loki we thought this was a great film at our house. we have a large movie library and enjoy this film very much. we found the acting fine. The vistas are breath taking the musical score is excellent the relationship between characters comes off well. the plot moves along at the proper speed not to fast or slow i am not generally a richard tomas fan but i like him in here, he stretches his usually simple acting to something new and good. The movie and its message are profound. People who pan it i think do not understand it. the Errol Flinn version i do not care for at all. this has all the meat without the fluff. wish it would come out on DVD

amoss53 Okay, I disagree with all previous comments.I find this "Master of Ballantrae" a memorable, exciting and effective adaptation of the novel, and much closer to the book than the previous version with Errol Flynn. Sure, some of the accents sound forced, and some of the acting is melodramatic and over-the-top--but that suits the subject. Normally, providing a happy ending for a story that normally ends eerily and tragically would be jarring, but it really works, here.The characterization is excellent, and you really get three adventure movies in one for your money, here: the love-triangle, rival-brothers and family inheritance story (Michael York is perfect as unreasonably beloved, ill-intentioned James, and Richard Thomas (always an under-rated actor) as long-suffering Henry) , swashbuckling pirate combat, and North American Wilderness quest for buried treasure.I have cherished the copy I made from the Hallmark Hall of Fame tv broadcast--twenty years ago, now! and only wish that someday it would be available on DVD. Because the location cinematography, settings and costumes (who'd have thought there were that many types of plaid!) are all stunning. Too bad it seems to be unappreciated and forgotten. It will remain one of my favorite films forever.

B24 This version of the film, which gets about everything from the novel wrong in spite of a competent cast and some good location shots, is one that all of its participants -- all who are still living, that is -- seem never to mention. Michael York in particular goes through the whole thing with an ironic smugness that suggests no one was really taking Stevenson seriously. That's a pity, because it could have been a good old-fashioned action flick in the manner of its predecessors, but with an added cachet of great color and wide Scottish vistas. Truly a disappointment.

jbuck_919 Looks like an all-star cast, doesn't it? Forget it. This confusing pseudo-spectacle cannot survive Robert Louis Stevenson's wretchedly convoluted and improbable plot. The only reason I'm commenting is that I'm a sucker for 18th century movies and found this one horribly disappointing.Since there is also no plot summary, an aristocratic family with two sons in constant contention with each other experience various adventures. The "good" son who is not so good succeeds in exiling the "evil" one who is not so evil, but the latter keeps coming back to haunt the former. But every turn of plot, if you want to call it a plot, suffers greatly from lack of credibility.Poor Stevenson. He wrote long adventure stories for boys that were designed to make money. Then he occasionally showed his real talent, as he did in the long short story The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. But even there he was not well served, for most of the movie versions want to substitute a monster story for a true psychological thriller.