Add a Review

  • Warning: Spoilers
    ... how many people rented this movie just to see Kelly Brook's boobies? I did, and am not ashamed to admit it... well, much.

    Anyway, there's about three minutes max of boobies in the film's 90 minute runtime, albeit a lot of bikini shots throughout. Sure, it's shallow to view a film like that, but no one is really going to watch Three as an adult thriller, are they? With so-so acting, quite poor editing/continuity and a pointless voodoo subtext, this film rarely drags and is watchable throughout, albeit never particularly any good. I've seen plenty worse (for the genre, then "Swept Away", aka Ritchie's Folly springs to mind) and the characters are reasonably developed.

    Occasionally the script is trite, and you can't help but feel a little sympathetic for Jack (Billy Zane, Brook's real-life boyfriend) and the way he's been treated. Maybe it's Zane's vague likability in a boorish role that enables him to not become the villain he's meant to be.

    But we watched it for the boobies, right?
  • imdb-138418 May 2006
    5/10
    Three
    Warning: Spoilers
    Went to see this tonight with my wife and we were surprised at a couple of things which I think are worth mentioning.

    The film itself was quite watchable but not terribly chilling. Kelly Brook has certainly come on since her days presenting the Big Breakfast that's for sure. Her acting isn't out of the Meryl Streep school but she managed to carry the role fairly convincingly. Billy Zane was actually excellent as the paranoid and obsessed arrogant husband and Juan Pablo Di Pace was also good as the young Brazilian (or Spanish) love rival. The main problem with the film is the script. It is seriously flawed mainly due to the fact that the whole thing is based on the idea of a voodoo curse which Juan Pablo's ex imposes on him. The whole voodoo thing is totally unnecessary and actually inhibits the film's attempt at desert-island realism. Without it the film would have been much better. A jealous husband and a sexy young Brazilian boat-hand eyeing up his wife is story enough. The small twist at the end is sort of predictable but a nice touch anyway. The film could have done with a few more such twists and thought.

    Our score of 5/10 is about as much as we could muster on a wet Monday evening. The locations and cinematography were exotic and the sexy scenes were, well sexy. Kelly is a lovely looking girl and my wife said Juan Pablo isn't bad either!
  • BA_Harrison23 September 2014
    When I imagine being shipwrecked on a remote island, with nothing to eat except for what I can catch in the sea, the sun beating down, and only the rags I was washed up in to wear for the foreseeable future, it's not an appealing prospect. When I imagine the same situation, only in the company of busty Brit babe Kelly Brook, whose entire wardrobe consists of a tiny white bikini and a green chiffon scarf, being so far away from civilisation suddenly seems much more bearable…

    In Three (AKA Survival Island), boat-hand Manuel (Juan Pablo Di Pace) finds himself stranded on a deserted island with Jennifer (played by voluptuous Brook) after a fire on a chartered yacht forces them overboard. Manuel takes a liking to Jennifer ('cos, you know, he's not blind, or gay) but he's barely had time to acquaint himself with the lovely lady before another survivor is washed up on the island: Jennifer's husband Jack (Billy Zane), who's none too happy at seeing Manuel eyeing up his tasty wife. Two's company and three's a crowd, as the saying goes, and pretty soon Jack and Manuel are at each other's throats, and with Jennifer eventually succumbing to Manuel's charms, it ain't going to end well.

    There's no two ways about it, Three is utter trash. But it's entertaining trash. Kelly Brook can't act to save her life but she's got a killer set of curves, and with the gorgeous gal strutting around in her swimsuit, occasionally taking it off for a swim or to have sex in the surf, I was never bored. Zane overacts for all he's worth, but he doesn't care—he was too busy hooking up with Brook in real life to care about giving a decent performance. Juan Pablo Di Pace is forgettable as the Latino hunk, but he serves a purpose: he's there to for the ladies to lust over while the guys are drooling over Ms. Brook's bod.
  • alankaboot26 September 2019
    His wife betrays him for food with the one who burned their ship or their boat and eventually she is the heroine. What's this?
  • How pointless, hideous characters and boring film. Saved by brief sex scenes, mad witch, gorgeous desert island and Brooks body. The plot is tenuous, the characters are shallow and unlikeable. Having said that I did manage to watch it all, mainly because I was totally transfixed by the jiggling and kind of hoping that her character would come good in the end. The film was well shot, well directed but perhaps the casting let it down in some ways. Disappointing. Really summed the review up in the first line but this website dictates that you need to write 10 lines minimum. It would be better to spend the time watching another film.
  • wes-connors14 December 2016
    An incredibly beautiful woman washes up on the beach. She turns out to be a "teaser" as writer-director Stewart Raffill flashes back to what happened before a boating mishap. Restarting, two wealthy couples arrange for a yacht in the Bahamas to take them out for some fishing and fun on the water. One couple may really be shark food, apparently. Focus on the other couple, balding but rich Billy Zane (as Jack) and his beautifully proportioned wife Kelly Brook (as Jennifer). They hire muscular wavy-haired Juan Pablo Di Pace (as Manuel) to serve drinks and help out on the boat. You get the picture? If not, you don't pick up signals very well...

