nicknamed Friday .

So-so recounting about the classy castaway novel with the loner Robinson who meets his pal Friday , retelling their adventures and unfortunes . While sticking some incidents close to original tale , others are utterly fictious. Being narrated under his point of view . The picture has nothing to do with the classic original by Daniel Defoe , taking freely parts here and there ; but where are the thrills and chills? . The movie relies heavily on the relationship between Robinson and Friday , charting the peculiar treatment the native receives of the civilized man ; as Robinson teaches English language to the escaped native until evil slave traders spoil the fun . Pierce Brosnan gives a passable acting as the distressed castaway stranded on a deserted island and he tries to civilize the proud native Friday . It boasts a good secondary cast with very brief interventions from notorious secondary actors such as Polly Walker , Ian Hart , Damian Lewis and James Frain. The motion picture produced by Robert Halmi and was regularly directed by George Miller : The man from snowy river , Zeus and Roxanna , Aviator , Neverending story 2 , and by Rod Hardy , a Tv usual filmmaker : Mentalist , Librarians , Supernatural , Covert affairs , Mental , Doll house , X files and occassionally for cinema : December boys , Two for Texas , Over the hill, Thrist.

Other retelling of this prestigious novel are the following ones : silent version 1927 narrated by Don Carney . Mr Robinson Crusoe 1932 with Douglas Fairbanks . Robinson Crusoe of mystery island 1936 by Max Wright . Robinson Crusoe by Luis Buñuel with Dan O'Herlihy .Sci-fi interpretation of Defoe classic titled Robinson Crusoe on Mars , 1964 , by Byron Haskin with Adam West . British rendition titled Man Friday 1975 by Jack Gold with Peter 0'Toole , Richard Roundtree .Robinson Crusoe and the Tiger 1972 by Rene Cardona with Hugo Stiglitz . Castaway by Nicolas Roeg with Oliver Reed . Robinson Crusoe TV series 2008 with Philip Winchester , Sam Neill

It's Crusoe, go check it out!

[KrisRagnarsson · 7 February 2003]

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

Until civilization intrudes

[bkoganbing · 7/10 · 3 August 2013]

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.

Unimpressive

[br2brown · 3/10 · 10 March 2002]

At the risk of repeating what others have already written, this movie is not the same "Robinson Crusoe" that Daniel Dafoe wrote. While some might question whether this matters, I think it is fair, at the very least, to complain that it falsely presents itself as being something it isn't. I rented this movie to see an adaptation of Dafoe's novel, which this isn't. Lest I leave the impression that the film's "artistic license" is my only complaint, though, I should mention that this isn't a very good movie by any measure. I guess they tried to punch up the book by adding romance, conflict, and action scenes that could best be described as a curious mix of the A Team and MacGyver. Suffice to say, there are better ways for viewers to spend their time and money. 3 out of 10.

What this is (in the aspect of: Is this what Defoe wrote?) I do NOT care, How it is, I CARE

[stamper · 7/10 · 28 August 2000]

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

What a butchery of a classic tale!

[grover-6 · 15 November 2002]

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.

Nice little movie.

[ergomane · 9/10 · 13 August 2007]

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.

I liked the book. I was disappointed with the movie.

[jcriss · 4/10 · 4 January 2002]

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.

This movie is better than what I expected

[mm-39 · 7/10 · 29 July 2002]

After seeing Cast Away I never would rent this film, believing it was another version of survivor. Wow, I was wrong! This is one of the classics I never took at school, and I wish I did. Unlike Cast Away, this film has action, mystery, and a fast pace. It shows the difference in people, but we all belong to the same hypocrisy. Throwing stones, while we have sin. In the end, one leaves the movie with a feeling of fate, when good and bad events throw us into our destinies. Please rent this film; the classics give us a nice break from modern pop culture. I wish more modern day writing could reflect the scope of this story. 7/10

Crusoe. Robinson Crusoe.

[kingofdanerds · 5/10 · 5 November 2020]

For the record I have not read the critically acclaimed novel called Robinson Crusoe at the time of this review (probably not anytime soon either). Like many books, they tend to get many different movie adaptations and Robinson Crusoe is no exception. There are bunches of Robinson Crusoe movies out there and it just so happens that the first (and so far only one) that I have seen is the 1997 Robinson Crusoe. There is not much out there in terms of information when it comes to this film. All I know is that this film started production in 1994 and was held off for release till 1997. Oh and this stars Pierce Brosnan most known for his role as James Bond which apparently he found out that he got the role during this film's production. Again, I don't have a whole lot of information to give concerning this film at all........

