User Reviews

The acting was very decent and the cinematography was quite good for a made for TV movie. The biggest problem was how the movie is very dark and how it completely changes a few critical characters from the book. Livesey comes of as a bumbling,incompetent person and trelawney is just a hateful character. Ben gunn was very annoying and probably the only character that looks like you would imagine from the book. The captain's character was very well played as well. I wish I could undo watching this movie- it just spoiled the classic for me. For the life of me I cannot understand why the changes were made. It would have been an excellent movie if they stuck to the book. Save your money and avoid this movie.

Treasure Island is one of my absolute favorite books, and so I tend to shy away from movies of it; they never do the book justice. This feature is no exception- and yet it is one.

The deliciously adult depictions of the pirates, the times, and the addition of the storyline about Mrs. Hawkins and Mrs. Silver work beautifully to add twist and interest to what might be an over-familiar tale. I thought Izzard was a brilliant Long John Silver. I also felt Wood's Ben Gunn was wonderfully true to the spirit of the character, and the twist to his tale (away from the original book storyline) at the end also was thoughtful and interesting, and more just to the character.

On the other hand, the serious destruction of the characters of the Squire and the Doctor utterly destroy the main contrasts and points of the original story: the pitting of honesty, generosity, courage, and loyalty in believable, likable characters against the evils of self-indulgence, trickery, greed, and cowardice of the pirates. It also takes away from Jim Hawkins coming-of-age by handing that role- strangely- to the Doctor.

I also thought it utterly idiotic to dump the treasure at the end. It is almost like somebody decided they wanted to have the treasure dumped in an allegory against greed, and so they fit the "good guys" to this ideal, making them into bad guys, just like the pirates. Or, perhaps they wanted you to cheer harder for Long John Silver and be happier about him getting away in the end (I'm all good with Jim helping him to escape, especially with the insertion of the woman-at-home storyline to compliment it), so they had to make the "good" guys into cowardly jerks so you wouldn't want them to win- which is, of course, superficial and stupid.

In the end, it is a beautiful rendition, if you can get over the annoying changes to the Squire and the Doctor- or just take them as given as they are, and watch it for the wonderful complexity of Long John Silver and Jim Hawkins and their shifting and changing relationship.

Robert Louis Stevenson's classic gets another dramatic outing in this 2012 production starring comedian Eddie Izzard in the role of Long John Silver. The screenplay was written by Stewart Harcourt who made some unsubtle and to my mind unnecessary changes to the story. His altered representations of two of the major characters, Squire Trelawney and Dr Livesey, make little sense and add no extra dramatic value. Director Steve Barron works for a rather realistic representation of the story with a mixed race crew of pirates posing as honest seamen on board the Hispaniola. This helps to steer a course away from unnecessary comparisons to 'Pirates of the Caribbean'. Izzards John Silver lacks the matey easiness of Robert Newton's classic 1950 characterisation, as well as the colour and roguishness. He is believable however, and at times gives a very good performance but I never found him as threatening as Newton's Silver. Philip Glenister was excellent throughout as Capt. Smollett, the professional sailor who begins the voyage with grave misgivings but remains steadfast during all of their adventures. Perhaps the only instance of miscasting was that of Elijah Wood as Ben Gunn, not only too young but again re-written for no real advantage. Wood himself gives it a good go, there's no faulting his performance, it is just that there is again no reason behind the changes to the character. This could have been an excellent version of Treasure Island, certainly the production values are high and the cast are for the most part enjoyable but the curious move away from Stevenson's original characterizations, the change to some of their motivation, and the totally unnecessary emphasis on a 21st Century reaction to materialism, mars this version. If you have never read the novel then this might pass as an entertaining adventure film but Stewart Harcourt's adaptation looses too much of the original and criticises social conventions in such a way as to suggest a lack of historical integrity or even understanding. Fun but not a patch of the 1950 classic.

This whole production was SUCH a wasted opportunity.

Good cast, good sets, good locations...and then an attempt to update a classic story by meddling with the plot. Bad idea.

