User reviews

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.

"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.

This is a pretty good film as it goes but the main character of Long John Silver was the worst casting error in Eddie Izzard that l have ever seen, there was no 'Ey Jim Lad' Izzard just spoke in a cultured English accent, l have noticed that a lot of remarks on this film say they had never seen any version of Treasure Island before this, let me recommend the Disney version made in the 50's in colour with the wonderful Robert Newton, now here is an actor who 'was' Long John Silver, eyes rolling, the right type of accents, and as sly as they come.

The other actors in this 2012 version did a fair job, Daniel Mays was good as Dr Livsey, as was Phil Glenister and Penry-Jones, so in all this film was good but Eddie Izzard as Silver oh no.

7/10

Previous to this Treasure Island, I saw three other versions of the classic Robert Louis Stevenson story, the 1950 film, the Muppet film and the 1990 TV film. Of the three the best was the 1990 one, though all three have many good merits with the performance of Long John(especially Robert Newton's) being the main good asset in all three.

This Treasure Island I did enjoy compared to the mix of treasures and disappointments that were on Christmas TV, but I personally don't consider it in the same league in the above. I don't think it is perfect, and I can understand why some have been disappointed, while most of the camera work is good and fluid, some of it in the sped up action scenes looks odd and somewhat frenzied.

Dr. Livesey is also a much less interesting or likable character compared to his novelistic counterpart. Dr. Livesey in the book was one of my favourites but his rather "wimpy" persona here made me quickly irritated by him. The sound is serviceable, though I do agree that it is sometimes hard to hear what the actors are saying.

However, the locations are really striking and effort is made to make them authentic. The costumes are likewise sumptuous, and the music while not exceptional is suitably rousing. The story, complete with an interesting opening that was a welcome addition to the storytelling I thought, gripped me throughout and the script is witty.

Casting-wise, I thought it was fine, likewise with the acting. Dr. Livesey may have been disappointing, but I blame the writing more than Daniel Mays. It is not a great performance by all means, but Mays is much better than he was in his miscast role in the awful Outcasts, and tries his best. If anything for me, Elijah Wood was the weak link in the cast as Ben Gunn, I can't place my finger exactly on why it is, maybe the wooden delivery of the lines or the lack of charisma but his performance came across as bland.

However, while he was deserving of more considering his calibre, Donald Sutherland does a good job playing Flint. Toby Regbo is appealing also as Jim, Phillip Glenister is excellent as Captain Smollet, and while like Livesey(though not as badly affected) Trelawny is not as interesting as he is in the book Rupert Penry-Jones, ever the conscientious and reliable actor he is, gives his all to the role and it works.

I do agree with those who say that Eddie Izzard steals the show. Long John is such a delicious character to portray, but also one that can easily fall into caricature. Izzard I admit I wasn't expecting to work, I worried he would be too hammy as well as the falling into caricature trap. But no, there is a sense of menace to him, but also some humanity as well, not to mention a good deal of humour and understatement; he mayn't quite erase the performances of Robert Newton, Charlton Heston and Tim Curry, all great performances in their own right, but it is a worthy take and enough to make this Treasure Island even more enjoyable.

Overall, I enjoyed it. Is it great or outstanding? No. Is it good and worth watching? I think so. I understand the disappointment of some, but as much as I love the other three versions and the book, I did try to judge this on its own terms and found it helped to enable me to enjoy it. 7.5/10 Bethany Cox

This yet-another cinematic version of Treasure Island is a typically well-made and remarkably accurate British portrayal of Robert Louis Stevenson's classic masterpiece swashbuckling 1891 novel. It is not over-dramatised whilst also not "over-softening" the violent and bloody scenes.

As a TV miniseries, the run time of three hours when viewed all at once on DVD isn't too much either. I found it well worth the time spent and, whilst knowing what to expect having read the book, no less enjoyable.

I did notice a couple of continuity errors that I thought unusual for such a well-made movie - in particular, the number of men in Long John Silvers' party before and after several were killed in their siege of the stockade but I suppose it didn't make it any less enjoyable.

