lousy survival movie


i like survival movies. i know all about the donner party, the u-571 "alive" story, and i've watched the one about the kids stuck on the ski lift freezing, "the way back" where they escape from a gulag and walk 4000 miles home, etc. this film is, i'm afraid, an exercise in making fun of the audience.

the disappointments and tragedies he keeps having aren't relevant or unique enough the way they're delivered. what many might appreciate as brilliant minimalism is more like a cheap joke here and since they didn't get any supplies to make a real film--almost like a metaphor for how unprepared he was and everyone is stunned by how few necessary supplies he had for his trip--they didn't have much to work with and the resulting film is just a let down.

i bet he's not proud of it. i'm sure he knows that people will feel totally insulted by what they tried to pass off here.

reply

The most disappointing thing for me was the incompetence of the protagonist. It's very hard routing for the idiot. He was very unprepared as you say. I got the feeling that if he doesn't want to survive that much, why should I care?

But apart from that I thought the film was quite well done. The idea of him just quietly getting on with the task of surviving without corny narration, or making him talk to a ball named Wilson was a novel approach, but it's just the lazy, dumb character that killed it for me.

reply

as a guy, i love "watching guys do stuff and try to figure out what they're doing". that's something that killed me about this thing; there are probably at least 20 minutes of watching him "do stuff" and most of the time--i'm 36 and somewhat technically adept--you have no idea what he's doing or why because he's totally silent and just suddenly goes and... "slowly climbs up the mast, looking down a few times to make us wonder if he'll fall, finally overdoing it at points where if he DID fall, he'd have to break both legs, a hip, pelvis, back or neck or die, just to... plug in an RCA-looking jack... because it... got unplugged? what was that for ANYWAY? lightning rod? other times, when you CAN figure out what he's doing/should do--like waiting a DAY to pump water out of the cabin--it's one of few "gems" and they... aren't that great; there are probably only a few, like the radio and taking out the sextant case that's so nice looking, kept safe in a cover and plastic wrapped. it's just, i'm sure it wasn't composed by retarded morons; i'm just calling it a B grade whipped-out half-@#$ed giddy joke and they had fun doing it that way for kicks.

reply

I'm not sure what the jack is but it looked like the antenna of his radio to me. Not sure why it came loose. In any case, it coming unplugged wouldn't cause the LED display on his radio to cut out, only a power issue or an internal electrical problem would do that. The biggest problem I had was his use of the sextant. Really? He'd leave it until he'd lost his GPS to learn how to use it? Might it be a good idea to have a vague clue of how to use it before going on the unsupported cruise around the Indian Ocean? You really need to read the manual in the life raft?



Possibly we're over thinking things too much, but when you've worked in professions or technical jobs that give you some insight, it can be hard to switch your brain off and enjoy a poorly researched movie. They spend millions on CGI, casting, props, catering etc. And yet they cannot make sure they get things right?

reply

as much as i cringe in terror because i respect IMDb discussions so much when i get a reply i was relieved to see that you're not really against me but actually, giving the cord he had to reattach validity is really important and in fact, "spending time" with him means more if it was striking that he's reading a manual; i happened to pass through that episode of "seinfeld" where they're pitching their show about "nothing" and he mentions "reading" and the guy says "you read; on the show?" sometimes it can work... they had a lot of good stuff but it just didn't grip or touch me enough.

reply

A couple times I caught myself telling him what to do next but the worst part was with the flares. He got in the shipping lane and I was thinking "get your flares ready." I got annoyed at how long he stared at the ships before he acted and then why did he decide to drown? Couldn't he see that boat coming toward him?

reply

I spent 20 years on commercial fishing boats, so there were some things that just screamed STUPID in this movie. For starters, the antenna connector would be a screw-in type that would never come loose, it would have been cranked tight on there when it was installed. Second, anybody with half a brain would have a couple of EPIRBs on board (Emergency Position-Indicating Radio Beacon), which would have gotten him picked up long before his boat sank, much less after he got into the raft. But then there would have been no movie. Also, the idea that he'd have one hand-held and two shooting flares is absolutely nuts. In fact, if he was sailing in the Indian Ocean he would also have a regular gun in addition to a flare gun with plenty of flares, and he could have shot at the windows on the bridge of the first ship that came by if the guys on watch were so spaced that they didn't see him. Also, the cover of a raft like that is supposed to have a highly radar-reflective surface so that ships could see him from a long way off. But he took the cover off, and didn't think to expose it when the ships were in sight?
And who goes to see like that without extra bilge pumps? Shoot, I had three working ones on a 32' boat and a couple spares to boot, plus a pump that worked off the main engine. So he's got one little handle that dribbles water out and he's got to sit there and pump for hours.
It's almost as if this movie is all about what NOT to do if you're gonna sail on the high seas.