Robinson Crusoe is in a duel with his friend. After killing his friend (this is all because of a girl that they both like), Crusoe goes on a voyage that would take one year. But of course, a storm happens and causes the ship to crash on an island leaving Crusoe as the sole survivor. He must brave the conditions and learn to survive. Will he be able to do all of that?

I did say that I have never read the book and that is still true. But upon doing some research on this film, I found out that this film is not very accurate to the novel at all. So.......... ouch. But even if you can look past that, there is plenty more to find right with this film and plenty more to find wrong with this film. First of all, the very first and very last scene of the movie. So apparently, Daniel Dafoe (who is an actual character here) is given the journal of Crusoe and reads it, after reading it, he plans on publishing it. First of all, even though I have not read the book, I do know that the story is told as if Crusoe wrote the story and is telling the story. Not Dafoe. It is all pointless when you really think about it. Another thing that is different from the book is where Crusoe is actually from. In the book I believe it is like York or something and here he is from Scotland. (Again, this is me doing research here). Personally, I don't have a problem but that Scottish accent from Brosnan. Oh boy. It is not a great Scottish accent and can be somewhat distracting. Once the storm happens this film's pace just cranks up. In a matter of a few minutes, a year will go by. It is hard to tell how much time passes at all. I only know that time passes because of Crusoe telling me so. By the time the film ends, six years is to have passed and this makes it hard for me to believe that six years have passed. Which leads me to talk about Crusoe's struggle for survival and whatnot. I think a way to make it feel like he has been on this island for six years is to give him a struggle or major setbacks. Nope. Everything pretty much comes fairly easy for him here. He manages to build a mansion of a house with little trouble (apparantly nearly a third of the book is about him building his house). With all that being said, I think the best part of the film is where he meets a native of whom he names Friday. There is a nice little connection between the two as they bond and learn from each other. There are some fairly interesting moments during these interactions. For example they talk about religion and Crusoe talks about his god and Friday talks about his god. It is probably the one part of the film where I am somewhat invested. Because for most of the film I am not really invested. Robinson Crusoe acts like a jerk at times and that is when I hope that he just dies of dysentery or something that can make his life a little harder (cause clearly nothing on this island is going to do that). The ending to this film is pretty emotional (and no surprise, different from the book). Aside from all of that, the cinematography is not bad. We get a couple of aerial shots that are nice. I like the whole island setting and is somewhat cool.

Robinson Crusoe 1997 is a fast paced film that just does not have me fully invested. When it does, the film can be pretty good for the most part. Not great, just good. I do not believe this film has a huge impact and is not entirely memorable (the first time I watched this film was six years before this review). If you have read the novel, you may find yourself largely dissappointed with this film.

Definately a tv movie

[PatrynXX · 3/10 · 30 December 2002]

And a poor one at that. This version won't get fans of Robinson Cruesoe to the beach let alone out of the boat.

the movie trailer is misleading. You'd think it was an action movie.

Alas, we get a rather boring movie. Almost went to sleep several times. Very unbearable to watch. And it's predictable as to what happens to the dog.

3/10

Quality: 5/10 Entertainment: 1/10 Replayable: 0/10

The movie exceeds the limitations of the book

[oshkoshbgoshfan · 8/10 · 2 January 2006]

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.

Haven't read the book, but I liked it

[lordkinbote · 7/10 · 20 June 2002]

It's probably BECAUSE I haven't read the book that I liked the movie. I'm not Scottish or even British so I can't really comment on Pierce Brosnan's accent, but I don't think his acting was bad like some have said. I thought he was quite good, but I wasn't distracted by the accent like some were. That could be a deterrent. Overall, I liked it though. After reading some of these reviews, it makes me want to read the book though. Sounds very interesting and I do agree that they shouldn't have advertised it as James DaFoe's Robinson Crusoe if it wasn't faithful to the book. I give it about a 7.

Very different from the book. As much as it ruins, it brings even more new goods of it's own.

[Kdosda_Hegen · 10/10 · 24 January 2021]

I am a huge fan of the book. This film butchers majority of content and because of that storytelling feels unnatural. The protagonist is also quite different, here he is way more self-righteous and hot-tempered than in the book. I find it genius that Daniel Defoe is in the movie itself as a character who wrote the book based on journals of Robinson as if he was a real man and it's based on true story which mostly is not true. It is true that the book was inspired by a real person, but it was nothing alike. Anyway, this film adds a romance subject which is a terrible idea, it barely fits in the movie, it has barely any scenes and it's quite stupid and unrealistic. What I loved on the other hand was the cinematography and the atmosphere were astonishing, but what I loved the most is how they changed all the scenes with Friday. They added tons of character development, tons of inspirational and quotable dialogue and most inportantly lots of well executed dramatization. I think this movie while not as good as the book, does it's justice and on it's own is a mostly fantastic film.