The story is SUPPOSED to be about a boy (Jim) who gets dragged into the excitement of the pirates lives and is tempted away from the good side represented by Squire Trelawney (a thoroughly decent, albeit naive man), Dr Livesy (brave through and through) and his legitimate crew by the persuasive and morally ambiguous Long John Silver. When he realises how black-hearted the pirates are, he rejoins the 'right' side and helps save the day. By making Trelawney a villain (typical modern twist that anyone in a position of power must be corrupt and evil) and Dr Livesy a coward they ruined the whole message of the book.

Once they'd succeeded in destroying that aspect of the plot, they compounded matters by having the survivors tip all the gold into the sea at the end, having seemingly suddenly realised that material goods are evil.

Oh and killing off their newly formed 'evil' Trelawny in a ham-fisted attempt at showing that greed doesn't pay. Are you kidding me?! In one scene they destroyed the entire point of the film - all those people died for nothing then?! They might just as well have stayed at home... Rubbish. Absolute rubbish.

Oh and having Jim free Silver at the end - Nooooooo! He ESCAPES - he's LONG JOHN SILVER - he doesn't need a boy to free him..!!!!

Oh and finally Long John Silver is supposed to DISAPPEAR - you don't know if he makes it back to his wife or not - its left hanging there...with Jim liking to believe he made it...a far more satisfying end!

Maybe one day the screenwriters will actually read their source material....there's a reason why a classic is a classic...

As it is, you have to wonder why they even bothered giving it the same name as the classic tale...after all, it bore no resemblance to the contents of the book.

This was a valiant stab at televising the much treasured (no pun intended) book by Robert Louis Stevenson.

The costume design, the locations and acting were all superb. Eddie Izzard is by far the best Long John Silver that has ever graced our television screens. Toby Regbo is very well suited as Jim Hawkins.

The program opens with a nice little addition to the book, setting the background up surrounding Flint's crew nicely and explaining the loss of Long John's leg - setting hopes high for the rest of the program.

Unfortunately there are two massive letdowns for anyone who enjoyed the book, namely Trelawney and Livesy. The acting standards from Jones and Mays is high, however the scriptwriters seem to have read a copy of Treasure Island from an alternate universe, where everything is exactly opposite to the original.

Trelawney, has been rewritten from having been a kind, generous adventuring man (if not a little too open at times) to being a two faced, selfish, greedy, penny pinching landlubber. Livesy has been taken from being possibly the most gutsy, daring swashbuckler in the Empire - to a pathetic, quivering coward who is ashamed of what he's become. Unfortunately, this is beyond dramatic interpretation - and seems more like the writers ate the book and defecated this script.

If you can get past these huge inconsistencies and open rewriting of the story (or you haven't read it/seen the original), you are in for a treat - with soaring production values and wonderful acting. If you are a fan of the original, steer well clear as you will most likely spend 3 hours yelling at your television.

I wanted to like this recreation of the classic Treasure Island. One doesn't expect a slavish adherence to the original as long as the main story elements are in place, and who would be nitpicking enough to criticize every deviation from precise details of 18th century settings, customs and props. Making the feckless first mate a black guy might be a stretch, Billy Bones is not black in the original, but even the book describes Long John's wife as "a woman of color." Political correctness would be certain to ruin any classic, but I didn't detect toxic amounts of that here. No, the violation was far worse. About one third of the way through this re-creation takes a dark and nasty turn.

So I was enjoying this Treasure Island and it's dodgy crew as they set out to sea. Only having had it read to me as a small lad, but I kept coming up short: "Wait a minute! I don't remember that!" I knew my memory of the book was quite faded so I had to look it up. In this TV production squire Trelawney is turned into an angry, abusive tyrant. He virtually keelhauls some poor fellow as a punishment and the fellow dies as Jim looks on. That is totally gratuitous, it's not in the book. In fact, Trelawney is supposed to be a decent fellow and invites Jim on the voyage because he likes him. Later in the TV version the Squire abuses Jim irrationally and cruelly and drives him out of the camp on the island. He is supposed to be Jim's protector, but in this version he becomes his persecutor.

