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?).

While traveling with a team of misses for the dispute of the Miss Galaxy, the airplane piloted by Maximus Powers (Eric Roberts) and Mike Saunders (Charlie Schlatter) crashes in an isolated, where lays Noah's Ark protected by the Jurassic Pork. While the group fight to survive, alien apes plot to use the ark to destroy the human race and dominate planet Earth.

I like parodies, but "Miss Castaway" is an offense to human brains. The awful story and the special effects are very, but really very bad. There are spoofs with "Lost", "Castaway", "Jurassic Park", "Sixth Sense", "Titanic", "Planet of the Apes", "Raiders of the Lost Ark", "Congo", "MIB", "Perfect Storm", "Austin Powers", "Jaws", "Mission Impossible", "Close Encounters of the Third Kind", "Star Wars" and "Hulk", but the problem is that most of them are very silly and not funny. In the end, the trailer is better than the film. My vote is four.

Title (Brazil): "Missão Quase Impossível" ("Mission Almost Impossible")

Do the following: Get a copy of this movie and a friend. Wager the friend $10 that they can't sit through this entire movie. They cannot divert their gaze or be distracted by anything. Now watch your friend. Win or lose, you get $10 of entertainment.

It angers me to no end when people see a movie and are quick to give it 1 out of 10, or sum up their thoughts with "it sucked". (And when asked "Why?", they respond, "Just because." Arrgh.) That is why this movie exists. It's sole purpose is for me to say, "There! THIS is a horrible movie! THAT is 1 out of 10!".

This movie is absolutely appalling.

While the recent trend of movie parodies has forced them to become increasingly formulaic, this movie falls short in every single aspect. It's not funny. It's not entertaining. And for some of the parodies, it's completely inaccurate! Horrible acting. Unfunny dialogue. A witless story. Terrible "special effects". One INANE gag after another. And to make matters even worse, there isn't even gratuitous nudity to somehow make it even fleetingly worthwhile.

This movie leaps past idiotic, stumbles over stupid, and lands face first on moronic. Even I, who loves a good "check your brain at the door" movie, found myself physically agitated watching this. This movie isn't even "Hard Ticket To Hawaii" so-terrible-it's-good bad... IT'S JUST BAD.

NOTE: I actually challenged a friend to watch this as described above. Not only couldn't he make it all the way through, but he had a headache and needed a couple minutes afterward because he felt a little ill. True story.

I could not accentuate this rating any more... a resounding 1 out of 10!

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.