Rating: 
Summary: unreal
Review: although I like the actors I would not waste money on this film.Not only is it a far cry from the classic I loved as a child they even kill off Crusoe's dog!!!
Rating:
Summary: Disappointed
Review: An overall poor performance that is easily outshadowed by Aidan Quinn's performance in the same role of the same title which was released in 1988. The 1988 release was not only a superior performance for Quinn, but was also better directed with an incredibly emotional and haunting score. It's surprising that not many people know of this earlier release. Sadly, there seems to be no available soundtrack to the 1988 release of Crusoe. If anyone knows of one, please let me know!
Rating:
Summary: Ruined a great story
Review: Don't waste your time or money on this one. They took a great story and ruined it with political correctness.
Rating:
Summary: True or False?
Review: Everyone is pretty much familiar with the classic tale spun by Daniel Defoe.... (Or, if not, they should be.) If such is what the viewer expects from the "Robinson Crusoe" movie, or if you wish to enjoy a good moral, this is not the film for you.
As a person who is fond of all whole and decent tales, I can say truly, after watching this movie, (dubbed inaccurately "Robinson Crusoe") I felt ill. Not that the story was completely re-written, for, as we all know, a re-written story can be excellent at times. But, that through this lame attempt to make the racial issues in "Robinson Crusoe" (the book) palatable to the modern mindset; instead of focusing on the gracious example of Friday, or the moral of the story, this movie seems to wish to overlook any true illustration of decency.... offering, instead, the crippled climax of man's incompetence.
Not wishing the reader to assume this review was written in a furious attempt to squash any chances the movie might have for some mischievous reason of my own, I would like to assure all who may look upon these words, this is as unprejudiced and accurate a report as possible.
The best that may be said for this film is that the actor, (Pierce Brosnan) did show some talent in portraying George Miller and Rod Hardy's mediocre account of Robinson.
Though other of Pierce Brosnan's rolls are a deal more enjoyable, no one can quite dislike him, no matter the ruffian he plays. Though it comes close, I admit.
For the storyline itself, I leave you to rely on previous reviews, which, I'm sure will do a thorough job depicting and dissecting this fable.
Rating:
Summary: This movie was a waste of time
Review: First of all, for all the movie critics out there, this had barely any real correlation to the book it was based on. I always thought Crusoe was English not Scottish, and when did he ever kill some one in Scotland? And bodies never washed up on the shore in the book. Friday was not African American in the book either, as he was portrayed in the movie. Even if you want to watch the movie for the sake of it's action quality, there is no action, so move along and pick another movie.
Rating: 
Summary: Robinson Cruseo
Review: Good Movie, don't know why it was not promoted more. I could find it at our local Best But.
Rating:
Summary: Robinson Crusoe the movie, don't see it!!!
Review: I am a big fan of Robinson Crusoe, but then these stupid movie people have to go and screw it up!!!! I mean dang, he was supposed to be on the island for 28 years but they changed it all up so that he is only there for 6!!!!!?? Whoever reads this, DO NOT SEE IT IT IS A WASTE OF MONEY!!! Also they did not include him living in a cave and having a home in the country and a farm in the Brazils. They did not show how he was able to plant stuff or how he go the goats and sheep that he survied on. Friday was also a ripoff, in the book he was more tanned than African American. And if you notice in the movie he had a toucan but in the book he had a parrot that he taught to speak to him. And more about Friday, he had converted his religion to Christianity but he kept his religion. Now all i have to say is that if Amazon had -5stars i would pick that.
Rating: 
Summary: Poor Adaption of a Timeless Classic
Review: I am not of the opinion that story lines or characters in classic books need be kept intact when converting a book to film; however, if a script writer wants to completely revamp a plot, his version should at least be more interesting than the original . The ONLY similarities between the Defoe classic and this film are as follows: the lead character's name is Robinson Crusoe, the savage's name is Friday, and Crusoe is shipwrecked on an island. The Tom Hanks film Cast Away is closer to Defoe's plot line than this film (and has much better acting and dialogue). Granted, this script has far more action than the original work (Crusoe's ship apparently had an unlimited supply of salvageable gunpowder) as Crusoe becomes an almost comical booby-trap-setting military strategist defending against a savage onslaught (if you liked Disney's Swiss Family Robinson, you may actually enjoy the exploding tree houses and rope-traps that predictably befall the ignorant savages). But the film's action, can't keep an otherwise unriveting plot and medicore acting afloat. In sum, read the classic, watch Cast Away and the Swiss Family Robinson, and pray for the careers of the script writers and director of this poor film.
Rating: 
Summary: A Strong Survival Movie
Review: I don't know how the plot of this film compares with the book - I read it so long ago that I remember only Crusoe, Friday, and the bad guys from the other island, all of whom are here. What I can say is that this is an elegantly filmed, well-acted survival story. It grabs you right at the beginning and holds its intensity right through to the end. Pierce Brosnan is excellent as Robinson Crusoe. (I like him best in films where he has a chance to do more than look pretty such as "Taffin," "The Heist," "The Tailor of Panama," and "Evelyn," along with this one.) And William Takaku makes a believable Friday. In this version, Crusoe goes through hell, but comes home to a happy ending.
Rating:
Summary: A beautiful change from the previous Colonialistic attitude
Review: I was anxious to see this DVD, and am glad that it came out. A fun side note, though I am an Anglo-American, I grew up in a village in Papua New Guinea, the country where some of the movie was filmed. My parents are linguists, and I was raised speaking both English and Nasioi. I had heard that William Takaku, who plays Friday, was a New Guinean, but out of the 1000 languages spoken in that nation, I had no idea that he was from my language group! How exciting to understand every word that he spoke in Nasioi! He did a great job! Congratulations William. Although it bears little resemblance to DeFoe's original, there is little room in our world now for Colonialism, and though I regret that Friday kept his religion, I am grateful for the dignity by which he was treated. I especially appreciated how they showed him to be physically an equal and in some ways a superior to Robinson. Having grown up in PNG, and living in both cultures, I actually thought they gave Crusoe much more physical strength and endurance than I would have, in comparison to the strength of the locals. (o: I appreciated so much that Friday did not speak gibberish, and that, despite his early desire to eat the heart of his enemy to gain his enemy's strength, he acted with dignity throughout the rest of the movie. I did think the DOG was the weak point of the movie. No dog that pampered could have survived catching his own food, and even if he had found food, he would never have looked so glossy and healthy in a tropical climate. (o: I also found that the dog didn't play enough of an important role to warrant Crusoe's grief over his death, or over the desecration of his grave. (o:
|