For what it's worth, I couldn't help visualising Jason Statham in the role of of Long John Silver (not that Eddie Izzard didn't do a great job - it was just that I kept seeing him in his more typical comedic role) and Sam Neill as Captain Smollett. Donald Sutherland was brilliant as Captain Flint and Elijah Woods a bit quirky as Ben Gunn and nothing like I'd previously imagined the character from the book. Another big surprise was Billy Bones being a negro but certainly not out of character.

I also thought that Tony Regbo, an actor I had never heard of prior to this movie did a very competent job as Jim Hawking - arguably the star of the novel. It will be interesting to see what this leads to for him.

All in all, a jolly good British evening's entertainment.

I'll first point out that I haven't seen any of the other older versions of Treasure Island, nor was I familiar with the story prior to watching this.

My initial feelings are that Pirates Of The Caribbean has been put to shame for it's immature attitude towards pirates, whilst this film is probably the best representation I've seen on screen (but I haven't watched a lot of pirate themed films, to be honest). We are treated to a slightly rugged world of pirates where there are no supermodels running about, quite the opposite for the most part. The way it should be. I think the cleanest looking person in the whole film is Elijah Woods.

Eddie Izzard (Long John Silver) was excellent and perfectly cast in my opinion. I have never thought much of him as an actor before but this certainly changed my mind. Just like PotC is all about Depp, this is all about Izzard. The rest of the cast are also very very good but Izzard really stands out. Sean Gilder also made an excellent pirate, but his on screen time was pretty limited.

I can't comment on how true this is to the original story but I thought it was great entertainment with really good production values and a great overall cast. Easily the best pirate film I've seen.

A reasonably interesting adaptation of the classic novel. Has the same basic plot as the novel but changes some of the characters' personalities, to varying degrees. Also grittier than the novel.

Nice scenery, good action scenes, a decent degree of intrigue.

On the negative side, there is a ho-humness to the proceedings. It is not overly engaging, and it sometimes does feel like it is going through the motions. The movie/series never really grabs you and drags you along with it.

Performances are so-so. Eddie Izzard is fairly good as Long John Silver. Nobody else really stands out. Donald Sutherland has very little screen time.

He tried to be faithful, but some adaptations took him away from the original, however the more laid-back, youthful and colorful script, with a more engaging soundtrack, won me over, trying to make it more pleasant and charismatic, beautiful photography, captivating script, agile development, it's not the best, but it comes close to the best of Robert Louis Stevenson's adaptation, however long, extremely long, I dispersed several times...

I enjoyed this short series even though, like another viewer, I have not read the book or seen other film interpretations. Having watched it, I am going to read the book. After, I might rant at the screen for 3 hours as another reviewer says, but as a first impression, I thought it was good entertainment.

I particularly liked how the film had these moments which hinted at sinister forces and "black magic"—how they break into a haunting, mournful sea shanty as they're weighing anchor etc.

Eddie Izzard is superb—very likable and very real. A hard but pragmatic man, he steals the show. Yes, it must have been easy money for Donnie Sutherland but what the hey.

The difference between this film and Pirates of the Caribbean, is that this is a drama (gutsy, real) and Pirates is a comedy. Sure the film has it flaws but it gripped me from the beginning to the end. Very good.

I have never read the book and the last movie version I may have seen was over twenty years ago, honestly don't remember it much. This was mini series was very good I enjoyed it, Eddie Izzard gave an unexpected well rounded performance, many of the supporting roles are well played by this cast of mostly unknown English actors.There is a grittiness and sense of realism, unlike Pirates of the Caribbean which is played up for the Hollywood big screen epic.This moves along at a well managed pace drawing you in to the story and characters. Steve Barron is no stranger to the TV medium he is well adept at maximizing the small screen making you feel like your watching a big screen epic, best known for Merlin, Arabian Nights and the Adventures of Pinnochio he brings his distinct style to this tale and delivers Robert Louis Stevenson to a new era and generation. I think you will enjoy Treasure Island as I did.

