# One Last "All is Lost " thread



## azguy (Jul 17, 2012)

From the NY Post:

Robert Redford was snubbed by the Oscars on Thursday, and he then bashed the distributors of his film, “All Is Lost,” saying, “We had no campaign.” 

Redford was put into a nightmare p.r. situation on Thursday when the same day he’d been overlooked by the Oscars in the best actor category, he had to address the media at the annual opening press conference of his Sundance Film Festival. 

Appearing at the Egyptian Theater in Park City, Utah, a moderator asked Redford about his exclusion from the Oscar nominations as the very first question. But while he said, “I’m not disturbed by it,” Redford couldn’t help but take a swipe at the film’s indie distributors, Lionsgate and Roadside Attractions. “Let me speak frankly about how I feel about it,” Redford said, before adding, “In our case, we suffered from little to no distribution… I don’t know why… they didn’t want to spend the money or they were afraid… were just incapable, I don’t know.” “It would have been wonderful to be nominated of course,” he said at the Sundance press conference. “It is a business and we couldn’t conform to that… I was happy to be able to do this film because it was independent and it stood the chance of having a wider distribution had they stepped up.” 

He summed up, “So that’s what’s on my mind… the rest of it is not my business… it’s somebody else’s business. I’m fine.” And he also mused, “Hollywood is what it is. It’s a business… 

There’s a lot of campaigning… it can be very political,” but, “I’m not disturbed by it or upset by it.” The film has made $6.1 million at the box office since its release in October, and is currently playing in 67 theaters. Redford had been considered to be an Oscar frontrunner. He was at the Golden Globes awards Sunday night as a nominee.


----------



## Bene505 (Jul 31, 2008)

Not wanting to spend many hourse reading the long thread... Is the film worth seeing in the theaters? Or wait until it's out on Netflix?

Regards,
Brad


----------



## davidpm (Oct 22, 2007)

I liked it for what it was.
It showed how a really tough competent guy who seems to have his act together and didn't let stuff get to him gradually got beat down by something much bigger than him until he was completely helpless and depending on pure luck.

The issue many sailors take with it is that most of his decisions could easily and rightly be second guessed.

That being said the terror of being in a ship in a storm that was in real trouble was displayed about as well as it could have been.

There was little drama like we are used to. 
No Crying, praying. No young pretty female counter point for him to spar with no young person or pet for him to talk to.

The movie was pretty much defined by what it left out.
All that was left was a tough guy just going about his business of trying to survive in a really tough situation and loosing inch by inch until he had nothing left.


----------



## Bene505 (Jul 31, 2008)

Thanks David.

Regards,
Brad

(I know someone who won't see a Robert Redford movie because Robert Redford was once in a movie with Jane Fonda.)


----------



## weinie (Jun 21, 2008)

Sail magazine just summed it up best:

"The most anticipated sailing film of the past year, of course, was a major feature, All is Lost, starring Robert Redford as an unnamed solo sailor who loses his Cal39 in the Indian Ocean. Unfortunately, the film's creators made no effort to make it at all realistic and any sailor watching it is apt to feel insulted and annoyed.

Redford's performance was hailed as Oscar-worthy, but all I saw was a man who looked confused and aggravated for an hour and a half. I had the exact same expression on my face the entire time I was watching him."


----------



## Lake Superior Sailor (Aug 23, 2011)

With the cold ,the snow,and the ice : it would be a big seller if they would play the movie around here! Just to see soft water with a sail boat would sell me!....Dale


----------



## flyingwelshman (Aug 5, 2007)

We just watched it (the credits are rolling as I type).
I agree wholeheartedly with Sail Magazine's review.
There were far too many technical errors. They made it impossible to suspend disbelief.
The film made Dead Calm look like a documentary.


----------



## miatapaul (Dec 15, 2006)

Bene505 said:


> Not wanting to spend many hourse reading the long thread... Is the film worth seeing in the theaters? Or wait until it's out on Netflix?
> 
> Regards,
> Brad


I enjoyed it. I expected the issues with reality. Heck it is a movie so by nature it will be unrealistic. I would not have been happy if I paid $10 (or $40 for a family) as I would have been the only one who could have sat through it in my family. I downloaded a screener copy so I got my moneys worth. I would wait till it is out on Netflix.