And come on, couldn't they have made this without the obligatory sharks?

reply

he could have shot at the windows on the bridge of the first ship that came by if the guys on watch were so spaced that they didn't see him.


I would have loved to see something like that in the movie! Desperate action at its finest.

reply

thanks.
i'm not a sailor, but i was dissapointed by this guy's incompetence. perhaps the movie wanted to show us, that even the professionals don't know what they're doing.

reply

That is what I came on this board for, the EPIRB deal. I am a
diesel mechanic that works on trucks mostly, but some of my
other co-workers work on the big boats, like 30-200+ feet
with engines that range from a couple of 550 C.I.D. in size
to four 64 Liter engines. Anyway, after 17 years
of working around these guys(well they were out most of time
at the boat while was stuck at a shop, but you get my point),
conversations come up about stuff like EPIRBs, not to mention
there are these boating magazines that they send to the shop
and sit in the lunch room.

All this means that I know what an EPIRB is, and that all of
the sexton in the life raft, and trying to get the radio to
work earlier was pointless, because there is no way IN THE
WORLD that a boat like that would have an inflatable life
raft that did not have the EPIRB connected to it, and as soon
as it was inflated and in the water, it would be activated.
Most of them sit right up top on the cover/roof of the raft
with a strobe deal on it. There would be rescue guys sent
right to it. plus there is an EPIRB that activates when it
turns upside down, so when the boat capsized the first time
it would have went off, and depending where you are, either
the Coast Guard guys would come find you, or the U.S. Navy.

And one last thing, If you watch very closely in the movie
"Cast Away", when Hanks has the life raft, they make it
a very, very clear point that the bag that comes with the
life raft had got stuck and had to be cut off. That bag
not only had flares and first aid, but also and EPIRB, and
if he had the bag, there would be no Cast Away movie, because
he would have been rescued in the first day or two.

reply

Just watched this non-epic film. You said everything I was gonna say! This guy was so unprepared to be sailing in the Indian Ocean. He makes one mistake after another. In Castaway, the audience in on what he's trying to do and you root for him. In this film, you don't even know his name and you have no idea what he's doing from one minute to the next. What's he looking for in his half-sunk boat? Where is his Sat Phone? That could have dried out (I know, no movie.) I fly helicopters over the Pacific Ocean and we carry more stuff in our little helicopter than this guy carries his ocean going yacht. He should have had EPIRB, an ON-Spot, as well as his sat phone. How about a hand-held marine radio in a waterproof bag? When opens the old box with the sextant in it and there's a greeting card, I'm thinking he's gonna read it and we'll learn his name or something... "Dear Jim, please take my grandpa's sextant with you on your trip to the Indian Ocean. Good luck!" It's kind of cheap ripoff of Castaway, but without a good story or good cast.

reply

Exactly. In fact, there should have been an EPIRB in the boat, and another in
his raft. Many people actually lease/contract those rafts, due to the fact that
they need maintenance. They basically swap the raft out for another one like once
a year, cause the bottle and EPIRB need to be swapped out. The EPIRB has a battery
that only last so long and needs to be charged and/or replaced and the gas bottle
that inflates the raft needs to be checked to make sure the gas hasn't leaked out.
Not to mention the food rations expire along with the first aid kit has stuff that
expires in it. So to make sure you ALWAYS have a raft that you know will inflate,
you also can be sure that the EPIRB will work so they can rescue your ass, plus
have food/water/first aid thats good to go.