    Now, also part of the set-up is an arousing local native, hot-tempered Maria Victoria Di Pace. She has a fight with Mr. Pablo Di Pace before the ship hits the sea. You should note how they slap each other around. As a parallel, Ms. Brook likes to be tied up while Mr. Zane reels it in...

    Maria likes to draw pentagrams and play with her voodoo doll. This seems to drive the plot of the "Three" sex-obsessed "Survival Island" inhabitants. Women must end up on top. It is silly in the opening scenes and gets sillier later. So, why is this film any good? A couple of reasons...

    You should not be asking how Mr. Zane washes up on the beach with bloody feet. Maybe he found an air pocket under water and ran around on sharp sea shells; possibly, the baggies covering Zane's feet slipped off just before he reappears. Ignore the voodoo and incongruities. If a Bic pen can survive, so can a cigarette lighter. Mr. Raffill and his crew, especially photographer Tony Imi, skillfully present pretty scenes in a luscious location. The women and Pablo Di Pace are incredibly beautiful, but the star attraction is absolutely Brook. Her wardrobe consists mainly of a white bikini and a big, sheer green shawl. She fits and fills the screen quite nicely. Brook never stops titillating and never has to try.

    ***** Survival Island/Three (11/16/2005) Stewart Raffill ~ Kelly Brook, Billy Zane, Juan Pablo Di Pace, Maria Victoria Di Pace
  • SPaS3 October 2006
    Warning: Spoilers
    Wow! This movie is fantastic! The surface is all straight-to-video B-movie "Wild things"-wannabe "watch-it-once-then-forget-for-good", but under the surface lies both a clever satire on, AND a perfect study of, human nature. Paul Verhoeven should love this movie! Three people wash ashore of a deserted island: we got your basic WASP (the always underrated Zane), his trophy wife (the beautiful Brook) and your basic mcjob cabana boy.

    Without a link to 'the world', things start to go "lord of the flies": in isolation, where your knowledge, money and social status mean nothing and you are measured by your primal abilities - hunt for food, build a shelter - the woman truly becomes a trophy as the cabana boy finally has his day, being supreme to the so-called "educated man".

    Now I believe some people would call this movie thin and questionize the main trio's actions and reactions. Well for those sore comments I say, open your eyes. If you want proof, watch 2 episodes of "Big brother". The darker side of humanity is back-stabbing, oversexed, lying, cheating, provocative... and violent. As a disclosure, let me sum up the characters for you.

    The cabana boy = the player. All us guys know he's the type who doesn't give a damn for women's mind but fakes it damn well (proof: if there were other women on the Island, he wouldn't rest until he'd slept with all of them). Around this self-indulgent male women lose control of themselves and fall for his brown eyes, even WHEN he turns out to be very persistent on the sex business (respect, yeah)... and even though he said she could decide what happens between them (yea, right). Women still fall for this... His motto: "Don't think about him, he doesn't deserve you. Let's dance"

    The woman = the trophy. Does she control the situation or vice versa? Beats me. All I can say is, whatever she told her husband on the aisle turns out to mean squat when there's either a more providable alpha male (or a puppy-eyed cabana boy) around. Her mottoes: "Can't we just forget this ever happened?" or "It was your fault!"