I did not think he looked at all confused. I think he is just kind of unflappable, and seemed resigned to his fate. If the actor was 20 and acted like that I would have found it completely unbelievable.


----------



## copacabana (Oct 1, 2007)

I think that "startled" look that Redford has can be put down to too much Botox...

I just saw it (thanks Thepiratebay!) and I thought it was entertaining, though not a great film by any means. I can't see it being nominated for many awards.


----------



## jppp (Jul 13, 2008)

Netflix


----------



## davidpm (Oct 22, 2007)

The show wasn't as breathlessly fast passed as our typical Matrix movie that is for sure.
I give the director props for trying something different. I'll never beat a guy up for trying some thing different even if it doesn't end up being extraordinary.

As far as the criticisms go most of them are based on modern technology.
The movie doesn't as far as I remember set a date.

If you imagined that it happened in the 60's, 70's or 80's then the lack of new electronics would be expected. Also the guy was old, you could also imagine that he decided to recreate a voyage he did in his youth, again without modern electronics.

His shaving rather than preparing for the storm I interpreted as his being so experience he knew exactly how long the storm would take to get to him and he said to hell with it, he would shave first and still have time to take care of the boat.

As far as learning how to use the sexton in 5 minutes I interpreted that has his knowing how to use it but years ago and he just looked at the directions for a few minutes to remind himself of the basics.

I wouldn't recommend getting off the boat to board the container but who of us hasn't done something a little reckless and gotten away with it.

He definitely knew how to sail. He knew how to do emergency fiberglass repair. He knew how to climb the mast. He had some basic electrical skills.

He almost never lost his head, he was physically strong, he was resourceful and calculating.

What the director was exploring was that someone could get into a situation that despite having average or probably above average skills, judgement, luck, strength and determination can ultimately be beyond their ability to conquer.

We all love Bond 007 and Luke Sky Walker, Vin Diesel et al. Who doesn't have an inner 16 year old that wants to talk tough, shoot bad guys one minute and shag several beautiful women the next while never breaking a sweat or messing up our hair.

That kind of movie has been done a thousand times and is almost guaranteed to be a "good" move, it is a winning formula.

So maybe the real reason this movie is getting panned is because we don't like the message that an old guy probably a lot tougher and smarter than us can have some bad crap happen and despite his best effort fail.

Just like every time we hear about some boat that sinks or gets in trouble our first instinct is to figure that it would never happen to us because we would do X.

So no this is not a feel good movie but it does make you think that despite ones best efforts sometimes they are just not enough.

Not a popular message to hear but true non-the-less.


----------



## mattt (Aug 26, 2013)

I find the criticisms of this film really frustrating and short sighted. The film takes place on a sailboat. But the film is not about sailing. It's a really good movie if you can wrap your head around that.


----------



## blowinstink (Sep 3, 2007)

Bene505 said:


> Not wanting to spend many hourse reading the long thread... Is the film worth seeing in the theaters? Or wait until it's out on Netflix?
> 
> Regards,
> Brad


I would recommend you see it in a movie theater. The big screen is such a treat. There are a lot of things we don't do so well in America these days. Cinema we still do very well - probably better than ever. Yes this isn't a complete drama. It is a quirky character study with a single setting, a single actor and very limited dialogue. That said, I found it totally engrossing.

Are you surprised SN'ers think the sailor's actions were inexplicable??? Have you read Sailnet recently!!! No one is spared.

Actually, I found it refreshing that the sailor did not do everything exactly as one might be instructed or as the "wisdom" of the forums might dictate. Logic is something we construct to attempt to impose order on life. Life doesn't proceed in a rational orderly fashion. To expect it to be so on a singlehanded passage on a small sailboat -- in crisis -- is silly.

As a character study, as a chance to watch and consider how another sailor might act in a crisis and just as a chance to watch Redford act, I thought it was completely worthwhile and entertaining.

.02


----------



## miatapaul (Dec 15, 2006)

copacabana said:


> I think that "startled" look that Redford has can be put down to too much Botox...
> 
> I just saw it (thanks Thepiratebay!) and I thought it was entertaining, though not a great film by any means. I can't see it being nominated for many awards.


So dis your copy have Arabic sub titles? I was glad it only had a few lines!

Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk


----------



## flyingwelshman (Aug 5, 2007)

I did not enjoy the movie almost from the beginning.

I get that the film isn’t a documentary or training film about sailing.

What I didn’t like was that there were so many errors in technical detail that it brought me out of the film. These errors could easily have been omitted by using a knowledgeable technical advisor and would not have diminished the plot in any way – in fact might have enhanced it.

Some of the actions taken by ‘Our Man’ defied belief or understanding. One scene that pulled me out of the ‘reality’ of the piece was when, with a flooded cabin (water up to his knees) our protagonist decided to take a nap rather than pump it out. I wasn’t able to take the rest of the film seriously after that.

I like Robert Redford. He is an American icon; a true ‘movie star’ who has had some excellent and entertaining roles in his career. In this film, however, his portrayal of stoicism and inflappability came across as confused and overwhelmed. My wife and I speculated that his character might have been suffering from Alzheimer’s or dementia and did not comprehend the gravity of his situation. In the two scenes in which ‘Our Man’ actually expressed emotion - holding his head in anguish and frustration; screaming out a profanity in anguish and frustration – Redford’s ‘acting’ was contrived and not believable.

In answer to those who suggest that those who did not like this movie didn’t because it was not of the typical Hollywood ‘Blockbuster’, shoot-em-up; car chase; gratuitous sex ilk I say this: that is a specious argument.

In my opinion movies should entertain and induce some kind of emotional response.

For me this film failed to entertain and the only emotion it drew from me was dissatisfaction.


----------



## benesailor (Dec 27, 2012)

Robert Redford in this movie was far from oscar worthy. I'm glad he wasn't nominated; it would have diminished the credit of the academy.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

We have a small non-profit independent film theater two blocks from the house. We see many films most have never heard of and enjoy them. As a general rule, we've found those that liked this film, enjoyed it modestly and more for the art of a film with no narrative. Some, in my opinion, just like Redford, no matter what. I wasn't aware of the opposite Fonda factor, although, I do hate Fonda. I've not found a single person who loved the film and more than half I know disliked it at some level.

I expected to find sailing errors, but the gross lack of attention to the technical aspects of sailing was confounding. An ASA101 grad would have made a better consultant and reduced the distraction of errors, which went far beyond those necessary to accommodate film shots. 

Yes, it was hard to find in theaters. However, if I was a distributor that had to pony up the risky investment, I would have balked after seeing it too.

Netflix at best. You're life won't be missing anything, if you skipped it altogether. The Oscars got this one right.


----------



## rbrasi (Mar 21, 2011)

Seriuosly, bene? Are you aware that kim freaking basinger has an oscar for acting? Kubrick never won for directing and you think nominating redford would compromise the oscars' integrity? Ha!
As a side note, the objective of art is to draw thought. By that measure, this film succeeded on SN!


----------



## Gregrosine (Feb 10, 2013)

great summary. I'm not going to nitpick sailing issues


----------



## benesailor (Dec 27, 2012)

> Seriuosly, bene? Are you aware that kim freaking basinger has an oscar for acting? Kubrick never won for directing and you think nominating redford would compromise the oscars' integrity? Ha!
> As a side note, the objective of art is to draw thought. By that measure, this film succeeded on SN!


I have to agree with you; some years they haven't been known to have the best "picks". Keep in mind it's the competition that they are up against that year.

Still...... Redford still didn't put up the best performance. As a whole the movie sucked.


----------



## FirstCandC (Mar 26, 2013)

Post with spoilers!

Saw it last night with the Admiral. I really liked the movie. I agree with the previous posters that noticed that Our Man is flawed, but has a fascinating back story. This story is not a story for sailors as much as it is about Our Man. What brought him here? How can he survive this? How much more can he take? WHAT WOULD I DO?? His opening monologue sets the table perfectly.

I also think that this is the reason why there are no wide shots in the movie, except for those shot from below. The focus must remain on the character. Panoramic ocean views and shots of the boat under sail would be a distraction.

With his lack of skill and preparation, the character was obviously way over his head in taking on the trip. I also agree that he HAD to take on the trip unprepared, but why? Was he running away? Was he getting too old to go later?

I found myself constantly wondering what his profession could have been, to be so unflappable at all times. Was he a surgeon or successful businessman? The director did a great job of demonstrating the value of not panicking, when many of us would have been freaking out.

