1703: Robinson Crusoe has to leave Scotland for a year, but after months sailing, a storm wrecks his ship. He ends up as only survivor on a desolate island.1703: Robinson Crusoe has to leave Scotland for a year, but after months sailing, a storm wrecks his ship. He ends up as only survivor on a desolate island.1703: Robinson Crusoe has to leave Scotland for a year, but after months sailing, a storm wrecks his ship. He ends up as only survivor on a desolate island.
Tim McMullan
- Crusoe's Second
- (as Tim McMulian)
Jim Clark
- Slave Ship Captain
- (voice)
- (uncredited)
6.014.1K
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Featured reviews
Nice entertainment, but you won't miss anything...
This is a condensed (only 90 minutes!) film version of the ageless classic, with lots of modifications though. I give kudos to the impeccable work of the actors, and directing and editing seem to work equally well for a very nice entertainment experience.
However, as soon as I start comparing this version to the original book, I feel an immense let-down as so many things have been changed (I won't give a list because it would be just way too long). I liked the look of Robinson's island a lot, and all the buildings and mechanical contraptions were nicely designed. But for the most part, the plot was just *too* smooth, leaving out most of the meditative moments and the setbacks that the "original" Robinson experiences in the book. For such a compact film version of the long book, some cuts had to be made, though.
I won't give away the ending, but it was a) way too different from the book and b) way too brief, it even felt forced to some degree. There's lots of nice scenery, however. So there are much worse ways to kill off 90 minutes...
However, as soon as I start comparing this version to the original book, I feel an immense let-down as so many things have been changed (I won't give a list because it would be just way too long). I liked the look of Robinson's island a lot, and all the buildings and mechanical contraptions were nicely designed. But for the most part, the plot was just *too* smooth, leaving out most of the meditative moments and the setbacks that the "original" Robinson experiences in the book. For such a compact film version of the long book, some cuts had to be made, though.
I won't give away the ending, but it was a) way too different from the book and b) way too brief, it even felt forced to some degree. There's lots of nice scenery, however. So there are much worse ways to kill off 90 minutes...
What a butchery of a classic tale!
When will Hollywood learn to be faithful to timeless classics. The producers of this hap-hazard adaptation of the timeless classic had the audacity to include references to Daniel Defoe in both the title and the film itself - why then did they not stay true to his classic story?
From the very first to the very last, this films strays so far from the novel that i am surprised they can even retain the title.
Stick to the book, or any of the other adaptations of the tale - but stay well clear of this version.
I believe that the only way to enjoy this version is to watch it without ever reading the novel - but even then that's quite a stretch.
From the very first to the very last, this films strays so far from the novel that i am surprised they can even retain the title.
Stick to the book, or any of the other adaptations of the tale - but stay well clear of this version.
I believe that the only way to enjoy this version is to watch it without ever reading the novel - but even then that's quite a stretch.
Unimpressive
At the risk of repeating what others have already written, this movie is not the same "Robinson Crusoe" that Daniel Dafoe wrote. While some might question whether this matters, I think it is fair, at the very least, to complain that it falsely presents itself as being something it isn't. I rented this movie to see an adaptation of Dafoe's novel, which this isn't. Lest I leave the impression that the film's "artistic license" is my only complaint, though, I should mention that this isn't a very good movie by any measure. I guess they tried to punch up the book by adding romance, conflict, and action scenes that could best be described as a curious mix of the A Team and MacGyver. Suffice to say, there are better ways for viewers to spend their time and money. 3 out of 10.
I liked the book. I was disappointed with the movie.
I read the book many years ago and liked it. I was looking forward to seeing the movie version. I was very disappointed that the movie was so much different than the book. I guess the movie makers decided there wasn't enough action in the book so they added things (like defending the island against the natives and the fight at the end) that were not written by Defoe. I would have liked it better if they had just stuck closer to the original and concentrated on the details of how he survived on the island.
Until civilization intrudes
Although this is far from a faithful adaption of Daniel Defoe's classic novel from the 18th century, this version of Robinson Crusoe holds up fairly well and captures what that polemic writer was trying to say about cultures and how they clash. A number of assumptions about what his character Crusoe had about the superiority of his civilization are shattered.
Two men from totally different worlds manage to communicate and establish a friendship. To be sure it is one of necessity as Crusoe is cut off from his world and Friday, the cannibal he befriends is exiled from his tribe. Still they do get along until civilization intrudes.
Pierce Brosnan is in the title role and aborigine actor William Takaku plays Friday. Defoe himself is written into the film as he is given a purported journal written by Crusoe and as he reads it Brosnan narrates the story. Defoe is played by Ian Hart and Defoe as political polemicist as well as novelist had some advanced views considering the time he lived in.
Brosnan and Takaku do very well in their roles. It's a good story with moral if not plot intact.
Two men from totally different worlds manage to communicate and establish a friendship. To be sure it is one of necessity as Crusoe is cut off from his world and Friday, the cannibal he befriends is exiled from his tribe. Still they do get along until civilization intrudes.
Pierce Brosnan is in the title role and aborigine actor William Takaku plays Friday. Defoe himself is written into the film as he is given a purported journal written by Crusoe and as he reads it Brosnan narrates the story. Defoe is played by Ian Hart and Defoe as political polemicist as well as novelist had some advanced views considering the time he lived in.
Brosnan and Takaku do very well in their roles. It's a good story with moral if not plot intact.
Did you know
- TriviaFilmed in 1994, copyrighted in 1996 and released overseas in 1997. Never released theatrically in the U.S., nor in the UK.
- GoofsFriday refers to Crusoe by name before Crusoe tells it to him.
- Quotes
[mourning the loss of Crusoe's dog, Skipper]
Man Friday: Skipper go to Crusoe's God?
Robinson Crusoe: No. Dogs don't have mortal souls. Only men have mortal souls.
Man Friday: Too bad. Good dog.
- ConnectionsReferenced in Diagnosis Murder: Alienated (1998)
- How long is Robinson Crusoe?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Release date
- Country of origin
- Language
- Also known as
- Daniel Defoe's Robinson Crusoe
- Filming locations
- Production companies
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Box office
- Gross worldwide
- $183,886
- Runtime
- 1h 45m(105 min)
- Color
- Sound mix
- Aspect ratio
- 1.85 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content