Classics are classics for a reason. In the story of Treasure Island it's the power of the narrative, the storytelling, that's the key to its popularity for many generations. The makers of this TV drama, as in so much of movies and TV drama, have no sense of the narrative. Treasure Island is a story of a rite of passage, of a young man being introduced to the world and for this to work he needs people on his side, protectors who care about his welfare. For him to be betrayed by the people who brought him along and took him into their confidence, makes no sense at all. At that point the narrative loses its moral compass and becomes absurd. I can't imagine a motive for such a drastic alteration in the story. Certainly Trelawney is given no motive to turn on Jim and leave him to the mercy of a bunch of cutthroats who intend to kill him. At that point in the TV version Jim is on his own, he virtually has to take care of himself. He has no allies. But rite of passage is not something that adolescents do on their own, as in "Lord of the Flies." They need compassionate adults to help them along.

And though I can't imagine why the screenwriters made such a poor decision about the plot line, I can see the parallels with contemporary culture where many young people are virtually abandoned by their elders and left to raise themselves on junk food and pop culture. Along with that comes a visceral dislike of established values, the well-off, and any authority, combined with an exaggerated feeling of entitlement. Perhaps the writers thought that the values of the RLS book were too outdated and corny for an audience of feral children used to getting their own way. As in the "Occupy" movement, all rich guys are automatically considered evil just because they're rich, so the squire has to be evil. I don't know. But you can see the result of such a philosophy in the London riots of 2011 and the ever expanding percentage of out-of-wedlock births in the Western world.

In any case these seemingly unnecessary alterations in the story line throw the entire story out of kilter, and Treasure Island is no longer fun. Don't get me started on the ridiculous ending. Avoid this version.

I have not read the book, but am aware of how it ends and know that some "liberties" have been taken - but more of that later.

I thought this was a great piece of television, with so much "fly on the wall" and "I wanna be famous cos" TV, this show made for a refreshing change.

The acting I thought was great and Eddie Izzard is really underrated. The costumes were sumptuous and I liked the fact that when it was meant to be cold it looked cold. You could see the actors breath, I hate it when you are told it's winter and yet you can't see steam when they speak - ruins it for me. I knew perfectly well what time period it was (the costumes saw to that) and it didn't need and introduction, Treasure Island - says it all really. The locations were excellent, cold damp England, the high seas, the hot tropical island. What more could you want from an escapist fantasy? I enjoyed seeing pirate crews with a truly multinational crew as it would have been in those days. A black man as first mate? Maybe for a private venture such as this? yes I can see that.

The script was good and most of the filming too was very good. Some of the styles of filing did get on my nerves a bit (a tad too try hard with all the sped up action in parts). The sound was at times very quiet and I struggled to hear what the cast were saying. I know it was all meant to be cloak and dagger stuff but at times just too quiet.

The ending - I shan't say what the books ending was but I can see why it was changed. Mr Stevenson was writing in a time where gentlemen were always good no matter what their ideology was. He was also writing about a time that had very similar views. If he wrote it the way it ended here the audience simply would not have believed it nor liked it. I see this ending as a modernisation of the that original ending. Would Mr Stevenson liked it? Doubt it but he was of a different time and that's how we should view it. Given all the dross that is on telly at the moment this is a true bit of treasure.

I was looking forward to this! The great cast (Glenister, Penry-Jones, Mays, Izzard) should have guaranteed a great movie. Well, it didn't!

Firstly, what about the historical inaccuracies? Granted, they probably couldn't find a seaworthy ship from the proper era, but what about the props? Can't be to hard to find guns from that era instead of rummaging through Sharpe's prop-box. As well, what about the non-Europeans? Granted, there was the odd black fellow in piracy, but surely not on a merchant ship and definitely not as first mate! And the guys from Asia? Chinese, Malayan, Melanesian? How did they find there way to Bristol? And back to the ship: It seems that ever since Pirates of the Caribbean writers seem to think that ships requiring a crew from at least 50 (in this movie) or 200 (PotC) can just as well be sailed by one or two fellows.

