lousy survival movie

There were a number of problems for me in this movie. First, although Our Man seems to be a fairly seasoned sailor, and has most of the right equipment on the boat, he failed to immediately turn on the bilge pump when he first saw water pouring in through the damaged hull. That would be one of the first things an experienced sailor would think of in that situation. If he had started to pump immediately, he might have saved his electrical system, including the batteries, depending of course on how good or large-capacity the electric bilge pump was. Second, an immediate emergency repair of the hull would have been in order. There is a technique of wrapping a sail around the hull as a temporary measure to keep the water from pouring in, and many cruising sailboats carry pieces of waterproof fabric (such as sailcloth), and ways to attach them to the hull, to make immediate emergency repairs.

It drove me crazy that he left the foresail, a sort of small genoa, flapping around. Why didn't he drop it, as it served no purpose whatsoever just flopping around? Alternately, if he had put the boat on a point of sail that would have heeled (leaned) the boat so that the damaged side were up, it would have been much less likely that water would continue to pour in, at least in calm seas, which he had initially.

The "storm jib": an experienced sailor would have put the storm jib up when it first looked like he was in for a storm, not waited until it was almost impossible to do so, especially for a single-handed sailor.

The sextant: First, it is not at all surprising that in this age of inexpensive electronic navigation devices (GPS's), even a relatively good sailor would not know how to use a sextant. That said, a small battery-powered inexpensive GPS could be kept in a completely waterproof container of some sort for just this sort of emergency, or even two of them in separate containers, with spare batteries. They are so cheap now that it is absurd to not carry at least one of them as a spare navigation device. Second, a sextant without a nautical almanac, sight reduction tables, and an accurate timepiece, can only give you latitude, (by "shooting" the sun at true local noon), so it was unrealistic that he was plotting his course in that way on his chart. The most he could have done was plot lines of latitude on the chart. Also, only taking a shot or two around noon as he was apparently doing only gives you lines of position, not exact points, such as the ones he was marking on the chart. Also as an emergency and alternate piece of equipment, the sextant could have been a $70 plastic sextant, not an expensive metal one such as the one seen in the movie, in fact plastic sextants are much easier to use than the type he had. If sailing and navigation experts were consulted for this movie, they must have been ignored.
Yes, as many people have pointed out, water would have poured into the boat through the open companionway hatch when the boat rolled. I think someone said there was also a port open, so the same applies. I also think the boat would have sunk much faster than it did in the movie. Monohull boats have heavy keels that help sink them relatively fast, unless the boat were upside down with a large bubble of air trapped in it. Multihull boats (catamarans and trimarans) do not have heavy keels, and will not sink, although they would ride very low in the sea if full of water, again, unless they are upside down, in which case they might remain fairly high on the water, as long as a bubble of air is maintained inside the hull or hulls.
Same story for radios: a well-prepared sailor could have a small handheld radio with spare batteries kept in a waterproof container. Had he had one of those, he could have raised one of those ships on the emergency frequency (instead of trying to get their attention by yelling at them)

The life-raft: Any halfway good life-raft (which this one obviously purported to be) would definitely include at least a simple solar still, a very basic and completely necessary piece of lifeboat equipment. It was absurd that he had to figure out how to make one. Also, was there not a mirror in the emergency pack to try to signal other boats, or ships? Nearly all lifeboats include one. Also a loud whistle would have been part of the kit.
Bottom line: it was a little difficult for me to take this movie very seriously.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

I don't think I've ever seen another Redford movie, so I don't know about the comment:

always looks like a starched yuppie/spoiled man/arrogant rich snob

What is a 75 year-old guy doing sailing a fancy boat all by himself in the middle of nowhere, with such poor sailing skills, so far from the US?

The movie doesn't really explain his motivation for being out there.

Perhaps he took a stupid risk because of pride, taking a voyage he was not properly prepared for. Maybe, like Gilligan, it was just supposed to be "a three hour tour". :)

Maybe sailing was something he had done when he was younger, and thought, "aw heck, it's like riding a bike... once you do it, you never forget". I got the impression that it was something he had done when he was younger. He seemed "kind of" familiar with sailing, but out of practice.

However, based on my interpretation of the introductory narration...

13th of July, 4:50 pm. I'm sorry. I know that means little at this point, but I am. I tried, I think you would all agree that I tried. To be true, to be strong, to be kind, to love, to be right. But I wasn't. And I know you knew this. In each of your ways. And I am sorry. All is lost here, except for soul and body, that is, what's left of them, and a half day's ration. It's inexcusable really, I know that now. How it could have taken this long to admit that I'm not sure, but it did. I fought till the end. I'm not sure what that is worth, but know that I did. I have always hoped for more for you all. I will miss you. I'm sorry.

I think maybe he had either done something wrong/illegal and/or had wrecked his relationships with family/friends. His fear of consequences or pride kept him from making restitution or apologizing. He used the sailboat as an means of avoidance or escape. Sailing around in the ocean is an effective means for avoiding people / situations you want to avoid.

Didn't understand why he initially tied the sea anchor to the container. Why didn't he tie it to his boat to begin with, after he got away from the container?