This may be a strange take on the movie, but I think the director deliberately humanized the character by leaving in the mistakes. This is obvious from the very first scene- he is sleeping in his vee berth when the container strikes the boat! He also doesn't have a signal mirror or a bucket. OBVIOUSLY, these issues would have been addressed in pre-production.

His weaknesses are offset by his two greatest traits- his ability to stay calm in the face of disaster, and his will to survive. Case in point- calmly shaving down below, instead of prepping for the storm. He has been through the wars of life before. This is how he survived before. This is how he will survive this disaster.

Again, I do not think this is a great sailing movie. It certainly isn't as good as Deep Water or many of the other sailing movies mentioned on this board. But it is a great character study, and was certainly worthy of some great discussion here.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

I said it in another thread - fixing some of the blatant errors would have made the film much better without taking _anything_ away from the character and his story arc.

For example, how in the hell does the boat GET IMPALED ON A CONTAINER _ON THE AFT STARBOARD BEAM_ *while the boat is under sail*? Then you've got the shaving, the laziness in keeping the water out of the boat, on and on. It just made no sense.

It's worth watching - but only on Netflix for free.


----------



## FirstCandC (Mar 26, 2013)

It must have been the shoes!


----------



## remetau (Jan 27, 2009)

smackdaddy said:


> I said it in another thread - fixing some of the blatant errors would have made the film much better without taking _anything_ away from the character and his story arc.
> 
> For example, how in the hell does the boat GET IMPALED ON A CONTAINER _ON THE AFT STARBOARD BEAM_ while the boat is under sail? Then you've got the shaving, the laziness in keeping the water out of the boat, on and on. It just made no sense.
> 
> It's worth watching - but only on Netflix for free.


While he was sleeping, a mammoth container ship that had wander out of the shipping lanes aggressively altered course to miss this abandoned sailing vessel after attempting to reach said vessel on VHF. The force of such a course alteration caused a container to fly off the ship at such a great speed that it pursued the sailing vessel until an inevitable collision occurred.


----------



## Skipper Jer (Aug 26, 2008)

I think this would be a great movie to play the drinking game. Buy the DVD, invite your sailing buddies over, play the movie for 10 minutes, hit pause and the one with the less number of errors spotted in that 10 minute period has to chug a beer. 

I can also see this movie showing up on "Mystery Science Theater 3000" in a few years.


----------



## benesailor (Dec 27, 2012)

> I found myself constantly wondering what his profession could have been, to be so unflappable at all times. Was he a surgeon or successful businessman? The director did a great job of demonstrating the value of not panicking, when many of us would have been freaking out.


He was a Mortician.


----------



## davidpm (Oct 22, 2007)

smackdaddy said:


> I said it in another thread - fixing some of the blatant errors would have made the film much better without taking _anything_ away from the character and his story arc.
> 
> For example, how in the hell does the boat GET IMPALED ON A CONTAINER _ON THE AFT STARBOARD BEAM_ *while the boat is under sail*? Then you've got the shaving, the laziness in keeping the water out of the boat, on and on. It just made no sense.
> 
> It's worth watching - but only on Netflix for free.


1. Shaving.
It is a rational response to a very stressful condition to perform a routine chore to give oneself a chance to think. During the trip when our transmission got stuck and we couldn't start the engine the delivery captain decided to break for lunch. It gave us all a chance to think and come up with a solution which we did.

2. Laziness in keeping water out. 
I interpreted that as exhaustion not laziness. He had been working very hard for a long time and just had to sleep, he passed out.

3. Starboard beam impact.
It didn't look like the boat was traveling very fast. If he was crossing the stream for example and the container could be traveling at a knot or two in one direction while his boat could be going in a different direction and impact.

Yes it is highly unlikely that the collision point would be there just as it is highly unlikely that he would hit anything at all.

Hanks catamaran getting hit by a wave and forcing it backwards enough to damage two rudders instead of just breaking a set screw is probably even more unlikely.

I think that was the whole point of the movie.
Unlikely things happened to a tough capable guy with a lot of experience to the point where his life was at risk.

Every time I've been in a situation that was dicey it could easily be argued that in every case everything that happened was very unlikely.

