User Reviews

The boys of London toil in a cotton mill and are enthralled by Daniel Defoe's just published story "Robinson". Although the book was banned by King George II, it circulates underground; and scores of boys flock at night to Defoe's modest lodgings to hear him reveal more details and embellishments. The work in the "mill" (which is still a hand-operated factory) is boring, and the boys mull over nothing more than to go to sea and find Robinson's island for themselves. Yet they understand perfectly well that they need to work to make a living; and Defoe's remark that children should play instead of work is met with their hearty laughter.

This is shown at the beginning of the film, which soon, however, changes the course of its sociological underpinnings from the mores of the 18th century towards the apologetic permissibility of the late 20th. When little Ben is to be punished by 25 strokes with the belt for shooting an arrow into a courtier's back (while playing Robinson, of course), his father is most reluctant to carry it out and reiterates Ben's lame excuse that it was "just an accident". What remains unmentioned is the cause of this accident, namely Ben having pointed his bow towards said courtier. Why, my own father would have whipped me with conviction in the 1940s; and my mum would have nodded in agreement instead of covering her face in desperation like Ben's mother.

Three of the boys try to put their dream of finding Robinson's island to work and hire themselves onto a merchant ship to sail within a few days. After their last day at the mill (which hasn't "progressed" yet into the age of "free expression" to employ a night watchman), they ransack the establishment, braking what modest equipment there is and throwing the buckets of dye all over the walls. Since these boys are the heroes of the story, this act sends decidedly a wrong signal to a juvenile audience. It is not only utterly ungrateful towards the proprietor who gave them a job they definitely needed, as they knew themselves, it is also highly inconsiderate towards the other boys at the outfit, who must continue to work there without interruption. This bad signal is regrettably reinforced at the end of the movie, when they happen to meet the king and he assures them that he will take care of the rampage. So this is the lesson of the story: It is great to tear things up when you feel like it; you will not be punished; and the government will cover the damages - a lesson in contemporary children's education?

Teenagers are in for a treat too: Defoe's dashing young son Tom, much adored by his landlady's daughter Maud, has already squandered most of old Defoe's assets; and to avoid going to jail because of further debts, he steals and sells his father's most precious remaining possession: the Robinson manuscript. This literally breaks the old man's heart. Tom, when confronted by the king, regrets his last bad deed as well as his licentious life and agrees that he must be punished. But when love-stricken Maud objects to several forms of penalty, the king, as the "final and supreme punishment", hands him a bag of money to repurchase the manuscript and presumably pay his other debts. Some punishment! Dapper young Tom gets out scot-free. Lesson number two: Regardless how stupid and reprehensible you behave, the government will bail you out.

This film should be permitted only for children over 50 years of age.

Even though i.m.d.b does not explain this,I remember seeing the previews of this film ,in original language and Mexican subtitles in Biermosa Tabasco ,Mexico,in 1963 or 65.I had thought the long blond hair Prince was a girl.I thought it was about a girl who run away from something and find she inherited a royal legacy.I finally saw it in the late sixties on public t.v ,black n white.It was dubbed.It was funny too ,dubbed.Hearing Mathias Wieman speaking fast he's going to pay for the mess the boys made.I still thought the prince was a girl.But seeing the royal table scene where Ben is showing his bow and Arrow triggered my memory of the preview.Now I under stand the story.Eric Ponto plays Daniel Defoe and his book,Robinson Crusoe has been banned and his son Tom ,played by Horst Bucholz , is in debt and tries to borrow money from his dad ,but he refuses too.Tom ends up manipulating Romy and Ben to take his place in prison so he can steal the manuscript of his father book and sell it for money.The fantasy comes in after they capture Horst and tie him up ,her and the kids, to get the manuscript back,that she and the kids go to the palace,possibly to have Horst punish for stealing the book and to lift the ban.Romy''s mom is in the movie playing ,of course ,her mom.She and Ben work a a cotton gin ,at the time where children were slave labor ,rather than going to school and being children.Daniel Defoe,played by Eric Ponto,boards at her moms house.Gustave Knuth plays one of the black market crooks.This movie isn't too bad.I would say the dubbed version is more entertaining cause ,the wrong type of voices that was used.I think it's available at Germanvideo.net in v,h,s from in the u.s. 05/28/13

"Robinson soll nicht sterben" or "The Legend of Robinson Crusoe" or "The Girl and the Legend" is a west German German-language movie from 1957, so it will have its 60th anniversary next year. The film runs for slightly under 90 minutes and was directed by Josef von Báky based on a play by Friedrich Forster-Burggraf. The former was one of Germany's really successful filmmakers at that point, so it should not be a surprise to anybody that he got 2 of Germany's biggest young stars at that point on board, namely Romy Schneider (the lead) and Horst Buchholz (her co-lead). This film came out around the time the Sissi trilogy ended and as with other Schneider works, this is (despite its age) a film in color. Buchholz plays once again the German version of Marlon Brando in a character that is a bit of a brute and hangs around with the wrong people. Luckily, he has Schneider's character (and a bunch of kids) to save the day for him. Yes Schneider plays a girl named Maud and as in all her other works, she is a bit of a saint (no pun intended to Eva Marie / Waterfront) who personifies warmth, altruism and innocence as she pretty much always does.

As for the film itself, I was not impressed. Not at all. The two stars play characters that are really stereotypical for them, but bring nothing really new to the table and the script, story and plot are also not doing them any justice when it comes to letting them put their talent on display. Also on boards are established German actors like Romy's mother Magda, Gustav Knuth and even Gert Froebe plays a small role. Sadly too insignificant to really make a difference. People who love relatively old German films (from after Nazi Germany and the silent film era) will see a handful familiar faces in here. But even to those, it it difficult for me to recommend the watch. I personally did not see anything memorable or even special in these 1.5 hours. I give it a thumbs-down. Watch something else instead.