I watched this movie again a few days ago and I marvel at the settings and the huge excellent cast of the 1984 version of The Master of Ballantrae.As far as the writing or the screenplay of this classic,it is not very good.The movie rambled and was a bit confusing at times.Put that aside and watch the movie because of wonderful actors like Michael York,John Gielgud,Finola Huges,Timothy Dalton to name a few.I just watched Michael York,Richard Jordan and Jenny Agutter in the 1976 science fiction classic "Logan's Run".Back to The Master of Ballantrae I give a thumbs up for the costumes,sets,location scenery and the actors.I have this movie.
9 Reviews
I love it!
amoss5320 February 2004
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.
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 Better Version of Stevenson's Classic
theowinthrop8 August 2006
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.
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.
great flick
garden-72 August 2005
we thought this was a great film at our house. we have a large movie library and enjoy this film very much. we found the acting fine. The vistas are breath taking the musical score is excellent the relationship between characters comes off well. the plot moves along at the proper speed not to fast or slow i am not generally a richard tomas fan but i like him in here, he stretches his usually simple acting to something new and good. The movie and its message are profound. People who pan it i think do not understand it. the Errol Flinn version i do not care for at all. this has all the meat without the fluff. wish it would come out on DVD
Embarrassingly bad in every way
B2414 February 2003
This version of the film, which gets about everything from the novel wrong in spite of a competent cast and some good location shots, is one that all of its participants -- all who are still living, that is -- seem never to mention. Michael York in particular goes through the whole thing with an ironic smugness that suggests no one was really taking Stevenson seriously. That's a pity, because it could have been a good old-fashioned action flick in the manner of its predecessors, but with an added cachet of great color and wide Scottish vistas. Truly a disappointment.
The 1984 improved version of Stevenson's greatest novel, avoiding the mistakes of 1953
clanciai25 November 2019
This is a better screened version of Robert Louis Stevenson's greatest novel sticking closer to the novel than the Errol Flynn version of 1953. By all means, it has to be admitted, that the Errol Flynn version is more colourful and flamboyant and dramatically more efficient, as it was made for the cinema screen, whereas the Michael York version was only made for television. Michael York is more true to the original very debatable double character of the heir than the superficially flamboyant Errol Flynn, while Richard Thomas as the younger brother Henry makes a very convincing character of his more difficult position true to the novel. Here is also John Gielgud as the old lord Durrisdeer, Brian Blessed as a splendid captain Teach, and, above all, Timothy Dalton as a wonderful colonel Burke, given some extra space here well needed to compensate his disappearance from the novel. Nevertheless, Stevenson isn't slaughtered here like in 1953, the novel is almost preserved intact, with the exception only of the end, which they couldn't resist the temptation of fixing up a little. Stevenson's great novel is a double tragedy of a complicated close relationship between two brothers both loving the same woman but only one getting her, while both film versions ignore the tragedy and makes an entertainment of the complicated story. Pity that this version couldn't stick to Stevenson till the end. That was the only thing wrong with it.
Costumed Soap Opera Cheese Masquerading as Historical Fiction
tortply27 April 2020
Warning: Spoilers
I think the director told Michael York (Jamie) this was a freshman psychiatry video about sociopathy and narcissism. His one-dimensional character radiates hollow, superficial charm, without any semblance of human decency or redeeming qualities.
John-Boy (Henry) is his usual bland incelf, which is appropriate because he's literally a cuckold through most of this movie.
I've always found Brian Blessed to be a fantastic actor and commanding presence, but his "Captain Teach" is a clownish caricature of Blackbeard. He has some silly moments in "Flash Gordon" too, but that's deliberately lighthearted / tongue-in-cheek. This is supposed to be drama, yet he is FAR more over the top, laughing maniacally, constantly, for no apparent reason.
The ending is ludicrous. Henry has spent the whole movie bullied and humiliated by Jamie until - obsessed by jealous rage - he contracts to have him killed. Jamie takes a potion, appears to die, is buried, and survives with no oxygen for three days (!) - just long enough to regain consciousness when Henry digs him up; warn him he'll torment him forever, and keel over. Henry then lightswitches into Mr. Fun Husband and Dad, and lives happily ever after.
John-Boy (Henry) is his usual bland incelf, which is appropriate because he's literally a cuckold through most of this movie.
I've always found Brian Blessed to be a fantastic actor and commanding presence, but his "Captain Teach" is a clownish caricature of Blackbeard. He has some silly moments in "Flash Gordon" too, but that's deliberately lighthearted / tongue-in-cheek. This is supposed to be drama, yet he is FAR more over the top, laughing maniacally, constantly, for no apparent reason.
The ending is ludicrous. Henry has spent the whole movie bullied and humiliated by Jamie until - obsessed by jealous rage - he contracts to have him killed. Jamie takes a potion, appears to die, is buried, and survives with no oxygen for three days (!) - just long enough to regain consciousness when Henry digs him up; warn him he'll torment him forever, and keel over. Henry then lightswitches into Mr. Fun Husband and Dad, and lives happily ever after.
You Can't Make a Silk Purse Out of a Sow's Ear.
schweinhundt196716 May 2004
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.
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.
Small wonder this is the first comment
jbuck_91918 October 2002
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.
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.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
