It's a good bad... and worth a popcorn matinée. While it's easy to lament what could have been...

It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

If you like to be scared, if you like to laugh, and if you like to learn a thing or two at the movies, this absolutely cannot be missed.

The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

Most movie adaptations of novels are just that: they pick and choose scenes in the novel to present in movie form, but basically tell the same story to be found in the novel.This is not that. It does present much of what is in Stevenson's novel, yes, and rather faithfully. But it also includes a LOT that is not in the novel, scenes that Stevenson had suggested but never developed. Indeed, as others have pointed out, there are significant characters here who do not exist in the novel.I found it to be a good presentation of Stevenson's novel, and I found Assante to be a lot of fun as Alan Breck Stewart, even if he is more Erol Flynn than ABS. Viewers just have to understand that this is not solely what Stevenson wrote. For that, as others have observed, the Disney treatment from the 1960s is better.Still, this is FAR better than the BBC travesty of the novel, which is far too often unfaithful to the novel, which this really is not. It just adds a lot that is not in the original.

When I read the other reviews I can't believe they cover the same movie, Generally I'm not too critical and enjoy a wide variety of genres, in particular adventure stories and was looking forward to watching this. I haven't read the book but I doubt it would have any impact on my lack of appreciation for this movie. The characters are hollow, the storyline seems patched together and the dialogs are artificial.At the end of the movie, I was left wondering what the whole point of the story was. Perhaps I need to watch it again, perhaps I missed something, but I highly doubt it.

This is an excellent movie in its own right and seems to be quite faithful to the book. There are elements of the movie that do not show up in RLS's Kidnapped, but there is a sequel, entitled David Balfour, which I have yet to read. I imagine that some of ragmop's complaints of inaccuracy may be answered by this book. My one suggestion would be for the viewer to do a little studying of the this period of Scottish history, as this will help make the movie flow better.As others have mentioned, this movie is made even better by the fact that it is even suitable for young children to watch. It would be nice if filmmakers followed this movie's example and made more action and adventure movies that are really safe for the entire family.

What a shame that the movie, while being excellent in its own right, has absolutely nothing to do with the original book by Stevenson. Aside from the names and places, only about 5% of the novel made it into the movie. As a fan of the book and some of the older versions of the movie, I was horrified by the amount of information in the film that was 'made up'. While I'm sure it was all accurate for the time period, very little of what occurred in the film ever happened or was even alluded to in the book. If you completely ignore the fact that the movie is based on a book this film is very enjoyable and exciting however I disagree with the re-writing of this classic just to make it into a more compelling tale.