    The WASP = turns out to be the bad guy, (again). Yep, no sympathy for the white collar. Even though he's a hard-working and loving husband. He sees the cabana boy making moves on his wife - a situation NOT helped by the fact that his wife tries to deny it - so he does what he'd do in the world also when there's competition, he works double time. To provide shelter and food for his wife. Who just can not be thankful for his self-sacrifice. Ironically, this way he's away from "home" more AND stressful when he comes back, with his mind full of doubts from the time he was away! So he's kind of "pushing his wife" away, patting the way for the cabana boy. Wonderful metaphor of today's competitive lifestyle, alienated, unthankful housewifes and opportunist cabana boys!

    "Three" - racist, pessimistic and extreme... or clever and VERY observant.

    PS. Why the totally unnecessary Voodoo-mumbo-jumbo side plot?
  • Bowling_King18 September 2006
    Warning: Spoilers
    The very reason I watched this film due to the reason that there was a super hot chick on the cover of the DVD which is Kelly Brooke. I didn't exactly sit through every single minute of it. the story was boring. The ending was bad. What was with the voodoo thing?

    There was a major goof during the first time, Kelly striped to bath in the sea water. She striped completely (top and bottom) and yet when she came back on shore, she was wearing her bikini bottom and was only topless.

    Needless to say, that was the high side of the film most guys will be watching. Other than that... there was the sex scene which was quite interesting.

    Other than that, most of the time, I was ogling at Kelly in her white bikini.
  • neil-4761 October 2009
    Warning: Spoilers
    Three is a glorious piece of trash cinema.

    There are two strong arguments in favour of it, and they both belong to Kelly Brook. Washed up on a very small but highly photogenic desert island with nothing but a yellow cardie, a chiffon scarf, and a tiny white bikini (which she sheds at the drop of a hat, not that hats are very much in evidence), she is wholly dependent on Spanish boat boy Juan Pablo Di Pace for survival. Then, after a couple of days her rich husband Billy Zane washes up, assumes the two of them have been at it like rabbits and bingo! We have an eternal triangle.

    Actually, that's not so bad as a concept. Where Three falls down is in the execution, for what then transpires is the most lurid of melodramas, based on the improbable supposition that Zane's character, faced with survival on the most marginal of terms, will prove to be so insecure, paranoid, and downright delusional, that he will monomaniacally devote critical resources towards the destruction of his imagined rival. OK, so this situation isn't arrived at in a single leap, but that is basically what goes wrong.

    Zane, of course, never someone to knowingly underperform, chews the attractive scenery (literally as far as the coconuts are concerned) with relish. Brook overflows from the bikini very nicely which seems to be the sole reason the two men lock horns, because it's surely not for her thoughtful problem-solving approach to their predicament: she brings all the depth of a very shallow puddle to the character. Only Di Pace emerges with dignity, giving us a credible boatboy who finds himself in a situation which is completely beyond his control. And I don't mean the shipwreck.

    On the other hand, the movie is one of those which is so bad as to be fairly entertaining!
  • joel-kalin19 July 2006
    1/10
    Three
    Warning: Spoilers
    A holiday on a boat, a married couple, an angry waiter and a shipwreck is the reason to this films beginning.

    I like boobs. No question about that. But when the main character allies with whoever happens to have the most fish at the moment, mostly by having sex with them and playing the role of the constant victim, my anger just rises to a whole new level. Take two guys (a husband and another man), put a pure bombshell woman in the middle of them, ad a deserted island, subtract all her moral issues, ad a whole bunch of moral issues to the men and mix it in a big bowl of arguments, fish and a zippo lighter and you will come up with a piece of junk movie like this.

    The acting is, I would say, good. There are some bloopers but not many as far as i could see. The main female character makes me sick. This is due to her lack of moral values. The man with the most fish get's her attention. Even though one of them is her husband, she sees no problem with being unfaithful with (Manuel) the other man because "I must do it to survive". How can you justify having sex with another man for fish when your husband is 30feet away? And he won't even benefit from it? The female character has absolutely no problems to justify anything that she does. If she doesen't get approval for her actions, she's a victim.

