Horst in Translation ([email protected]) "Die Schatzinsel" is a German movie from 2007 that actually consists of 2 episodes. Each of these runs for slightly over 1.5 hours, so you can also consider it a mini series. This is of course the German-language take on the famous work by Robert Louis Stevenson, even if he is not listed as a credit here on IMDb. There are so many versions of "Treasure Island" out there, even animated ones, but this one we have here is among the most entertaining I have come across. It runs for over three hours and still it has surprisingly few moments when it drags. The writer and director here is Hansjörg Thurn and this made me a bit worried as he is also the man behind garbage stuff like "Die Wanderhure". But my concerns were unjustified with this film that has its 10th anniversary this year. The main reason for this is Tobias Moretti. The film is already okay before he comes into play, but when he does then he gives a really commanding performance and I enjoyed him very much. He is so so good right now, no matter what he does. As a consequence, the other character seem a bit pale next to him. French actor François Goeske who plays the main character is not half as memorable as he could have been and the Belgian actress playing his love interest makes very little of the great material she has to work with. this is also why I felt the crucial story line about her father was not as effective as it could have been. But luckily we have Moretti elevating the material all the time.The first half of this one is about the journey to the island while the second is about the time they spend on the island and a new villain is introduced. In general, it was this film's biggest strength that you never really knew who was good and who was evil and I think they did a good job with the characters' shades. Most of the other reviewers here criticize that the film lacks in comparison to the literary work, but I myself have not read Stevenson's work and maybe this is why I enjoyed this one here quite a bit, possibly more than the book if I had read it. But there is a thing called creative freedom and people need to stop being mad if a filmmaker does not turn a film into a 1:1 adaptation of a novel. There is really no justification for people giving this film a rating under 4. None at all because there are no big weaknesses. It has okay focus, works physically fine in terms of sets, costumes and cinematography and there are no bad performances either, merely forgettable ones, but also one really enjoyable turn and lets be honest Vogel and Hennicke are also nice fun to watch, even if they may be a bit gimmicky at times and more about their scary outfits, makeup and costumes than about very strong performances. As for Moretti, the way he channels a more evil version of Captain Jack Sparrow in here certainly holds the film together and his turn alone is reason enough to check it out. Besides, he is by no means a worse actor than Johnny Depp. As a whole, this is a really good film for everybody who likes gritty adventure and pirate films. There are no moments that feel unauthentic or feel-good for the sake of it and if you manage to free yourself from your possible dedication and praise for the novel, then you will have a pretty great 180 minutes watching this one. Do not miss out.

foxx_1 I remember watching the TV series when I was a kid and expected to see something similar, only with more sophisticated FX and CGI... instead, I saw a frivolous interpretation of the book turning key characters upside down, bad direction, totally miscast actors, absurd plot holes etc. etc. My suspicions rose at the beginning of the film: instead of adolescent boy, Jim is a young adult (the actor was 18 at the time!) and his mother who thinks that her being a widow will attract more customers (?!?) looks actually like his older sister. Billy Bones appears just for a few minutes - all the interactions and character build-up we see in the book are simply omitted... For some strange reason, two likable characters (according to the book) become a greedy villain (Dr. Livesey) and a total goof (Squire Trelawny). Some pirates wear funny braids reminiscent of Gothic conventions and others (e.g. Israel Hands) have stylish tattoos on their bold heads which looks very unrealistic! As if this was not enough, Ben Gun appears to be a perfect copy of Rambo (First Blood): slashing throats from behind, creating deadly traps, disguised in mud... what a mess!! My advice is: read the book or try to watch one of the older films, this adaptation fails in all aspects!