He tied the sea anchor to the container to help pull the container and his sailboat apart, since he was physically unable to pry the two apart. This was shown when he initially tried to push the container off his sailboat with a pole. Not sure why he didn't use the sea anchor on his sailboat when he saw the storm brewing, though.

And what the hell is a container with a hole in it doing floating in the middle of nowhere, far from the shipping lanes? I would think containers are much more likely to fall off and be damaged when being loaded & unloaded, not at sea. Also, I find it hard to believe one would float for very long.

The movie container was labeled with Japanese writing, so perhaps the script writer took a page from real life. All kinds of trash, of all sizes, crossed the Pacific ocean after the March 2011 Japanese tsunami. A Japanese dock washed up in Oregon, and a shipping container with a Harley-Davidson inside washed up in British Columbia. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/70-foot-dock-japan-washes-ore gon-beach-article-1.1091301

There may still be Japanese containers or "ghost ships" floating around from the tsunami. The ocean is huge.

Additionally, the container was full of shoes. Many types of shoes and shoe soles are made of buoyant materials, shown by the shoes floating around the container. The buoyant materials would help the container float. So, yes, it is plausible that a container would be floating around as a hazard in the middle of the ocean.

Idiot rammed his sailboat into the container. Even I know that's not how you dock a sailboat.

True, but if you hadn't been sailing much recently, or if your sailboat is reacting differently due to the hull being full of water weight from the initial impact, or if you're already pissed off because of what the container did to your sailboat, or if it was a combination of all three... You might not perform a textbook "docking maneuver" either.

I believe the "on screen object" during narration was an end/side view of the container, which had become a floating hazard.

Given how critical it was for him to flag down a ship and how small the window of opportunity would have been for him to so, he certainly didn't prepare himself to use the flares properly and at the right time; but, wouldn't you know, he was asleep again and only awoke when a ship was right on top of him; and then he used the wrong flare the first time and too late the second time!

I agree. In eight days, he had only (apparently) seen those two ships. You would think he would have been prepared with the flares, and known which to use when.

Then again, I have read real life survival stories where people's actions during the emergency just seem to defy common sense and logic (to me, sitting in the comfort and safety of my living room). Fatigue, dehydration, starvation, lack of survival training, fear, or injury can cause people to make asinine decisions. Also, many people think, "it will never happen to me", so they don't really think about what course of action to take in emergencies.

I can understand him sleeping when the ship was coming. Sheer exhaustion, hunger, dehydration, boredom, depression, and hopelessness will make people fall asleep, often at times that a person sitting in the safety of their living room would think are the "weirdest time to fall asleep". There are many stories of soldiers sleeping on the chopper ride to a firefight, or sleeping huddled in a wet foxhole with explosions and firing around them.

Couldn't believe he set his raft on fire. How stupid can you be? Why didn't he float the plastic container on the water?

As soon as the plastic got hot, it would melt, allowing water in, putting out the signal fire. Also, in the ocean, the container would have been more easily swamped by even a small wave, putting out the fire. Inside the raft, the container/firepit had more stability.

I think he was also nearing the end of hope and was panicking. In the intro, it said the accident had occurred eight days earlier. In the letter in the jar (the narration from the movie introduction), he said he only had a half day of rations (and had probably already been on reduced rations).

He had missed getting help in the sailing lanes, and probably figured there was no way to survive long enough to drift closer to land. I think he panicked when he saw the light from the other boat. He was SO close to rescue, but still so far away...

He was out of water, almost out of food, had no lure due to the shark eating the fish (and lure). He could see light from the boat, but could not signal them. He had no flares, no flashlight, and no whistle. The other boat was a couple of miles away, and apparently did not hear him yelling.

So, he started a fire, knowing the light would carry, hoping someone on the boat would see it. In a panic, he started feeding the fire faster than he should have. The fire got away from him, as they can easily do, setting the raft on fire. Then again, it certainly made it more likely for the other boat to see with a big fire. :)

When the raft caught fire and he fell in, he gave up. He peacefully sunk below the surface, but then, it's a movie. He doesn't have to die realistically.

This was not my favorite movie, and I think some things could have been done better, but after reading your review, I felt you may have missed seeing the moon. :)

reply share

add reply

formatting help

[deleted]

As a matter of fact I too was reminded of "Buried" while watching this. Now that's how minimalist survival movies ought to be made. Reynolds' performance in Buried made me re-evaluate him altogether. Quite simply riveting and highly recommended a watch as far as I'm concerned. Which is more than I can say of "All Is Lost", I'm afraid.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

It's good to see a post that gets a bit closer to what I think think the films means to address: how does one deal with a what may be the end of life. I think Redford does a great job in conveying how his character copes with such danger given his resources and situation, and I found it compelling.

Now, at times, I admit I was a bit irritated with "Our Man's" lack of preparation, like having satellite phone in a waterproof case, or EPIRB (I didn't know about the latter but it makes perfect sense.) I began to wonder if "Our Man" was unconsciously suicidal in not preparing enough for a solo voyage. The reality is, as whitefire-2 points out, lapses occur and mistakes are made.

It seems to me many posters are losing sight of the forest for the trees.

Then there is that ending...

reply share

add reply

formatting help