blrnani There is no point being faithful to a book written far in the past if you want to make money from the film, as the cultural bridge would just be too huge. Nevertheless, I think this film does a good job of adapting the story for a late 20thC audience. Perhaps its biggest achievement is that you don't think "Bond" at all, once you move beyond the opening fight scene. The notion that a year at sea will make everything okay, in a country notorious for nurturing grievances over centuries, stretches credibility, but one can understand he's loth to be parted any longer than that from his great love. By the same token, the idea that she would've waited over 6 years for him to come back to her, in an age when a woman's only hope of preserving/improving her standard of living was to obtain a good marriage, beggars belief, but is nicely romantic, amid the immediacy of our present times (cf. the ending of Cast Away). "Swiss Family Robinson" is more fun as an adventure story, while "Cast Away" handles the logistical and emotional challenges of being alone on a Pacific island superbly. Robinson Crusoe's strength is in bridging the cultural divide between a Christian European and a cannibalistic islander at a time when the former considered themselves so superior to the latter that slavery was considered normal practice - showing the common bond between humans that transcends all the superficial differences of gender, ethnicity, nationality, religion, class, etc that so easily divide us. So there is plenty of food for thought here, but it can also be enjoyed as a simple adventure story.

ucjtskl Let me start off by noting that this movie would rank highly in my top ten of worst movies ever. There are three main characters: Robinson, Friday and a dog called skipper. The smart one out of the three would appear to be the doggie, who committed suicide in the midst of the movie. Perhaps the doggie had read through the remaining script and decided that suicide, given Rin Tin Tin's status as the all time cult doggie hero, was not under threat, was the decent thing to do. I concur.The movie begins with a script brought back to Scotland by the shipwrecked Robinson who has managed to be saved. The irony that Robinson left Scotland as an accused murderer following a dual with a friend, and returned to Scotland through a similar route after a dual with Friday - was not lost on me - but just in case I didn't get it - the background narration made sure the point was voiced. Thanks but no thanks. The saving of Robinson, by Friday followed an attack on his shared dwellings by cannibals. Shock, horror I can hear you say, but given Friday's rapid take up of the Scottish language, it does make you wonder why such an intelligent man could not have escorted Robinson back home at the earliest opportunity and spared many of us a tedious last 40 minutes of the storyline. Still without Friday's brilliance, or perhaps the dying and hallucinogenic Robinson, after being wounded in a cannibal raid, but still managed to sober up sufficiently to point Friday in the direction of his journal, with those immortal words: "Save my Journal Friday ..." Robinson's manuscript might have been left on the Island, and this particular tale lost. Pity.

ergomane 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.

plerophoria I have a high tolerance of bad movies, but this one had me flabbergasted. I remember Brosnan as Remington Steele, and he wasn't too bad in that. He should stick to such cartoony characters, though. His performance as Crusoe was lame. His "preaching" the Bible to Friday was absolutely ridiculous-- Brosnan must have studied televangelists for HOURS to get that right-- and Brosnan's own sneering of the Christian faith comes through pretty well. Producers, if you are going to cast an actor who must play a Christian, get an actor who can ACT and at least make an effort to conceal his personal contempt.The movie bills itself as "Daniel Defoe's Robinson Crusoe" but nothing about the movie lines up with the book, except the character's names. If anything, the movie goes out of its way to pervert everything Defoe tried to get across in his story.I would have tolerated variations of Defoe's story, but this movie takes the cake of "creative license." It gets weirder and weirder as it progresses, eventually ending in a moralizing scene of slave traders who win the day but kill Crusoe's pal (who "gave his life" to "save" Crusoe-- no religious undertones, here, right?) I wouldn't watch it again if you paid me. It is THAT bad.By the way, does Hollywood give any awards for Worst Actor and Worst Screenplay? This movie would walk away with them all...