And then the characters: Why, why in god's name, change them all? They have nothing to do with the novel but are just modern clichés slapped on the original characters. The rich landowner has, of course, to be a greedy, immoral bastard, because rich people are like that! The doctor is a drunkard and a coward, and then suddenly changes his character 180° degrees, so that the audience can see, that every man can change for the better when he needs to.

Long John is just a poor, misunderstood philosopher who wants nothing more than to live a life without worries, married to his sweetheart whom he saved from prostitution. Nevermind the scores of people he killed.

Even the baddest bad-ass in this movie, Israel Hands, is really only a victim, as he was pressed into service as a boy and thus can't really be held responsible for his actions.

Oh, nearly forgot: Which idiot built that stronghold five feet from the sea? The pirates really only had to bring their ship in just a little bit closer and a broadside would have blown that place to kingdom come and saved us from suffering through this sorry efforts ending.

=== SPOILERS FROM HERE ===

Well, the ending. After killing and maiming, being killed and being maimed, young Jim suddenly decides to throw the whole goddamn treasure overboard, not thinking about the debt his mother has or that they both will probably end up in the poor house or as slaves in the colonies. And the rest actually helped him. The helmsman will stay a helmsman for the rest of his life, the poor doctor won't get to marry Jim's mom and the skipper won't be able to pay the rent on his house as he doesn't get paid for that journey.

At least, that's what would happen IRL, though this movie seems to be teaching us, that throwing money away is a good thing, because you'll get money from somewhere else anyway. Sounds to be inspired by the Euro crisis.

Oh yes, and after they dropped the treasure into the waves, the captain said "let's sail to Jamaica and crew up". Someone should have spoken up and said: "Uhm, skipper, we just threw all our gold overboard. Gonna be hard finding hands of we can't pay 'em! Arr!"

As someone who read and loved the book I was extremely excited to see this movie. Unfortunately, I was extremely disappointed after I saw it. So many meaningless plot changes corrupted this version from start to finish. In fact, it barely resembles the Robert Louis Stevenson classic novel (he probably rolled over in his grave). I would like the writers to explain to me why they decided to make all the changes, as they seem to serve no purpose other than to upset those who have read the book.The filmmakers decided to make Dr Livesay a snivelling wimp, and Squire Trelawney a massive jerk. The director also chose for some reason to use some sort of speed up technique that does nothing more than send you into a seizure. Eddie Izzard does a good job with Long John Silver, but that only scratches at the surface for redeeming this steaming pile. I guess we'll have to wait another twenty years or so for another version to come out, and hopefully that one might do the book justice.

OK my main gripe with this adaptation of the book is it takes too many liberties with the original story and the characters as well, Dr Livesey goes from the main hero to a sniveling coward, Squire Trelawney goes from a trustworthy leader to a two faced greedy tyrannical land owner and the protagonists don't turn on each other and Jim DOESN'T throw the loot overboard when its time to return home and he doesn't free Silver as in the original story its clear he doesn't trust him. Some of the back story of Blind Pew, Black Dog and their relationship with Long John Silver was explored however this removed the shock of the apple barrel scene when Jim overhears the pirates planning the mutiny which is one of the most iconic parts of the story, and in fact renders the whole scene pointless. That said in spite of those negatives there were a few positives with this adaptation, we finally got to see the infamous Captain Flint in person, played superbly by Donald Sutherland if only for a short time, the portrayal of Captain Smollett was one of the few character's the movie got right. Casting Caribbean actors in some of the roles was a clever touch as pirate crews at the time of the did tend to have people from that part of the world, although some of the choices were rather odd, mainly because the actors were generally too young to poetry their characters in a realistic fashion, Elijah Wood as Ben Gunn was such an example, in regard to Eddie Izzard as Long John Silver, again like most other apsects, not bad. So to sum up it was worth watching once but I won't bother watching it again.