Really Bad!

[Ashlevine · 31 July 2004]

My mother once told me that if I don't have something nice to say that I should stay quite. But this movie was so bad that I can't keep my silence. Those of you with great standards please forgive me for I have to say these bad thoughts...This film deserved a much better director and I can't tell you how disappointed I was by Pierce Brosnin. The script, cinematography, editing, acting, and directing failed to elecite any interest of staying awake. To all those who love a good adventure film...stay away. The money you would spend on this film's rental could feed a poor child somewhere in the world. I am really sorry, Mom.

Interresting plot!

[Cinema_Love · 8/10 · 25 April 2004]

First, I saw the commercial of this movie on theater when I saw Alaska in 1996 and then, the film was cancelled. I finally found a version and it worth the 8 years waiting. Pierce Brosnan wonderfully played the character and it's very emotionnal. I recommend to every Robinson Crusoe fans, it's simply the most realistic version. Every character looks real, you have Robinson Crusoe played by Pierce Brosnan. Maybe some people will tell it's more a family version but you have several murders in the movie aswell as the terrific 1st scene with the ship. It's so emotional and the adventure theme is present. You won't be dissapointed. It's a shame that this movie dosen't even get a release on theater when it's easily better than 75% of the hollywood movie nowadays!

Thank you George Miller & Daniel Dafoe!

What a POS

[pickel668 · 1/10 · 20 September 2007]

PC rubbish. Did this guy READ the BOOK? I saw better things in the toilet. If you loved the book- DON'T see this! For over 100 years people have loved this story- whose idea was it to change it to some totally different scenario? You need a MINUS 10 on the rating list here.... This comes from someone who can and frequently does enjoy some pretty lame movies.....Okay, I get the slavery thing- but THAT was addressed in the book, and why are we blowing up all these natives again? WHERE are the Spaniards? What is this thing with butts? I didn't want to see any butts when I rented this movie...and they weren't even attractive ones... As I fast forwarded through another pointless love scene, my son said "Aww not the NAKED thing again!" This should have been a movie we could all enjoy- instead it was turned into a stripped and remade POS, completely without the ideas that made the book so great.

Painful to watch

[maxodgaard · 1/10 · 10 May 2021]

Deserves no further words....... awful in every way......

Lackluster story-telling

[emguy · 5/10 · 22 December 2002]

There were many plot points discarded or revised from the original novel, as others have noted, but all that aside, it was just a lackluster movie. The basic castaway idea has been done many, many times over the years (lots of Robinson Crusoe movies, Swiss Family Robinson, Cast Away, Six Days and Seven Nights, Gilligan's Island, and so on and so on). This movie adds nothing special to the castaway genre. Most of them follow pretty much the same formula: get stuck on an island, create a home from scratch, meet the bad guys that visit the island, eventually get rescued -- with the exception of Gilligan's Island, those poor people ;-). This movie followed the formula, adding in a token love interest that wasn't very convincing, and trying for an enlightening transformation in one character, which also wasn't very convincing.

Pet peeve: This movie went for a particular cliche whose lack of originality always bothers me. I envision the screenplay development going like this: "Let's see, these two characters have developed a strong bond, and now one loses the other. I need to convey the sense of anguish and loss, the unfairness of it all. I've got it! Let's have the remaining character say, 'No!'"

Just say "NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!"

Interesting Take On The Book

[boblipton · 6/10 · 20 August 2022]

Most versions of Robinson Crusoe focus on the title character, played here by Pierce Brosnan, his ingenuity in surviving, and his amused musing on his relationship with Friday, played here by William Takaku. This one concentrates on Crusoe's relationship with Friday, and finds a warm human story thereby.

There are the usual gaffes caused by a behind-the-screen team that gives the audience what they expect, rather than what is real -- a toucan is featured prominently, in what turns out to be Melanesia. Mostly, though, I was impressed by Brosnan, who was able to hold my interest for the considerable length of time he's alone on the screen. When I first encountered him in REMINGTON STEELE, he struck me as a performer whose good looks would propel him to leading roles he lacked the star power to sustain. At first I was even certain he could act. Here he certainly does.