reply

He spoke for me, too . . . unfortunately, this kind of thing is happening a lot in movies in the "technological age." Almost every situation that used to provide the narrative drive in "survival stories" like this (and horror movies) is now pretty much moot - thanks to cell phones, GPS, Sat Phones, locator beacons, and other tech gadgets. So they have to start the movie out by explaining all that away - I always laugh when a movie like this starts out with the obligatory, "Damn, no cell coverage!" or "Damn, my GPS is smashed!" LOL! Who the hell goes to sea in a 40' boat in this day and age without a working GPS/locator system? You're telling me he remembered the sextant but not the Sat Phone? This is not nitpicking . . . it seriously undermines the whole endeavor. I remember seeing a movie called "30 Days of Night" (about vampires invading Barrow, Alaska - the northernmost and most remote town in the U.S. - during its Arctic Circle sunless phase), and the VERY first thing they did was have a guy (working for the vampires) burn every Sat/Cell phone in town. Apparently, he crept into every house and building - unnoticed - and stole all communication equipment to burn and keep them isolated. Right. I guess the bottom line is that today's high-tech world is just not as conducive to stories like this. I think it could still be done, and done well . . . but not like this. On the other hand, Robert Redford is still a dignified, commanding presence. Watching him begin to crack illustrates why he's such a big star.

reply

"So he's got one little handle that dribbles water out and he's got to sit there and pump for hours."

He actually didn't even have the handle for the bilge pump. He had to make one out of the handle on his mop. IDIOT!!

reply

I'm not a sailor. There were times where I did not understand what the guy was thinking, or doing. But that engaged me to keep watching and it eventually became obvious what was happening. I like the kind of movie where the viewer is given a chance to develop his own plot line and sense of anticipation.

Yes, the guy did do stupid things, such as shaving as a storm approaches. Other times, I thought the guy was quite resourceful. In those instances where the sailor did stupid acts or omissions I just passed it off as him being under a lot of stress and exposure to the elements. It's easy to critique what should be done when you are sitting in a climate controlled room with no distractions.

The movie was a good movie, but not worthy of any awards, except one. It took a lot of courage to make a movie with one guy and no dialogue. We need to support such creativity, compared to those mindless sequels and copycat movies that we usually see.

reply

"It's very hard routing for the idiot." Gotta loooove irony!

reply

"It's very hard routing for the idiot." Gotta loooove irony!

reply

"It's very hard routing for the idiot." Gotta loooove irony!

reply

as a guy, i love "watching guys do stuff and try to figure out what they're doing". that's something that killed me about this thing; there are probably at least 20 minutes of watching him "do stuff" and most of the time--i'm 36 and somewhat technically adept--you have no idea what he's doing or why because he's totally silent and just suddenly goes and...


This is what killed the film for me. It's a sign of bad direction if you can't figure something out purely from visual cues.

Most people (the audience) are not sailors, so they aren't going to have a clue what he is doing (or why) beyond the basics of "trim the main sail", or using the sexton. If the viewer doesn't know what, or why he is doing something then there are no stakes. If there are no stakes, there is no urgency. If there is no urgency, why should we care?

It's not enough to want him to survive. That's a universal assumption the audience has going into the movie, so there should be more.

Why should we root for this guy to survive?

Because it's Robert Redford is not a good enough reason because RR is an actor playing a part in a larger story, but... Half the story isn't "there" because we don't know who he is, why he is out there, or even why he is doing certain (supposedly critical) actions once the *beep* hits the fan.

reply

I got to tall ya, I am VERY surprised people are saying they could not figure out what he was doing. I am not a sailor but I found it very easy to understand what he was trying to do.
When he heard voices on the radio that cut in and out my first thought was the salt water damage but then I thought I would get an antenna as high as I could and sure enough, he climbs the mast and finds the antenna disconnected.
When he was trying to get loose from the cargo container and he got his sea anchor and jumped on the container I knew exactly what he was doing.
The solar still -obvious.
Checking his supplies and materials to see what he could do. It was not difficult at all to figure out.

Then those saying he was very unprepared. Really! I was impressed with how much he DID have. Food. Water. Maps. Who carries a full size life raft like that? Sextant. Survival gear on the raft. Flares. Even the orange rain suit. Solar powered satellite phone (he was rinsing it out with clean water). Come on! This guy had a lot more stuff than most people would have.
And not knowing how to use a sextant - Ever used one? If I had one I would have learned how to use it and then stowed it since I have a myriad of other electronic devices at my disposal to use instead. If I found myself needing to use the sextant I would have to re-read the manual because it was probably a year or two since I learned how to use it.

