good back-story, and good acting

Excellent, Without a doubt!!

a film so unique, intoxicating and bizarre that it not only demands another viewing, but is also forgivable as a satirical comedy where the jokes eventually take the back seat.

Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

Yes, it's just another wilderness survival reality show, right? But then, not really. Seeing the initial ten contestants, it's clear that many will drop out quickly, and they did. It is not until later episodes when the stress and stubborn egos take over to create an interesting scenario of self destruction. All the common aspects are here to see. The eager drinking of dangerous raw surface water. The reluctance to construct shelter. The tendency to sit idle and ignore the needs of basic sustenance. Only two of the contestants have the skills to meet the challenges to any degree, much to the dislike of all the others. They then become targets of attacks and bullying.The twist on this is the volume of genuine currency to burden contestants as they must carry it, but also entice them to spend it on frivolities for highly inflated costs. The eventual result is quite amusing as a group of angry and wasteful individuals abuse and deprive other contestants as they see high levels of waste as necessity. As with all bullies, the levels of arrogance and denial reach the standard heights as the larger group behaves like nothing more than a street gang of thugs.Then the fun begins. Losing members, which included the leading thug that orchestrated the abuse, the group of bullies is forced to even ground with their two victims. As turnabout is fair play, the bullies then suffer the consequences and the expected tantrums are the result, even to the point of destroying $60,000+ in cash. At this point, I have yet to see the ending of this. The former bullies appear eager to destroy an incredible windfall to merely coddle their crippled egos as they display their intense emotional personal challenges, and an incredible level of denial.

In this review I will first look at the show itself and then at the possibility that, when this review is written (April 2017, halfway into Season 1) the first series has, perhaps unintentionally, become a social metaphor for things actually happening. Those reading this review in the future -- they say the IMDb database will outlive everyone currently alive on the planet at this time -- might want to refresh their early history of the 21st century.1. The show.As far as these unique, reality-TV hybrids go, this one (to borrow a phrase from the other side of the Pond), is a corker. The concept is clever as heck. A bunch of strangers with an odd mix of skills have to survive on a literal "deserted island" which, depending on your POV, could be Heaven or Hell.(Notice for example how, in the first season, the young lady with the screen subtitle "21 year old Organic Farmer" seems to be almost on vacation, wears a bikini most of the time in spite of the "bugs," and more often than not the others have stop their drama and go looking for her, only to find her sunbathing on a tree branch!) There are two "hooks." The first, which is obvious, is that you can buy "overpriced" survival stuff out of your ongoing winnings as a reward for reaching "benchmarks." The second hook, not so obvious but far more interesting, is that, you are supposed to make decisions and achieve these benchmarks AS A GROUP -- a concept, it soon becomes clear, that goes against tens of thousands of years of Human Nature.2. The Social Metaphor.In 2017, our society is having some issues with traditional political demographics. I believe that intentionally or unintentionally this show has become a metaphor for those issues.Almost from the first episode, the group ultimately fragments into two smaller groups, one with four people (the majority) and one with two (the outliers). Significantly, the two outliers are the strongest individuals in the group, physically. This smaller group includes the aforementioned tough-as-nails female "organic farmer" and an ex-military guy with a friendly personality who gives the impression he could survive a nuclear war if he really had to.(If you were an odds-maker, all else being equal, you would bet on the two outliers as the most likely to make it to the finish.) Almost immediately, the majority creates a "narrative" that they have the right to use their majority status to make decisions on the money ... even though the Rules make it clear that money belongs to EVERYONE, at least in theory. This creates major resentment among the two stronger, tougher, outliers. The "liberal majority" also convince themselves they are acting honourably, spending the money on camping gear and food FOR THEMSELVES, even as the two outliers are forced to sleep in the wild, without protection from the elements. Which includes brutal, nightly, rainstorms.Notwithstanding the self-delusion, this turns out to clearly be a false narrative, and as the "Liberal Democracy" implodes, the two outliers ("populists" in my example) gradually take control of the game, bringing to the fore deep-seated resentments about what became of THEIR money during the time when the majority treated themselves like royalty.***Addendum**** Putting this in the review for the historical record because I believe episode 1.8 will be taught at university some day. Remember, the guys behind these reality shows get "big bucks" for anticipating every possible outcome when they make the RULES. That said, don't think they anticipated that, of the 4 remaining players, the two charged with carrying the accumulated prize money from target to target would "blackmail" the other two by threatening to destroy the cash they had won so far unless the other two agreed to group-buy food and a tent for them. The other two hold their ground and FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THE HISTORY OF TV GAME SHOWS, the other two make good on their threat, start a fire, and burn 10s of 1000s of dollars. Not making this up. Some day there will be a course on "snowflakes" with a "sense of entitlement." Professors teaching Game Theory now have their perfect textbook example of LOSE-LOSE. The two money-burners may be psychologically scarred for life. And somewhere deep in Hollywood, an exec is being called out, "HEY WHY DIDN'T YOU ANTICIPATE THAT?"

"Stranded" is a reality competition that feels familiar. Ten people isolated on a tropical island have to face the hardships of nature and survive forty days if they are to collect prize money. Naturally, there will be outwitting, outplaying and outlasting if the contestants are to win the million dollars in cash.But this survival show is the best I have seen thus far. It comes closest to breaking down the players and exposing the basic principles by which they lead their lives.Without discussing the mechanics of the show or its hardships, let me say its hardships are real and are both physical and emotional. These are not survivalists nor have they trained for what lies before them. In fact, it seems that they have almost no knowledge of how the game will be played until they arrive in Fiji with only the clothes on their backs.The contestants are all young adults--what some would call millennials. However, this is not merely an exploration of the psyches of millennials. Principles are at play that are common to all generations.In just the first few episodes, we see how far people will go to rationalize their own impulses. We see them reacting out of fear in ways that may surprise them when they review their actions later. And we see heroes emerge--those who stand up against injustice in the face of seemingly insurmountable odds. The definition of real strength manifests itself. See if you can guess from the start which players will be the virtuous and which will give into their baser instincts. Some may surprise you.This is drama and suspense mixed with some humor. And if you pay close attention, you may see the exposure of some common beliefs about social goods as mere fallacies.

I am an older reviewer who -- shockingly -- had never seen a reality show like this before, stumbled on it by accident, and got hooked.Over the years I have developed respect for the writers and thinkers who argue the entertainment of the time reflects the gestalt, the angst, of that time.Frankenstein was written at the turn of the 20th century when people were afraid of electricity, by the 1950s people were afraid of radiation and spacemen, by the 60s and 70s we were afraid of wealthy megalomaniacs trying to take over the world, and more recently we have been afraid of turning into unthinking, unfeeling zombies. IS IT JUST ME or, with hindsight, do these shifts seem somewhat prophetic? So they drop a bunch of kids with very limited survival skills on an island, give them a 'max' prize if they succeed, twist the rules so that "majority rules" and then ding them for every bad choice along the way?(In Marketing this is called a "self liquidating" campaign -- by the end of the show, there will be very little cash left, the kids will have worked basically for free, and the producers/sponsors will make out like bandits) Again I ask, given the current civil strife in the US -- today March 23 2017, financial guru Doug Casey remarked "What's going on in the US now is a culture clash. They don't just dislike each other and disagree on politics; they can no longer even have a conversation. They hate each other on a visceral gut level" -- so is it any wonder that, in short order, the group here is too busy fighting among themselves to even remember why they were on the island in the first place? The teaser at the open asks how much people will spend to "stay alive?" That is not what the show is about. The show is about the lengths people will go to feel good about who they think they are.Just like in real life.