    I recommend everyone to see this movie. This is the kind of movie that will make just about everything else you see this year a pleasant movie experience.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I enjoyed this very controversial film, in a romantic setting, and forgive most of the faults that others have pointed out. It somewhat reminds me of the 1957 movie "Paradise Lagoon". In both cases, we have a pleasure yacht filled with vacationers, that sinks. Some of the people manage to survive to wash up on the shore of a deserted tropical island. The main point of both films is that the low man, in status, in the conventional world, becomes the hero under the primal conditions, with his practical skills in providing shelter and food without a lot work, or much to work with. Hence, he is now considered the alpha male by the young woman(Kelly) or women, who swoon in his presence. Eventually, the other man(men) catches on and becomes somewhat useful. In this film, Manuel fills the role of the man with more practical skills, while Kelly's husband, Jack, comes across as less skilled in basic survival technology, and thus is envious. Besides, Manuel is more handsome than Jack and is Kelly's age, whereas Jack is considerably older, Kelly being like a trophy wife. However, Jack arrived on the island several days later(where had he been?), in rather bad shape. Thus, he didn't get the same opportunity to show what he could do in survival skills......I would like to discuss in some detail several controversial scenes.......The voodoo shenanigans of Manuel's angry shorebound girlfriend appear in 3 places, and many reviewers believe they should not have been included. These seem to prejudice Manuel toward making a bad mistake. Early in the film, an angry Manuel makes a crucial mistake in throwing a paper towel behind him, not noticing that it landed on a lite gas burner, starting a fire that consumed the entire yacht, resulting in many deaths. In the second instance, we see a number of flashes of his girlfriend just prior to his accidental death, in a fight to the death with Jack. You may not believe in the power of voodoo, but that is the reason it is included, like it or not.....In the rape scene, Kelly runs into the water after livid Manuel, who is carrying his fishing spear and hoping to catch Jack, who stole his goggles so that he could be successful in catching reef fish. When she catches him, he throws down his spear and begins chasing-wrestling with her as they move toward the shore. Near the edge of the shore, he pulls her down and lays on her, despite her objections. He pulls down her bikini bottom, and begins thrusting. By this time, Kelly has given up resisting, and seems to enjoy it, despite her fear of her husband's response. Very sexy! Afterward, she seems not angry, if regretful. Now, she sees herself as more Manuel's woman, rather than Jack's. I think, in part, Manuel's action is a way of getting back at Jack for stealing his goggles......Should Kelly have told the rescuers that husband Jack was also on the island, if off fishing on the reef? Technically, of course, she should have. However, she and Jack were not on good terms. I think she just wanted to escape the whole scene, including Jack, whom she blamed for Manuel's death. The fact that she took Jack's cigarette lighter, he used to start fires, suggests she wished he would die on the island(OK, he should have run out of lighter fluid long ago!)......Yes, the whole segment involving Jack finding a small boat with a sizable hole in it, and towing it to shore by its tow rope, is absurd. He supposedly fixed it up some, without tools, and added some features, hoping to sail it to some inhabited place. As Kelly and Manuel discovered, when they stole the boat, Jack's patch up job didn't last long. Fortunately, they were close enough to shore to swim back. Did Jack hope they would steal the boat and drown? Not the way he ran after them as they launched the boat. But, once it was launched, I'm sure he wished this would happen......This film is frequently seen on late night TV, and is available for free at YouTube. Kelly, of course, is a joy to fill the screen, oozing sexiness, in or without, her bikini.
  • Okay you can send your brain to sleep while watching this but it's certainly watchable and a topless Kelly Brook, makes up for any failing in the acting, or script. It does actually improve as it goes along, with quite an interesting outcome. All in all it's actually a decent movie, if you get past the premise that being stranded on an exotic island with Kelly Brook, is way more remote (in chance), than the idyllic location.
  • It's amazing that Kelly Brook's character can actually be more dislikeable as the film goes on. You can create a drinking game every time you hear her British accent come out. Billy Zane seems to revel in the role, but I think it's because he gets to spend the shoot on an island and he doesn't have to shave his head.Juan Pablo Di Pace plays a good hornball.
  • I can only assume the previous posts came from execs at the production company...

    Attended the UK premiere last night. Zane and Brook attended (they probably knew I was gonna be there) and are undoubtedly stars, but what a turkey of a film. I felt sorry for them at times, when the audience erupted in laughter at what were serious 'thriller' scenes.

    But perhaps I was missing the point. Perhaps an element of tongue-in-cheek was intended. If so, pure genius. If not, career genocide.