Stevenson's Treasure Island was one of my favorite childhood books I used to read over and over again. Currently I can't remember its nuances - the plot of course I do - and I enjoyed the 2012 version. Background and costumes seems realistic and one can notice at once that it non-US movie - compared to Pirates of the Caribbean, for example.

Izzard, Regbo, Sutherland and Wood are very good, the rest are just above average - or their characters are too "simple" to make some real shine out of them. On the other hand, it is good that no one really steals the show as Depp does when portraying Jack Sparrow. Fight scenes, collusions etc are also more "medieval" here.

In short, highly recommended for those fond of historic adventures, and not seeking deep philosophy or reasoning.

The casting is truly bizarre, especially Eddie Izzard and Elija Wood – presumably to sell it to the Americans. And don't start me on the Donald Sutherland as Flint (was that three or five seconds of footage…) The whole character of this wonderful book has been spoilt by the direction. The sets and historical detail are well done but everything else is just shoddy. Long John Silver is a truly great fictional character but Izzard's modernisation is just wretched. The acting is generally very poor.

There is more character, emotion and value in any one minute of any of the previous black and white versions of this movie than in the whole of this awful mess. Watch those old movies or better still, read the book.

After half an hour I turned off this movie. And the only reason I am a able to rate it just above the lowest vote is that some of the outdoor scenes on the coast look realistic. But nothing else does. Much of the part of the film I had on I could hardly see what was going on as it was badly lit but that is one of many things wrong with the film.The direction of the picture is poor and is all over the place. The acting is atrocious and unconvincing. Th actor playing long john silver(ljs) is a joke and should stick to stand up comedy. The black actors in the movie look out of place and are only present for political correctness.

Then there is the awful script which simply is not appropriate for the time period.Much of the dialogue is modern day east London slang.The straw that broke the camel's back was when the actor playing ljs used the word "teething" in describing a fight among crew members.That word would never be used in that era or by that character and I doubt if even invented at that time. Its a bit like if in a Western film an actors refers to the internet!

Treasure Island is meant to be a classic novel and some movies have in the past kept up that classic standard in their portrayal of the story etc. But this version is most certainly not one of them.

Awful.

2/10.

Having read the book to my children, now teenagers, when they were younger we all watched this having saved it on DVD - can't abide adverts. Though there were inevitable departures from the book it is a pretty faithful rendition and Eddie Izzard confirms his status as a charismatic actor well cast as the complex Silver. The idiocy of the Squire's venture and motley collection of adventurers are ably brought to life by an impressive array of top actors - though of course that means it suffers from 'recognition distraction' on first viewing! (My rule of thumb is always watch a film twice before drawing conclusions - and if you don't want to see it again that tells its own story.) The locations, ship and costumes are superb and really bring to life the squalor of the times and the urge for riches as the only way out. Arguably the Squire becomes too nasty and the Doctor too insipid in this version but Philip Glenister is excellent as Capt Smollett. The incorrigible nature of the pirates and Silver's restless intelligence are well portrayed. Memorable.

I haven't seen any of the other older versions of Treasure Island, nor do I intend to. I have read the book when I was a kid though and it was pretty good.

I'll start off by saying that the scenarios are a bit random..and there is no clear setting to the show and the storytelling is really terrible. It just starts off without so much as an introduction as to what time period it is and what the world is like at this point.

The actors are not convincing, the background music lacks effect and doesn't take me into the show, the characters fail to impress me, and feel like they are modern looking and not from the 'pirates' time period(they have punk hairstyles for heaven's sake).

And African-origin men who're in authority positions? during British colonial age? really?? I don't think so..

If you wish to compare it to Pirates of the Caribbean, its not even close, although they say this is meant to be more serious, its just boring. Pirates Of The Caribbean 1 and 2 were masterful, and even though the 3rd and 4th were painfully immature, I prefer to rate it by the initial 2 as quite good.

I managed to save an hour and half of my life and stopped watching it midway. You can save 3 and watch something else.