Not the best survival movie I have ever seen but I would say it was average. There were 136 words in the whole movie with 135 of them said at the opening and 1 more 68 minutes later ( I may have miscounted slightly). RR did a fine job holding my attention that long with that little dialogue.

reply

There was at least one other occasion when Our Man spoke: early on, when he made an "S.O.S. call." That bothered me no end, because you don't SAY "S.O.S.", you tap it out in Morse code when you have no voice communications. To declare an emergency when you DO have voice comms, you say "Mayday." If even I know that, this guy should too.

reply

it's more like either it should make good sense and we can go along with it, rooting for him or expecting him to fail or wanting him to, etc, or it's funny like "what the hell is going on?" which was done in a lot of 70s films that suddenly drop you into complicated action and intricate procedures and the fascination/incredulous feeling is the entertainment but i kept feeling like they couldn't help but fail to properly push those buttons. it just felt like watching someone do something but it failed to intrigue. i can't blame the scenery because it is what it is and can't be anything else; small boat in the middle of the ocean. i think maybe it just failed with cinematography and editing. someone else, even a tv producer, could have made it more intense and... "important" to watch what he was doing.

reply

Yes, I can tell from your dialog that you are not a sailor. A sextant, once learned is an easy device to use. There is no re-learning curve. And, "yes", we all carry full size life rafts for solo crosses. This guy was an half-idiot. That's right, I'm not completely trashing him because he was a quick study when he applied himself. But, this was the laziest sailor which I have ever seen. I worked harder than he did on 2, different, dual-man crossings. As a solo captain, one has to be on the ball 24/7.

reply

you're not a sailor but you know what a sea anchor is? and that it's called thusly :)

everybody who sails an ocean carries a raft like that. they contain standard rashions and supplies too.
using a sextant is part of coastal navigation theory classes and sea sailing classes. but yeah, referring to the manual, not to strange.

i would also call it average. though he deserved to die about 5 times. i think he wanted to die probably. perhaps he is saying sorry for his suicide by ignorance.

reply

"Then those saying he was very unprepared. Really! I was impressed with how much he DID have. Food. Water. Maps. Who carries a full size life raft like that? Sextant. Survival gear on the raft. Flares. Even the orange rain suit. Solar powered satellite phone (he was rinsing it out with clean water). Come on! This guy had a lot more stuff than most people would have. "

Are you serious? You don't know much about sailing, do you?

reply

I watched this film on a plane home yesterday.

"This is what killed the film for me. It's a sign of bad direction if you can't figure something out purely from visual cues. "

Personally, I could figure out everything he was doing from visual cues, albeit it often took me some thinking time to do this, as I am not a sailor. I liked that aspect of the film however, because it made me consider what he might be doing and why he may do it. The film was very good at 'show not tell', for me anyway.

However, some bits were irrelevant plot devices: The reattaching of the coax cable at the top of the mast for example, that was obviously not a direct output of the container collision. Perhaps we might view it as more evidence that he was not prepared, in that he'd not used his radio in a longtime.

Whilst there were some touches in the film I really enjoyed, and for me it was visually enjoyable - the vastness of the ocean and the violent storms being well depicted - I did *initially* become frustrated with how unprepared Our Man was.

I was tempted to think, "well he clearly doesn't care about his own survival, why should I?". But that merely made me think of all the stupid things I've done with no preparation. One example is driving off into the desert in Peru one time with completely the wrong vehicle, only 1 litre of water between two of us and becoming increasinly alarmed when the road deterioted so badly we were lucky to get out. A stupid tourist thing to do, but I certainly felt I cared about my survival at that point in time, I can tell you! Or a terrible motorbike accident I was involved in due to my own gung-ho nature, which very nearly cost me my life and limbs.

So I then started to think of RR as an everyman, surely we've all done stupid things that on reflection we were in no way prepared for, and for that reason perhaps he really was our man, and therefore that was the intent of the film to depict him in this way so we saw that it could have been any of us out there. All of us being capable of embarking on these processes and journies of life, often without a clue what the outcome might be, and no idea of our own failings and limitations. RR was merely lost by his own hubris, as are so many of us.