It is just in my case, so far, the sequence of unlikely events didn't exceed my ability to handle them, YET.

The point of the movie IMHO is that even capable level headed experienced guys are subject to the forces of chance. We don't always make it.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Oh, okay, fine...I loved it.


----------



## FirstCandC (Mar 26, 2013)

You gotta love it, or hate it for 5 years when the next movie with a sailboat in it comes out.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

FirstCandC said:


> You gotta love it, or hate it for 5 years when the next movie with a sailboat in it comes out.


Nonsense. I will just keep replaying Capt Ron.

Anyone know if they ever sold a soundtrack to the movie?


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Minnewaska said:


> Nonsense. I will just keep replaying Capt Ron.
> 
> Anyone know if they ever sold a soundtrack to the movie?


For "All Is Lost"? Yeah, they got a dollar per word.


----------



## davidpm (Oct 22, 2007)

smackdaddy said:


> Oh, okay, fine...I loved it.


OK as long as we have established who is in charge. 
Now be a good lieutenant and send a BFS t shirt to Mr. Redford.

Just kidding or maybe !!!

It's not like we are arguing about something stupid like guns, anchors or dogs. This is important it's a movie.

It is so cold I have to get outside.


----------



## awahl (Feb 18, 2012)

I paid $4.99 on Vudu

I didn't like it - typical even in it's untypical-ness. 

Maybe it's already been mentioned but what helped seal it for me was the fact that he proceeded to basically light a friggin' bonfire in his life-raft and kind of crazily kept feeding it until it became a HUGE bonfire.... which was kind of like putting icing on the stupid cake.

...Then, after very calmly sinking/drowning/resigning himself to Davey Jones's locker -he swims back to the light and is plucked from the sea- Fade to black.... 

Anyway- all was not lost. I think that's the point, no? Don't give up? Who knows. 

I did like the ring Rob Redford was wearing though- that was cool- and I hope I am able to climb a mast when I'm his age.


----------



## billyruffn (Sep 21, 2004)

Bene505 said:


> Not wanting to spend many hourse reading the long thread... Is the film worth seeing in the theaters? Or wait until it's out on Netflix?
> 
> Regards,
> Brad


Brad, save your money....after the "this is an SOS call" in the trailer, I determined that we would not spend the in-theater money. My wife convinced me to spend $5.99 with On Demand a few nights ago and even that was a mistake. I walked out after 30 minutes. I just couldn't take it -- that bad.

It _might_ have been a good film about "life" for anyone who doesn't know anything about sailing, but I just couldn't get over the fact that he was making mistake after mistake....and, as you might guess, things were not going well for him. I walked in at the end to see that "all's well that ends well" and, in this case, an idiot sailor got what he probably deserved.

For those who think my critique is off-base....it may be. I didn't see the movie...I couldn't, it was just too painful. IMHO, Redford didn't get an Oscar nomination because he didn't deserve one....and neither did the producers of this ______________________. (After you see it you can fill in the blank  )


----------



## misfits (Dec 9, 2011)

We just saw this on Directv. 
Although I like Redford, it wasn't worth the admission...


----------



## Flybyknight (Nov 5, 2005)

What I would like to know is:
"Did they really deep six that Cal 39?"


----------



## GMC (Sep 14, 2009)

I liked it. His human reactions (not his perfect sailor reactions) were what impressed me. Sitting on a bunk after some disaster with his mind slowly churning through fatigue and pain, he looks here, he looks there, something occurs to him, he acts. This was the stuff that seemed real to me. Another movie would have him instantly recognizing problems and impressively resolving all of them per Chapman's. What seemed extraordinary about the movie was how tensely it could be told without dialogue. I saw an interpretation above about the fire and the lifeboat and rising to the hand in the water. Another interpretation was that the rising fire in the lifeboat was not unintended and that this was either going to work or not, but it was going to end right there. And obviously the alternative interpretation to the hand is that in fact he meets his God and not the hand of a mortal savior. Whether he is saved or not is a whole other conversation swirling around the movie. But as I said, I liked it for a picture of how I think most sailors would be under the circumstances (or maybe how I think I would be), not how they think would be. That is, making mistakes, bowing to fatigue, plodding on. Anyway, my two cents.