    On the plus side, Zane always shines, and Brook can actually act a little. As the other half said (as we ran out the cinema, avec broken ribs), they can be forgiven for this film as they both seem like nice people! The scriptwriter, however, should be marooned.
  • The story started out well by quickly going into action where we see two couples, including Billy Zane and Kelly Brook, chartering a boat in some area like in the Caribbean. One of the boat crew is played by Di Pace who gets into a quarrel with his girlfriend on the dock. Well, things don't go well after that because the girlfriend puts a curse on him.

    They are now out on the ocean and there is an accident and one of the couple and Di Pace are the only survivors stranded on a tiny island with no way out. Tension begin to arise because of an attraction that is brewing between Pace and Brook. In the background, the ex-girlfriend is influencing the dynamics among the three individuals by using her voodoo powers. It all ends up with a final showdown between the parties I liked the premise of the story. It had good acting. Billy Zane is always a solid performer, albeit little bit over the top. Kelly Brook and Di Pace, both unknown to me did their part well. My problem with this movie is that the director or the person who wrote the script, seemed unsure whether this movie should be a supernatural story or a thriller. I suppose the movie can be both but if that was the case, the movie was not well executed for that purpose.

    I also had problem with Billy Zane's character in that we don't know whether his behavior is influenced by voodoo or whether it was innate within him. As you can see, the script should have been rewritten to flesh out those important details.

    Overall, a decent movie. I was going to give it a 4 but I am instead, going to give it a 5. In retrospect, it is not a bad movie. It is OK as a video movie but nothing else.
  • hall89512 August 2013
    After a voodoo-inspired disaster at sea three survivors wash up on a deserted island. The three survivors are unfortunately played by Kelly Brook, Billy Zane and Juan Pablo Di Pace. Unfortunate because none of the three can act. Of course Brook wasn't hired because someone was under the impression she was her generation's Katharine Hepburn. She's just here to fill out a bikini which she does admirably. Sadly the script does in fact call for her to speak and every time she does the movie suffers terribly. Remarkably though, hers is not the worst acting performance in this hideous movie. That dubious distinction goes to Zane who is laughably atrocious. For a guy who once had some semblance of a legitimate acting career this is quite a nadir. The third wheel, Di Pace, is for good reason an anonymous nobody. He has no talent whatsoever, his horrible delivery of dialogue at least provides some chuckles. Our trio of terrible performers play a trio of terrible characters. Brook and Zane play a spoiled rich couple. She's an airhead bimbo, he's an insufferable jerk. Di Pace plays a guy who works on a boat bringing insufferable rich jerks beer. He is rather insufferable himself and, sadly for him, never learned that you don't hit women who know voodoo. You don't sympathize with any of the three characters, you certainly don't root for any of them. Forget hoping they get off the island, you just wish they'd die so the movie could be over. It's only 90 minutes long but it seems absolutely interminable. There are only two things even remotely worthwhile about the movie, both of which are located directly beneath Brook's neck. Lousy story, lousy acting, some of the worst dialogue ever written. No intrigue whatsoever. Which of the two jerks on the island will the bimbo end up with? Who cares? All attempts to build drama and tension fail miserably. This is a clear candidate for any list of the worst movies ever made.
  • I don't know why everyone is so "up in arms" about this movie. I have definitely seen far worse. Granted, this is no artistic masterpiece, but the movie has an interesting premise, decent character development, good camera and more than acceptable sound. In addition, I was actually surprised to see that Billy Zane can actually do some pretty convincing acting.

    I would define this film as a pretty good thriller with a picture-postcard background. I am not a fan of Kelly Brook or her cleavage, but I still found this to be a rather entertaining movie. I recommend you watch it and judge for yourself...
  • jfarms19569 November 2013
    This movie has got to be for guys in their late teens to early 30s. The movie is dull and boring. The only thing going for this movie is the bikini babes. The beach scenes are beautiful. The water looks extremely refreshing and exhilarating. Rich guys vs poor guy. Testosterone city there. The clash of testosterone over the beautiful bikini hot babe. Boring. Boring. Boring. The jungle of the island looks frightening with the hollowed trees and snake. This movie is for guys only, females need not watch. I would give this movie a one, however, the twist in the ending makes up for the guy bikini candy (the female star). So ladies let your guy watch this substanceless movie. Go shopping or to the gym instead. This movie could be over in 30 minutes or less. Way, way too long.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Billy Zane--good actor. Juan PabloDi Pace--I'd never seen him in anything before, but he seemed like a reasonable actor. Kelly Brook--always nice to see her talents on display. That, and her acting skills. But this is an incredibly disjointed piece of cinema. Love triangle? Sure. Survival epic? Sure. Weird changes to make it seem like an art film? Sure. And way too many of those. Get to the Billy Zane "leaf goggles" and tell me I am wrong. It's not bad. It's just not good. It's just--well, just something I can't put my finger on. This is not a movie that you are going to recommend to a friend. I am a person who loves to watch movies again and again, trying to get the best parts, the best lines, the best scenes, and so forth locked into my mind. But you only need one viewing of this to accomplish that. If it's on in the background while I am doing something else, I may not change the channel, but this is not something I will actively seek out again.
  • Three (known as Survival Island in the good old' U.S. of A., which is a horrible title), is best known as that movie where Kelly Brook gets her knockers out. That aspect of the movie absolutely does not disappoint. But as grateful as I am that it provided that vital service, I wish it had at least one other reason for me to recommend it. 