Overall I'd say it worked for me, but I can see why some people will disagree with this.

reply

Look I hear ya. I just watched it. It was ok. It wasn't as good as I thought and considering how much buzz there was about Redford getting an academy award nom. . . yeah look. . . a little overrated. I did enjoy it but not as much as other survival movies. As everyone has pointed out it's difficult to route for the character as you don't connect with him. Yes I felt sympathetic but not to the degree I usually would. All in all not a bad film but not the best survival style film at all. Was impressed to see Zachery Quinto was the executive producer at the end of the film though.

reply

Just finished watching this movie because of the Golden Globe hype. I must say I was totally disappointed and agreed that he should be snubbed on account of poor cinematography and wooden performance. For survival movies that took place in the ocean released in theaters in the last 2 years, I think "The Story of Pi" and The "Kon-Tiki Expedition" were much superior. Even the first-time boy actor in "The Story of Pi" showed much deeper and more engaging facial expressions than the supposedly more seasoned Redford, LOL.

reply

Rent a yacht. Sail a week or two on it and you will KNOW exactly what he DID. You will get a WHOLE NEW ANGLE on the movie. Yes, I will start my sailing classes in about 1 month and I already know a little about yachting and i can tell you that's a HIGHLY REALISTIC film. I spotted only 2 flaws (a porthole and the hatch opened by the time the boat rolls).
If i were RR I would be EXTREMLY proud of this movie. That *beep* was by far the most EARNED word I've seen in the last decade of movies.

reply

ok, i'll start with your genuine praise of redford; he could and should be proud to have made it. that's entirely different from the objective view of whether it satisfied what makes a good "survival movie". you're completely right to applaud him but i know that he's seen lots of cinema. story arcs, emotional structure and flow, etc. he has probably figured some things out that could even warrant an honorary doctorate in film in his time. that's what i'm saying.

his PERFORMANCE was incredible. 11/10 or higher.

now, the only other thing i can say is that again, we laymen don't care what it's really like. consider this--and almost anything else--"science fiction". the science must be LAID OUT FIRST before you can play with it. this was more "bewilderment theater".

reply

"now, the only other thing i can say is that again, we laymen don't care what it's really like. consider this--and almost anything else--"science fiction". the science must be LAID OUT FIRST before you can play with it. this was more "bewilderment theater"."

It's certainly true that the viewer should not need to understand the subject matter to appreciate the film. However, in this case, I did understand everything RR did, either at the time or at some point shortly after, the logic was clear to me for all of his actions. I did need to mull his actions over at times, but that served to draw me deeper into his predicament, in order I could consider logical reasons for what he was doing.

I'd say this was intended by the director in order to attempt to keep people engaged throughout an entire film of no dialogue and one person. Therefore no real opportunity for exposition.

reply

i got an A in philosophy 101 but long before then i found that it's possible to reasonably debate any side/play any advocate. after i posted my reply i came to realize that one might smile to think that i 1. love to watch guys doing interesting things because i'm a guy 2. i wished i could understand what he was doing a lot of the time 3. i still see him as heroic and cool even though i was bewildered the whole time and that this works solidly on an artistic level.

even if that's all i could get from it, it was a good treat that did me well so good.

hey, no dialogue is fine. i'm working on a film with hardly any that should need like 1200 shots of just one guy and his basement, desk and computer and like 50 lines of "dialogue" and maybe 100 of monologue. like 40 pages, mostly single shots detailed in less than one line, double-spaced. still need an IBM XT and a CED player... but if you can understand that last addition, it's about taking it in; in fact, it's almost as minimal as this.

reply

That 7.1 IMDb rating agrees with you. People were extremely insulted.

reply

It's called reality. I know all you IMDb board guys are Rambos prepared for everything. Naturally, you discount things like sunburn, hunger, thirst, aching wounds, sleep deprivation - it's easy to judge from the comfort of your room.

reply

As someone who has commercial fished and sport fished my whole life out of Alaska I can tell you that this guy was not very prepared. Anyone out that far by themselves is going to need to need to both know alot more and have better equipment, especially a guy his age.

reply