doug_park2001 "Treasure Island" is one of those stories where reading the original novel beforehand is crucial to really savoring any film version, and this is especially true of this divergent adaptation. Although it retains the basic skeleton of the original plot, much has been added, and many key characters have undergone fundamental changes. I was initially hostile to said changes but soon came to appreciate and enjoy the new sub-conflicts, many of which address universal themes (e.g., greed,loyalty) which are more relevant than ever today. I didn't particularly like the way "TI" (2012) hurries through pivotal scenes from the book, yet, with all that's been added, suppose that was necessary in order to limit its already 3-hour length.This version is also full of small anachronisms in clothing and hair design, as well as some bigger ones in the ethnically diverse ship's crew ("all Englishmen!" in the novel), some of whom sport Mr. T-style Mohawks (!?) While it seems the makers wanted to address the additional modern theme of diversity here, the un-pc truth of the matter is that your average European person of the 1700s would not have taken kindly to such a mix, and the way the crew, including its rich officers and financiers, blithely accept differences in nationality and complexions is, well, unconvincing. At the same time, there are also some added details (e.g., prostitutes, thieves, and hanged men along the filthy Bristol quayside) which, although avoided by Robert Louis Stevenson in a novel intended largely for a younger audience, add a great deal of realism in this version.In the end, "TI" (2012) is well-filmed and well-acted despite its various weak spots. While this revision is obviously to be avoided by those rigidly attached to the original story (or just wanting to see a film version of RLS's actual book), it should appeal to audiences in search of a less dualistic, more complicated tale, created in an age that tends to appreciate anti-heroes like Long John Silver.

wazvan I have read some other reviews of the film just to get a sense of how other viewers felt about this movie and beyond that, what they make out of the differences between the book and this movie. Some viewers were disappointed. I take it, they are truest to the book. I understand a movie cannot be made only to satisfy the fans of this great creation of R.L. Stevenson. There are many people who have not yet read the book nor will they ever read it. The changing of the personalities of some characters in the movie might they find very enjoyable.I for one, although all the time during the movie surprised by the appearance and conduct of Squire Trelawney, I accepted it towards the end of the movie and found it rather enjoyable, as a twist of tale. The same I felt about the character of Doctor Livesey.Apart from that, I liked the movie very much for the atmosphere, I thought it was just about the same as in the book. I have read the book several times, but I'd never re-read it for the sake of the adventure ( if I want that i re-read The Count of Monte-Cristo ) but for the sake of that wonderful described atmosphere of high-seas and the long gone era of the pirates. Back to this production, last but not list: I loved the scene in which the ship leaves port in Bristol and the whole crew starts to sing. I compare it to the first singing scene in " Oh Brother, Where Art Thou" as the convicts are smashing rocks and singing or to the first scene in " The Blues Brothers 2000" as they present the jail before the character of Dan Aykroyd leaves it. I thought it gives a lovely flavor to the whole atmosphere.I will watch this movie a second time! Even if only for this already mentioned singing scene if not for the dialog between Jim and Israel Hands, I quote: "You gotta be strong, in a religious way...or have no thought for God at all"Loved it!

Angus First, I have to say good on Eddie Izzard for not trying to copy John Newton's Silver. On the other hand, it would have been staggeringly foolish to try that *again* in this day and age. No, Izzard delivers a new interpretation of Silver and does rather a good job of it.In many trivial ways, this production is more faithful to Stevenson's classic than the as of yet undefeated champion of dramatic productions: the Disney 1950 film. (More running time, I guess) In some important ways it's even more faithful, and even adds a few interesting ingredients. We get to meet Capt. Flint (both of them). We also get the meet the "woman of colour" that Stevenson had married to Silver--something Disney didn't acknowledge. Oh, and speaking of the race card, it was played with the likes of Billy Bones and Mr. Arrow (black as a bucc'neer's colours in bilge water, they is!) I guess it does add an important bit of realism, now present in a lot of recent 18c nautically-themed productions.But in some serious ways it diverges from the the book. I can't say whether or not it was a mistake to make Trelawney a partial crook and "Bible-reading hypocrite". (It was definitely a mistake to have a gentleman using "who" in the objective) It certainly was important to the ending. Oh yeah, that ENDING!!The ending loses it 2 stars easily (though as a TI purist, it was a challenge not taking off 4). It's perfectly understandable that they not use the book's ending, Disney didn't even do that, but this unique ending takes the whole story off course and changes the genre from pure adventure to something of a morality tale. In making a miniseries, there was the opportunity to rehabilitate the Treasure Island myth, as was done in 2000 with Frank Herbert's Dune. Unfortunately, what we have is probably the least Stevensian Treasure Island production to date. Sorry.

rvdtempel I started seeing this movie without reading the book, so I cannot compare the two.Before I started I heard mixed reviews, but looking at the details still made me want to watch the movie as I normally like a good pirate movie.The beginning was alright, so I stuck to it for a good while. All in all I can only say that the acting was just terrible, and so typical nothing new kind of approach. Lets first kill the people we hire to do one set so nobody will miss them and eventually we will get to the more important people. But that is not even the worse, the worse is that at some point you just ask yourself. What am I doing, why am I still watching this. I am proud that I made it to around 2 hours before I just felt the need to get on IMDb to warn people not to see the movie. The only upside was the costume of Elijah wood witch I thought was really cool. But the rest, from the I am a pirate on one leg with a parrot on my shoulder to the bad story.