    It's basically about three immoral, horrible people who get stranded on an island together after their boat is destroyed, and then proceed to do pretty horrible things to each other. It's not great, but I've seen much worse. Three has a TV movie quality to it, and if you watch it with the appropriate level of expectations, it's not bad. Would I have watched it if Kelly Brook wasn't in it? Maybe. That's more than I can say for most movies that exist solely as an excuse to ogle a really hot woman.
  • The best things in life are 'Three' (if you'll forgive the pun), or so the text on the back of the DVD box would have us believe. 'Three' is described as a steamy erotic thriller guaranteed to create an atmosphere so tense you can barely swallow for fear whilst at the same time it is full of hot performances with lavish sexual tension on the screen.

    This is what we are led to believe by the studio.

    Alas, like so many promises in life I fear these comments are a well intentioned attempt to try and hide the truth of the matter.

    And the truth of the matter is really very simple.

    The truth is printed on the front cover of the DVD where the crafty devils at the studio placed a rather attractive picture of the lead lady on the front cover of the DVD along with the words "Kelly finally exposes all." This, I believe, is a far better description of the true merits of the movie.

    If like me, you rented this film because you heard on the grapevine that Kelly Brook was actually filmed in the buff then I feel you represent the vast majority of aficionados of this rather delightful film, and let's be honest the storyline is ropey as hell, and the acting poor, and the characters are dislikeable. But does this matter? Not a jot.

    The film moves along at a fair pace, the location is fabulous and Kelly Brook is stunning. And to be honest it is a very big plus of this film that not once did I feel the need to fast forward to the more juicy scenes where Ms Brook really comes into her own as the lead lady.

    To try and wrap this film up as a thriller was unnecessary and really detracted from the film itself . We all know the real reason why anybody would rent this film, and to this end the movie does its job perfectly.

    All in all this film was not great, but hey, we all know what we wanted –and we got it. Can you really ask for anything more?
  • I can't believe that I am going to say this , but...........I really enjoyed this movie , from start to finish !

    It is completely off the wall, bordering on porn, in parts ,( well, Kelly Brook is in it ) and just plain mad ! But I still loved it.

    I actually found myself siding with Billy Zane's character , talk about being betrayed !!!!! And the way he transformed into action man / survivalist was hilarious.

    Also Kelly Brook can actually act , who knew? I think she played the part really well , I mean talk about " me me me " !

    All in all it was great entertainment, considering that there were only three actors for the most part of this, which , could potentially be pretty boring, but not this one !

    A few twists and turns kept me hooked , and I did like the ending !

    I do see Billy Zane and Kelly Brook in a different light having watched this , they are far better actors than I had assumed .

    Give It a go , it's kind of wierd fun !
  • Much better than I expected. Was expecting a B-grade skin flick and it is better than that.

    Plot isn't bad and has some good twists and intrigues. The director keeps things moving and the film doesn't overstay its welcome. Has some odd and pointless detours though, e.g. the voodoo stuff.

    No-star cast does OK. Even Kelly Brook, who isn't there for her acting ability, is reasonably convincing.
  • A wealthy couple are yachting in the Caribbean when their yacht catches fire. The couple and their crew abandon ship and the wife, Jennifer, a glamorous trophy wife much younger than her husband, ends up on a deserted island with Manuel, a handsome young crewman. Jennifer quickly realises that she needs the young man's help to find food and survive.

