El señor de Ballantrae

While nothing can approach reading the actual novel, this television film version of THE MASTER OF BALLENTRAE is far better than the 1953 film version. At the very least it managed to recreate the real personality problems that appear in that egoist James Durrie. Michael York is shown to be an amoral, selfish human being from the start, when he is carrying on an affair with a poor girl of the local village - an affair that leaves the girl with a child that his family has to help support. York never shows any redeeming quality in his James Durrie. In fact one moment I recall (which is not in the novel, but should have been) is when he and his friend Col. Burke (here Timothy Dalton) are commenting on requests from the Durrie family to try to economize while they are living in Paris. York smiles and laughs that they will stop drinking so much brandy and only drink champaign from now on.

Richard Thomas plays Henry far better than Anthony Steel did. Steel was too young in the role - he never grew into the money obsessed ant to York's spendthrift grasshopper that Thomas could grown into. But the writers watered it down a little, allowing Thomas to be a bit warmer than Henry is in the novel (and allowing a genuine affection to grow between Thomas and his wife). It is a bearable change in the story.

Similarly commendable is the worldwide scope of this film version: there are scenes in the novel in the Caribbean, Europe, and India, which are picked up on as we watch James traveling around the world with Burke. The only difference here is that Burke dies in India (but significantly his death barely fazes his so-called friend James). The pirate section in the Caribbean is also changed because the pirate is Blackbeard (called Captain Teach - Brian Blessed in a nice performance). I don't think that Blackbeard would have killed off his own crew as Blessed did, but it was an interesting section of the film.

The finale of the novel in the upstate section of the colony of New York maintains the fantastic trick that Stevenson used in the novel - a trick which may be too fantastic. However, it's results are also watered down here, as only one fatality results.

With all these alterations the story's bitterness is handled quite well. It certainly is a worthy addition to the films that have appeared based on Stevenson's works in the movies and on television.

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.

The previous reviewer has commented,and quie rightly so,that this is a convoluted,hard-to follow screenplay.Well,it's really essential that one consider the original story.It's NOT a swashbuckler,but,rather a character study in a swashbuckling setting.The 2 brothers shown in this tale are actually the 2 sides of a total personality,seeking integration.(THAT was the entire point of Jeykll and Hyde.)It's been set during a perod of historical turbulence,in order for the drama to proceed.

There was an earlier production,filmed in 1953 or so,that was designed as a vehicle for Flynn.And,to be perfectly frank, that was about all that it was good for.It was a historical romance-pirate movie.This one at least makes some attempt to follow the original plot.And the cast does a good job with some confusing material.

HISTORICAL NOTE:The real Captain Teach(also known as Blackbeard)had been dead for almost 28 years before this story opens.So,it's not accurate historically.But Mr. Blessed has so much fun with the character,playing hims as a psychotic version of Orson Welles,that it's immensely enjoyable.

Two brothers flip a coin to see who rides off to join Prince Charlie's Jacobites while the other stays home to hold the family estate together. This leads to a series of disjointed adventures if varying interest.

I first read Robertson Louis Stevenson's novel as an adolescent, hoping for another TREASURE ISLAND, certainly his masterpiece. Alas, the novel failed to live up to my hopes. I've tried it several times since, thinking I was too young the first time to understand it. Alas.

What got me through this Hallmark version of the story was a superlative cast including some of my favorite actors. Michael York hams it up a bit, which shows up badly on the small screen. But Timothy Dalton (James Bond, 007) knows what he's doing and he's perfect, albeit with an Irish accent.

The only section of the novel I found had any life was with a wannabe Blackbeard called Captain Teach. What is it with Stevenson and pirates? Brian Blessed steps into Teach's sea boots and chews the scenery nicely in the best stretch of this long presentation.

The problem is a thoroughly unsympathetic hero. Michael York's "Master" is a total jerk. He should have learned a lesson in humility early on but he only gets worse.

It's not my favorite Stevenson yarn but it's tidily brought to life in a way they've never quite captured in "Treasure Island" movies despite decades of Long John Silver impersonators.

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.