The Island

I made darn sure to read the novel first, before pursuing the film itself. A real Benchley fan, I was curious about this film, as "Jaws" and "The Deep" had both left great impressions on film, as as the novels were packed with constant suspense. Well, I ended up reading the novel "The Island" only knowing one thing about it: Pirates. The book itself is a real piece of literature. This may be a single opinion by myself, but I was in utter shock, and at the edge of my nerves while digesting a novel filled with compelling action and suspense. It was my smart decision to first read the book, that ultimately set me with a certain understanding, which could have been a real misunderstanding otherwise.

The story has a man, Blair Maynard (Michael Caine), who, upon working for a magazine, eyes a news story about mysterious disappearances in a particular area off the coast of Florida. Against the wishes of his employer, Blair finds a way to put the story to good use, and decides to investigate the nearby locations surrounding the events. He does, however, have one problem: He has custody of his son for the time being. Swamped with this incredible story, Blair has no choice but to take his son along the expedition. Maynard also uses this trip as "bonding time" with his son. After numerous events (most of which are unseen in the film) lead them to a small resort island, a fishing trip on the side turns into a nightmare beyond words as Blair and his son are taken hostage, and held captive by a community of rough, gritty pirates. Blair is then used as a tool for petty survival tactics, while his son is brainwashed by the menacing beasts.

The book is, as I said, very hard to digest, as Benchley endures us with sordid, if not explicit details. A lot of people claim to despise the film, with various reasons counting. Some say it suffers from a lack in character development, or a rushed plot, or anything else that has been stated. Truth, a lot of complaints are made with good reason. The film is seemingly rushed, as most moments concerning the exposition of the story are missing in the film. Benchley wrote the script, so I find it hard to believe that a finalized print as it was, could be the result of his script. Either the film ran much longer, and was cut drastically by imposition of the studio, OR, Benchley kept straight to the book, without explaining certain elements that should have been looked over. In the full picture of things, this film is both loathed and adored. I personally had no problem with it. Seeing as I read the book prior to watching the film, I can attest to the fact that it does, in fact, go directly by the book, except for some segment that obviously didn't work.This film also marks the rumor that Caine walked on the set, and snubbed a check. Knowing the character development, and specific thoughts on marked incidents, I could read into the reality, and depth to which all the characters are representing. I guess what I am saying, is that if we all read the book, then watched the film, it would certainly be more acceptable and entertaining a film. For all I know, the film could actually be seen much friendlier if edited the right way. There could easily be a totally different film sitting in a vault somewhere such as Richard Donners version of "Superman II". I doubt we will ever know about it, or if that is even an accurate speculation. Even so, the film is interesting enough, if just a little rushed in the opening. It eventually slows it's pace, and makes for a good action film. My final stand is that it deserves at least a good watch. You might like it.

I wasn't sure what to expect with THE ISLAND. One critic thought it was smelly fish chum and another thought it was a great modern-day pirate story. I originally thought it was a sea creature story like Jaws.

I was thrilled to watch it this morning and discover that it is that rare breed of a film: so much is wrong like bad dialog & unlikely situations, bad acting from every single extra in the film (casting call at the community college everybody!!), kid turns WAY too quickly against dad but dad is probably the most incompetent dad you'll see (hey, this is much better than Disneyland...hired the worst pilot on the face of the planet because you're too cheap to pay for a boat and now held captive in a 3rd world nation. Thanks dad!), cheezy violence, that music that plays during the violent ship attacks would work for Errol Flynn but not here.

But it's films of this badness that can be more fun than so-called great films. Especially the first time you watch them. I'm the type that seeks out films like Bad Taste, Hysterical, Evil Dead and The Island because they go against the copycat stream of Hollywood films.

NOTE: I would've spanked that kid within an inch of his life and I don't even believe in physical punishment of children. I think we all agree here! LOL

This is one of the most entertaining films I've seen recently. The pirates are believable; I enjoyed their antique English dialogue. I do not understand why the viewer ratings for this film are so low; I would give it an 8 out of 10.

This film is a true oddity. In some ways it could have been a good children's film, with oddball pirates and exotic locations, but unfortunately is full of nudity and violence, particularly at its gory climax. Some truly bizarre scenes, such as the pirate who sets light to his hat during raids, a mating ritual involving some kind of mud and an otherwise naked man who carries a leather pouch in front of his genitals when he turns up on a hunt party. Intermingled among this weirdness is some intended comedy, sometimes inappropriate, such as when one pirate sniffs another's feet during a burial at sea. No doubt it is things like this which has earned the film a cult status.

But viewed as an adult film, it makes little sense. This starts early in the film when a gun shop is quite happy to sell a weapon to a 12 year old boy (are US gun laws really this slack?). Next Michael Caine decides to take his son with him on what is a potentially dangerous trip (his son wants Disneyland). Next a wacko pilot (and his pet pig) take Caine and son to Navidad where they are flagged down when trying to land (no explanation for this is given) and the plane crashes. The pilot is remarkably chipper about this. And this is merely the first 20 minutes before we meet the pirates and their peculiar ways.

This bizarreness does make the film strangely watcheable.

Michael Ritchie's telling of Peter Benchley's novel "The Island" is a true study in contrasts. "The Island" stars Michael Caine as Blair Maynard, an investigative reporter from NY in Miami looking into a rash of mysterious disappearances involving pleasure craft near the Caribbean island of Navidad. While on a fishing trip with his son, they are captured by a band of buccaneers directly descended from the fearsome 17th century pirate L'Olonois. The younger Maynard (Jeffrey Frank) is adopted by the murderous clan while Blair is kept alive only long enough for him to act as stud for a widowed pirate wench. Can he escape and rescue his son before he has outlived his usefulness? The contrasts in this film are not so much with the material as with the actors involved. The set-up scenes with the fishermen and the pleasure boaters are acted with the conviction and style of an in-house furniture store commercial. The night scenes are so poorly lit that one might need Braile subtitles to follow the action and the ending is a true letdown. On the other side of the doubloon -- the film is true to Benchley's meticulous research into the habits, tactics, speech and appearance of his piratical villains and Jean David Nau and his crew are well acted by David Warner and others. The pirate colony is an interesting glimpse into how the pirates may have existed in the 1600's and the suspense building up the pirate attacks is heart felt indeed. Not a cinematic masterpiece by any stretch of the imagination, but for those with a thirst for adventure and an interest in pirates, this movie delivers.