Miss Castaway and the Island Girls

This is a film that revolves around two mysteries (which I have now demystifed).

First, did the film makers understand the concept of 'parody' before using it to carpet bomb the audience throughout the film? Parody is when a reproduction attempts to mock, comment on, or pay homage through self-depreciating humour to, the original work. In other words, there should be reasons to parody such work, and they should definitely be clever. I didn't see any of those in the film. I did see some awful 10 seconds jokes that fell flat within 2 seconds of delivery. Bryan Stoller probably went to Eric Roberts and said "hey, I was drunk last night, watching Survivors, and had this brain fart for a straight to DVD release. I want you on board without reading the script...because I plan to direct this film without one!"

And herein lies the second mystery: Eric Robert's career. I use to think Eric Roberts had the career he had because he was unlucky. Now I realize it's because he is stupid (and therefore deserves the career that he had). After watching this movie, it is apparent that he would have been better off had he gone into mainstream adult films, which has higher budgets, more...intense...scenes and roles, better acting and direction, more elaborate and compelling plot lines, and a much wider audience than this B-movie reject (C-movie?).

holy sweet murder this is quite possibly the least funny movie i've ever seen. you can take my word for this as truth because it's playing on television right now. it's really one of the most pathetic productions i've ever seen. there is not a single redeemable aspect of this flick. it just lacks any humor whatsoever. the only good thing it possibly has going for it is that it's so unfunny that it's wholly unmemorable. in fact, i just sat through some ridiculous sub-plot and i can't really tell you what went on. the only reason i can even possibly remember having seen this movie is because it's so absolutely humorless it will stick in my mind forever based on that alone.

an absolutely must miss. if your friend wants to show it to you, shoot him and save yourself the boredom.

There was a time when Michael Jackson was revered as the King of Pop. Then came a time when he attracted negative publicity as much as lemonade attracts wasps. Finally, it is now the time that we feel truly sorry for this man.

This 'movie' is another reason to. I promised a rabid Michael Jackson fan to watch it with her. You know the type of fan -- someone who tells him- or herself to like everything the object of affection ever did. While watching this movie, which she had seen twice already, I realized how far this fandom goes. Probably far enough to rate this movie above a 1/10, as some people miraculously did.

The movie attempts to be a parody of many other movies and series, most notably Cast Away, Lost and Jurassic Park. Unfortunately, it fails miserably at any level. The acting does not save the absolutely horrible story, the filming has the quality of a too-often played video tape, the special effects were better executed in Be Kind Rewind (for those who do not now this movie: with aluminum foil)... All this would be funny if the movie managed to be, well, funny. Unfortunately, it is not. It hurts to watch this.

And then there is Michael Jacksons appearance in this garbage. He appears on a projection screen to deliver an important message, and manages to come across as mobile as Jabba the Hutt and as serious as a 4-year old. Just when I thought "who is the terrible person that lured this poor man into participating in this movie and yet again making a total fool of himself", I (finally) reached the ending credits and discovered that the movie was actually partially shot at Jackson's Neverland ranch. In other words: He. Likes. It.

This movie, and Jackson's involvement in it, is truly disturbing. Do not watch it even for the "haha, a movie in the IMDb Bottom 100" effect. Or be warned.

As an indie filmmaker, I try to at least make a decent film . This piece of ____ was beyond low budget. It was shot on video and not 24P mini-DV at least. The look and feel of this was just baaaad. I met the director a few years ago at ShowBiz Expo in LA and he was talking about that book, Film-making for dummies that he was putting together. I thought this little video was going to be something but I guess I was wrong. He could have brought the value up a little by shooting 16mm film instead of that awful video. The plot was stupid as well as the acting and all the fake green screen and sound and the whole nine yards. I had a choice tonight to rent any movie and made the wrong choice. Damn!!!!! I did buy JoyRide which was a hell of a movie. Maybe the director should read real motion picture books on film-making and not try to cut corners when trying to make a low budget flick. Maybe he should learn from the masters who made, Night of the living dead and The Evil Dead and Chain saw massacre. just to name a few of the all time low budget great hits. This is one video that should have stayed dead. I cannot call it a film because he did not use film.

This movie (even calling it a movie is an overstatement) is ridiculously horrible. Normally a huge fan of Eric Roberts in "B" list movies, this tragedy of a flick makes me question his real B list clout! And Charlie, please go back to hoping for a Diagnosis Murder revival rather than this.....you can't blame the nameless eye candy (uhhum...beauty pageant members) for participating in this weak movie, but YOU are a former TV star man! Pull yourself together. Don't even get me started on Stuart Pankin. For the sake of all that is good Stuart, you should have seen this was not necessarily a real movie! Bryan Michael Stoller exemplifies absolute genius only in the fact that he was able to dupe anyone into investing in this picture (money or time).

Really, this was no parody or spoof movie although it tries on a 2nd grade level. Mostly, it is poor writing and acting and camera work and editing and....well poor everything. I watched it because I read an article in some mag about agent MJ's involvement and my interest was peaked due to the lawsuit in which he was involved. I now wonder if the only reason they show him from the shoulders up in the movie is because he, like at the trial, showed up wearing pajama bottoms and barely lucid (wait a second, is he ever really considered lucid?...I digress). And Agent MJ? Is that the best they could come up with for a name for his character? Sheez. What a startling piece of originality! Or, maybe that was supposed to be funny? Putting Marriott into the movie was a nice touch at first, but overdone and annoying after all is said and done.

Spare yourself the grief of watching......don't say I didn't warn you.