Robert J. Maxwell Stories about castaways and isolation are usually pretty tough going. Tom Hanks' movie was very slow at times. Even when there are two characters instead of just one, and even when the characters are Toshiro Mifune and Lee Marvin in "Hell in the Pacific," there are likely to be longueurs. And it's no wonder that no one has done movie called "Walden Pond" -- "First I adzed this, then I adzed that." I've never read Defoe's novel but the movie seems to stick closely to the original, with the elisions necessary in converting a long and episodic novel to a screenplay. The spoken narration helps. In the film, Crusoe gets only two pet animals, a dog, Rex, and a cat, instead of two cats. The single cat in the movie provides the occasion for a joke when she gives birth to a litter of kitten -- "Where did you find the father?" Crusoe is stuck on this Caribbean island for twenty-eight years and I can say seriously that when Rex the dog dies of old age, I've never felt sadder for the death of a fictional dog.I'm going to mostly skip the story. Crusoe almost goes mad with loneliness and when he runs across his native man, Friday, he doesn't derive much comfort from his devoted companion. He and Friday finally make a successful escape from the island.Crusoe is Daniel O'Herlihy, whom I admired a great deal in "Odd Man Out," in which he's a nervous and not particularly bright terrorist in Belfast, and he was fine as a reserved liar in "Home Before Dark." He was nominated or an Oscar for his performance here but he seems strictly functional to me. None of the other performances amount to much. But -- Luis Bunuel, when he was still in his prime? It seems directed by an amateur. When Crusoe gets drunk to celebrate his fifth anniversary of isolation, the periphery of the screen is blurred. Even the absence of expected clichés -- there are no sweeping vistas of the tropical beach -- seem to have been forgotten rather than deliberately avoided. When Crusoe resorts to reading the Bible, I half expected God to appear and tweak Crusoe's nose.But, for all that, it's a gripping movie, easy to be swept into. Ontogeny repeats phylogeny. We watch an ordinary man, who has rescued only one or two small rafts of supplies, reenact the history of Homo sapiens. He learns how to make fire. He learns to domesticate animals and then he domesticates plants like wheat. He learns the art of self protection. He first embraces, then rejects the idea of having a slave, settling for having a willing servant. He finds comfort in the Bible. He discovers that currency is meaningless on the island but it saves his bacon in the end. The last we see of Robinson Crusoe, in 1686, he's dressed in colonial finery and is setting off for England, a wealthy man with his "servant".Defoe was a Puritan. I don't know what he was getting at in this story, if in fact he was getting at anything. But, though the movie looks cheap and easy, it ought to keep a viewer interested enough to follow it through to the end.

GManfred I did not read Defoe's novel so I can't comment on the merits or the faithfulness of Bunuel's adaptation. I saw this movie at the age of 12 when it first came out at the local movie house. At the time I recall thinking about how fascinating life on an uninhabited island could be and about the loneliness RC must have felt most of the time. Now I can add some of my own recent comments and observations.It aired on TCM the other morning and saw it in a somewhat different light. The book must have contained many passages of mental soliloquy, contemplation and introspection. Such a cerebral book must have been difficult to transfer to the screen, and RC's overarching feeling of boredom can extend off-screen to the audience. The film is part documentary and part travelogue with a great deal of voice-over narration, and moments of genuine excitement are few and far between.Another reviewer mentioned a sexual angle - or lack thereof - but I think I found two latent instances. In the scene where RC puts up a scarecrow to protect his wheat crop, he puts a woman's dress on it, walks away and looks back at a distance, then walks away slump-shouldered, perhaps thinking of female acquaintances past. In the second, Friday finds a woman's dress, puts it on and jumps about for RC's benefit. RC angrily tells him to take it off, perhaps trying to stave off a southern hemisphere version of Greenwich village.All things considered, this movie is the best that could be done, given the limitations of the narrative. In short, I liked it better when I was 12, before the onset of cognitive reasoning.

Claudio Carvalho On 30 September 1659, the ship of the aristocratic British Robinson Crusoe (Daniel O'Herlihy) sinks and he miraculously survives in a deserted island somewhere in South America. He retrieves the dog Rex and the cat Sam, together with some supplies, weapons, clothes and tools from the shipwreck; builds a shelter; and learns how to survive, cooking, farming, harvesting the crop and gathering a cattle. Then the loneliness disturbs him, especially after the loss of Rex. When he sees a group of cannibals in the island, tension and fear become part of his life. Later he saves the life of a savage that was going to be eaten by the cannibals; he names him Friday (Jaime Fernández) and they become friends. When Robinson Crusoe sees Caucasians in the island, he finds that Captain Oberzo (Felipe de Alba) was the victim of a mutiny and he helps him to retrieve his ship. After twenty-eight years, two months and nineteen days, Robinson Crusoe leaves the island to return to the civilization. "Robinson Crusoe" was my favorite novel in my childhood and I do not know how many times I have read this book. Luis Buñuel, who is one of my favorite directors, makes a faithful transposition of this timeless story of survival, loneliness, fear and friendship to the cinema. This is probably the first conventional movie of Buñuel that I have ever seen and his usual surrealism is limited to the sickness and daydream of Robinson Crusoe. Daniel O'Herlihy is a perfect Robinson Crusoe and this movie is recommended for the whole family. My vote is nine.Title (Brazil): "Robinson Crusoé" ("Robinson Crusoe")