Misleading title for pure financial gain

[phinegan · 1/10 · 15 August 2004]

I thought the movie in and of itself was mediocre at best, but like others I have a grievance that can't be silenced by quoting artistic license.

They didn't stay remotely within the concept of the book and no one said they needed to, but they erred when they attached the classic title to their new invention. I would suggest far more than would see the movie otherwise would watch it because they read the title and remember a powerful story that managed to survive with effect into the modern era. The use of Robinson Crusoe as a title is misleading and greedy. For that they deserve the ire of their viewers.

Total waste of time.

[Ad_Eternum · 3/10 · 2 February 2003]

What a pathetic peace of junk! I wonder if someone in Miramax ever read the book and understood main idea behind this wonderful story by Daniel Defoe.

There is nothing left form original script and I'm very disappointed to see Pierce Brosnan wasting his talent on this crap.

The Anti-Robinson Crusoe

[johngbarbour · 1/10 · 16 December 2012]

The only things that are the similar between the book and this movie are: 1. The name of the main character, Robinson Crusoe 2. The name of Friday 3. The fact that there was a shipwreck 4. The fact that Crusoe was stranded on an island.

It was really an entirely different story.

In the original story Robinson Crusoe has a Christian conscience which he violates by not listening to his father. It is an adaptation of the biblical parable of the Prodigal Son. "I resolved that I would, like a true repenting Prodigal go home to my Father"(Luke 15:11). "I had in five or six days got a compleat victory over Conscience" (p.8,9 Norton Critical Edition). In the book, the Bible plays a crucial role in the story. "I was earnestly begging God to give me repentance when it happened providentially the very day that reading the scripture I came to these words, 'He is exalted a Prince and a Savior, to give repentance and to give remission' (Acts 5:31)" "By now I began to exercise myself with new Thoughts; I daily read the Word of God and apply'd all the comforts to my daily State."(p.71, p 83)

The whole story is a theological tract that deals with conversion, sanctification, and reconciliation (Crusoe himself) and the missionary work of evangelization and struggle of God's dealing with the heathen (Friday and the cannibals) ex. p156-160). Crusoe even leads Friday in a Bible study (p159). At one point, Crusoe struggles over whether he has the right to execute cannibals that had done nothing to him (p167-168). It also deals with the problem of fear, of theodicy, of evil, of original sin, and of many other theological themes. The book is full of prayers and reflections (mediations). In short, it is a thoroughly Protestant (Puritan) Christian story that edifies.

The movie turns everything around and makes it a thoroughly post-modern- post-Christian; even anti-Christian story. Crusoe has to do everything himself, because he learned he can't rely on Providence. He argues with Friday over religion and then realizes that they should just co-exist and let Friday keep his concept of God while Crusoe keeps his. There is no conversion, no returning home to a father (either earthly or heavenly). Crusoe is an angry unconverted pseudo-Christian who is more confused than Friday and actually gets ministered to by Friday. I'm so thankful that this did not become a huge blockbuster. Young people today already are given enough wrong ideas about Christianity and religion.(the word compleat is the spelling in the original. Theodicy and evangelization seem to be two words that the people at IMDb have not learned yet)

Bad accent, but fairly fun.

[paintbeforeassembly · 6/10 · 3 August 2010]

The Scottish accent is horrible, and obviously a person trying to do a Scots accent instead of someone who actually has one; and some scenes tied to the Scottish side are bad, too. But at the same time, none of the scenes in this film are nearly as boring as many of the scenes in the book, which - though a classic, and rightly regarded as such - suffers badly from age and its role as the "first novel", in that nobody had quite figured out things like pacing just yet.

In short...it's an average movie, not good, and not bad either. Worth a watch if it comes on TV, and not as inclined to bore you out of your skull as the book. And to those who truly love the book...I applaud your patience. As a child of the digital age, my tolerance for descriptions of fence-building is extremely lacking.

Not Defoe's Story

[prudhoeboy · 3/10 · 10 August 2022]

This movie appropriates the real novel by Daniel Defoe and basically re-writes it more along politically correct lines making it mostly about Crusoe's relationship with his native companion Friday. The movie goes to great lengths to deceive the low information reader that the story told is what Defoe actually wrote by including the author at the beginning and end of the movie about to write the novel based on the journal being portrayed in the movie. This is a lie. The plots of the movie and the novel were not very close. Now the story told wasn't bad, but this movie gets dinged for representing it as the real story.