    I imagine that I am not the only viewer to assume that "Survival Island" would turn out to be a remake of "Swept Away", only a couple of years after the event. And why would anyone want to remake "Swept Away", one of the worst movies of the 21st century and the film responsible for sweeping away the acting career of its leading lady, Madonna? Well, "Survival Island" does have a twist not found in "Swept Away", a twist indicated by its alternative title, "Three". Jennifer's husband Jack has also survived, and washes up on the island two days later. Jack is at first grateful to Manuel, who has helped to rescue him, but his gratitude later gives way to jealousy as he begins to suspect that a romantic attachment is growing up between Jennifer and Manuel, who is younger and better looking than Jack.

    Perhaps the film should have been titled "Four", because Manuel also has a girlfriend, Maria. Admittedly, she was not on the yacht and does not end up on the island, but we see her back on the mainland doing a sort of voodoo dance, trying to put a curse on Manuel, whom she clearly suspects of being unfaithful to him.

    So is the film as bad as "Swept Away"? Well, not quite. Very few films are as bad as "Swept Away", which suffers from bad directing, harsh, glaring lighting, a leading man unable to speak English and the worst performance of Madonna's career. (Worse than "Body of Evidence", which is saying something). Little wonder that it swept the board at the 2002 Golden Raspberry Awards, including (inter alia) "Worst Picture", "Worst Actress" for Madge and "Worst Director" for her then husband Guy Ritchie. (The film's male lead, Adriano Giannini, unaccountably missed out on "Worst Actor")."Survival Island", by comparison, did not receive a single Razzie nomination.

    In terms of plot, "Survival Island" is as bad as the earlier film, or very nearly so. The "Maria" storyline is particularly bizarre, and for me it became even more so when I discovered that Manuel and Maria are played by brother and sister, Juan Pablo and Maria Victoria Di Pace. The initial sexual encounter between Jennifer and Manuel, like that between the characters played by Madonna and Giannini, seems to start off as rape and then turn into consensual sex. You don't have to be a feminist to find that tasteless and offensive. There were some other weird developments, such as the scene where Jack finds a boat and leaves it lying about for Jennifer and Manuel to steal, hoping that they will drown having failed to notice a hole in the bottom.

    In terms of acting, however, "Survival Island" would appear to have the advantage, if only in the sense that the terminally mediocre is better than the screamingly awful. Its equivalent of the Material Girl is the Cindy Crawford lookalike Kelly Brook, one of Britain's leading all-round celebrities of the noughties, part-time actress, part-time television personality and part-time lads-mag model. I had always imagined that Kelly had drifted into acting when some producer caught sight of her voluptuous curves in the pages of a lads-mag, but in fact she was originally destined for an acting career, studying at the Italia Conti Academy of Theatre Arts in London before drifting into modelling after winning a beauty contest. Here she does not really look like an alumna of so prestigious a stage school, but at least she learned enough there to avoid giving an exhibition of Bad Acting like the one given by Madonna in "Swept Away".

    Similarly, Juan Pablo Di Pace as Manuel is rather forgettable, but at least a forgettable performance is better than Giannini's, which was memorable for all the wrong reasons. The best acting comes from Billy Zane, who does at least look as though he knows what he is doing. Zane and Brook fell in love while making the movie and later got engaged, but this does not seem to have affected his acting. (It may have affected hers; I never sensed that Jennifer hated Jack as much as he hated her).

    So I think we can conclude that "Survival island" is not the worst ever "castaways on a desert island" film. I would, however, find it difficult to acquit it of the charge of being the second-worst. 3/10- appropriately enough in view of its alternative title.
  • makanut27 January 2006
    This began as a typical island movie with some disturbing twists. This movie kept interesting for about three minutes. It reminded me a lot of 'lord of the flies' just with two guys and a girl. There was a little passion flare but that about did it. the ending was quite good. I was pleased with it. the acting was believable in some areas i just think the story line needed something else. They had pretty poor special effects. To me it didn't quite make it. I enjoyed some parts of the movie but it just didn't 'thrill' If you are scared of most thrillers then this one should be okay to watch. so i give it a 5 out of 10. my boyfriend and i watched it and i gave it a 6 and he gave it a 4 so this is the reason for the 5. even though it had a bit of sexual scenes. they could of taken away the small amount of boob action and made it an M rating.
An error has occured. Please try again.