Andy (film-critic) Adapting a book to a film is a difficult task. Not only must you get the characters right, but a director, or screenwriter, must drive deep within the mindset of the author. There are inside, as well as outside elements that must be considered. What was going through the character's mind? What was the time period like? What level of realism can we bring to the silver screen while still packing the theater seats? All of these are challenges that everyone associated with the film must grasp before committing to a project – which is why it is so rare to discover someone claiming the film was better than the book. It just is rare to discover the two in a blissful marriage. That is why there was hesitation with Bunuel's 1952 adaptation of Daniel Defoe's literary classic. Knowing what was going to be coming in the future, "That Obscure Object of Desire" or "The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie" or even "The Milky Way", one could safely wager your entire salary on this early film. I wanted amateur, I wanted independent, I wanted to see where Bunuel found his inspiration – but alas, none could be found with this bomb of an adaptation. We are all familiar with the truth that Bunuel's was in exile from Spain, living in an unfamiliar world, facing the tough face of McCarthyism around every angle. So, why not make a film about a man, in essence, dealing with similar feelings. It is not uncommon for directors to take projects that they feel a connection towards, so Bunuel grabbed at the opportunity. Coupled with the fact that Bunuel had both the honor of making his first film in English as well as color, "Robinson Crusoe" should have been a staple in modern cinema. It could have ranked up there next to any of Godard's work – but it didn't. It garnished one Oscar nominee (for best actor), and then couldn't even find distribution for DVD until recently. Why such difficulty for such a pioneering film for Bunuel? This isn't a fantastic film. This is poorly directed, jokingly acted, and horribly misleading to anyone enjoying the works of Defoe. O'Herlihy is impossible as Crusoe, never giving us anything to believe or trust. As the island slowly becomes a luxury destination instead of a place of abandonment, as our hopes of seeing any decent cinema from this pathetic epic disappears as well. Bunuel did happen to place a couple of great scenes in this film, but they are scattered few and far between. Needless to say, in the cannon of Bunuel films, "Robinson Crusoe" ranks near the bottom.Our story itself is the main root of the issues. From the beginning crash, the cheapish cinematography demonstrating the power of the sea (possibly made by school children), all the way to the "grand" finale, one never feels that sense of danger – or chaos. Taking this film away from the story, meeting Crusoe for the first time, Bunuel gives us nothing. There are no scenes in which Crusoe has to learn, where he has to survive – in the first twenty minutes he is found sleeping in a tree then immediately building a well fortified hut around a cave – within forty minute he has bread and some random length of time has passed. Butler's adaptation fails because there is no sense of danger – I never felt worried that Crusoe was going to survive – because he never went without. Sure, there were scenes of sickness and hunger – but they were just never that impending. Perhaps it was the close tight shots that plagued the opening of this film, or the bland colors – but the initial puzzle pieces never fit.Never looking weak, never getting skinny, never finding anything except his deepened voice – Crusoe seemed more concerned about not being a man than staying alive (i.e. see the excessive beard growth). How could a man trying to survive in the wilderness, scream out to the mountains? More focus on Crusoe, his life, his personality, would have strengthened these dampening scenes. That said, Bunuel did attempt on a couple of occasions to spruce up what he could to the lackluster story. The scene in which Crusoe gets drunk (as there is an endless supply of booze on the island) and thinks that he sees his friends is phenomenal. It was brilliant to have the camera as tight as it was, hearing the ghostly voices speak to him, then, just as the cup falls – it all ends – and we are thrust back into the truth of the island. Wow. It was just as breathtaking again – but there aren't many of these gems in which Bunuel can demonstrate his talent. Instead, it felt like he worked for Disney on this project. Even the introduction of Friday seemed cheapened by the fact that within ten minutes he was speaking English or being shackled. I realize that it was the time, but if I were trapped on an island for that many years, would I make the only other living person a slave? Keeping his close as to not lose that sense of friendship is one thing; racism is a whole new bag.Overall, "The Adventures of Robinson Crusoe" is a very disappointing film. The acting is laughable, the story feels like a kiddy ride at Disney (coupled with all the food that you can eat), and the cinematography is amateurish. For a story that has been done time and time again (you can even see it weekly on "Lost"), there was just a lacking element of danger, chaos, and survival. As mentioned before, there was no built sensation that Crusoe was never going to make it (whether you knew the story or not), it just seemed like this island has all the luxuries he wanted. Grade: * ½ out of *****