emkarpf I agree with the earlier comment, just wanted to add some of my thoughts. I had only just recently read Stevenson's "Treasure Island" for the first time, and even being a 30something woman, I liked this "boy's adventure" very much. I found nothing of that in the two-part TV-film except for some names. The plot was artificially blown up (like the storm scene or the prostitute scene), but a lot of things were missing - for example, we never get a good view of the map, and we never learn about the setting of the island and the way to the treasure, which are so very detailed in the book. Instead, the map keeps disappearing annoyingly throughout the film. There was a lot more brutality than called for - I wouldn't have needed to see Jürgen Vogel as Israel Hands shot through the throat in close-up. A lot of people were killed when I didn't even understand why - I mean, the mutineers as well as the "Englishmen" (as Trelawney, Livesey and Smollett are called for some mysterious reason throughout the film) count on sailing the Hispaniola back with the treasure, so you'd think they'd keep as many hands alive as possible for that feat (in the book Stevenson describes how hard it is to sail the ship with a limited crew). Then, that "girl in boy's dress" plot line - horrible! What was that for, to show that the infamous Captain Flint also had a soft side? Or rather that viewers can see some naked female breasts at different times, which seems today as necessary as the brutality? From a feminist view, even if the girl is shown to be tough, her character is mostly used as a victim that Jim Hawkins can save (I counted at least three times). But what I liked least, and what the other comment has already mentioned, is how the characters were twisted. None of them was especially likable, so you really didn't care who got the treasure in the end. The largest difference to the book is, however, that Stevenson's men are men of honour. They stand by their word. This may seem naive and old-fashioned today, but that's a reason why I like to read those old stories. Stevenson's Dr. Livesey was a doctor who would tend to every patient, no matter if nobleman or mutineer, because he gave that Hippocratic oath. In the film we actually see him poisoning one of the pirates. Then, the social issues. The film asks us to side with the mutineers because they have been badly treated by the marine and are only men that seek freedom and independence. Didn't the author do any research on piracy to know that it was done for the Crown? That piracy was a common method between seafaring nations trying to outdo each other? Well, enough of that. Let's just say that Tobias Moretti and Jürgen Vogel had some cool costumes. And maybe that's what this film was all about - that some of our great guys could play pirates, just like Johnny Depp did.

TAEMO The central revelation of the original novel was that almost all of the crew turned out to be pirates, namely the old crew of Captain Flint. In this made for TV two-parter, all the pirates, including Long John Silver, are evil, brutal and suspicious from the beginning and we never really doubt that this crew will ultimately mutiny. When we are told about their plan in the movie, it is not really a surprise.Now I have two questions. My first questions is: Why bother using Robert Louis Stevenson's Novel Treasure Island as a blueprint, but at the same time dissociating from his ideas? (changing names of characters and ships, adding a female character and related plot points) My answer would be: Perhaps the producers tried to cash in on the success of "Pirates of the Caribbean" and simply used the name and characters of the novel to attract the few people who know the extremely good ZDF four-parter from 1966 or the source material. The rest of the audience would simply jump in because it re-developed a taste for pirate movies recently. And this brings me to my second question. Why did writer/director Hansjörg Thurn show the pirates behaving like pirates from the beginning, instead of giving us a thrilling revelation scene as originally intended? People who are familiar with the plot watch the movie because they like the story and want to see how the revelation scene is handled. Like everybody is looking forward to seeing Baquo's ghost in MacBeth. People who do not know the plot are not attracted by the title at all, they simply watch it, because they want to see a good adventure movie. For them, the revelation of the pirates would have been mind blowing. And if handled well, it can also be exciting for people who know the plot. I knew the ending of "The Sixth Sense" and it still send shivers down my spine. And that is, what this movie should have done, but failed to do. The blame rests solely on the directors shoulders. Maybe he was not up to the task, although I know some of his work as a writer, especially the Schimanski movies and they are pretty good. His directorial skills are mediocre at best. Now before I discuss the remaining points, I must admit, I have only seen the first part so far, but I doubt that I am going to see the rest. Now let us focus on the characters. Almost all of them are portrayed incorrectly or differently from the novel. Jim Hawkins never hated his life and his mother loved him, not treated him so bad. Dr. Livesey was portrayed stiff, not very likable and he had intentions towards Jim's mother, which was never the case in the novel. The actor of Dr. Livesey Aleksandar Jovanovic, both he and Tramitz (Trelawney) play their parts as if they were in one of Bully Herbig's comedies. Tramitz at least looks like he wants to do it funny, where as Jovanovic is so bad, I always expected his scenes to end with static and find myself in an episode of Switch Reloaded. Of all the actors I like Morreti most, although I think his casting as John Silver is wrong. He would have been perfect for the part of Trelawny. But ever since he played Hitler,he gets cast in roles he simply does not fit in. But he does his best,both with his voice and his movements, in creating an , at least, semi-believable character, who is, I am sorry to say, not the John Silver we know. But that is the director's fault. The novel had no major female characters and that was on purpose. It is obvious why they invented a female character for this movie, one, that resembled Keira Knightley's from "Pirates of the Caribbean", both in behavior and in appearance. And for a second there, I really thought it was her, although I knew she could not be it. Diane Siemons-Willems did a good job. Though she had the advantage of doing an original character that does not have to hold up against comparison. In the end I wanted to say that this movie could have been great. The budget of 10 million dollars is definitely on the screen, it even looks a lot more expensive. The cinematography is very good, I liked the sets and how they are lit. The Special Effects are also good, especially during the storm-sequence which was simply added to show off and to add some action the audience expects from a pirate movie nowadays. All in all, the producers should just have created a stand alone movie with an original story. This, in addition to the almost A list cast, could have become a terrific made for TV movie.