----------



## KIVALO (Nov 2, 2011)

I just watched it last night. I'm glad Im not the only one who was disappointed with the technical errors. I'm also kind of excite to see I noticed some of the errors that you really experienced sailors noticed, that was kinda cool. Aside of the annoyance of the technical inaccuracies(I have learned to never hold Hollywood in too high of a regard for that anyway), I liked the movie. It was an interesting study in human response to a catastrophic situation as it unfolds. I thought it was worth the rental fee on Amazon, but if I see it on Netflix I'm going to be pissed! LOL


----------



## davidpm (Oct 22, 2007)

awahl said:


> Maybe it's already been mentioned but what helped seal it for me was the fact that he proceeded to basically light a friggin' bonfire in his life-raft and kind of crazily kept feeding it until it became a HUGE bonfire.... which was kind of like putting icing on the stupid cake.


Actually that may have been a rational or at least rational to an exhausted brain response.

If you are almost dead, out of supplies and and there's only one potential way to save yourself a hail mary to make the biggest possible fire to be seen makes sense. If it works great if not you have ended the agony.

Actually it makes sense.


----------



## Flybyknight (Nov 5, 2005)

There's *NO* freeken way anyone can pick up a sextant and learn to get a fix with just 1 day of study. Noon site may be, but that will only give you latitude, not longitude.


----------



## newhaul (Feb 19, 2010)

Flybyknight said:


> There's *NO* freeken way anyone can pick up a sextant and learn to get a fix with just 1 day of study. Noon site may be, but that will only give you latitude, not longitude.


Actually with the current celestial alminac a watch set to GMT and fifteen min you can learn to get your fix off the sun by taking a morning mid day and afternoon reading 9 am 12 noon and 3 pm you can do it within a few miles of actual location


----------



## davidpm (Oct 22, 2007)

Flybyknight said:


> There's *NO* freeken way anyone can pick up a sextant and learn to get a fix with just 1 day of study. Noon site may be, but that will only give you latitude, not longitude.


The way I saw it he was an experienced sailor and the sextant was a gift and he took a quick look at the directions but already knew how to use it.


----------



## Dr. Strangelove (Jan 10, 2014)

Eh, not a terrible movie, all things considered. A one watcher, for sure. I might put it on again as background while I'm doing something else.


----------



## davidpm (Oct 22, 2007)

In fact I challenge anyone to come up with any event in the movie that so impossible that I can't invent a plausible backstory for that would explain it. 

Every event in the movie is unlikely so it has to be impossible not just unlikely.

I'll bet that everything that happened in the story has happened at least once probably several times to one or more people. 

In fact I believe it is pretty well established that most catastrophes once investigated are the result of a cascade of failures each one highly unlikely and individually either benign or recoverable. 

So you got anything the director let in the movie that was both impossible and was a necessary part of the failure chain.
I suspect there are one or two I just can't think of one.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

davidpm said:


> In fact I challenge anyone to come up with any event in the movie that so impossible that I can't invent a plausible backstory for that would explain it.......


Cool. This could be the most entertaining outcome of the movie.

He used an adjustable crescent wrench to tighten a round mast head antenna connector. (while watching a storm approach from the horizon)


----------



## newhaul (Feb 19, 2010)

Minnewaska said:


> Cool. This could be the most entertaining outcome of the movie.
> 
> He used an adjustable crescent wrench to tighten a round mast head antenna connector. (while watching a storm approach from the horizon)


It will work if wrench is properly adjusted and used on the knurled ferrel


----------



## weinie (Jun 21, 2008)

newhaul said:


> It will work if wrench is properly adjusted and used on the knurled ferrel


facepalm.gif


----------



## davidpm (Oct 22, 2007)

Minnewaska said:


> Cool. This could be the most entertaining outcome of the movie.
> 
> He used an adjustable crescent wrench to tighten a round mast head antenna connector. (while watching a storm approach from the horizon)


Knurling Components - Straight Knurling Bolts, UHF Connectors, Straight Knurling Nuts and Straight Knurling Components Manufacturer & Supplier from Coimbatore, India

Second one down is knurled but with a couple of flattened spots for a wrench.

What else do you have?

By the way I'm not even reaching here. 
I'll bet that within an hour I could find some part that 7 out of 10 sailnet experts would say was not being used properly on any boat over 20 years old.

Shease give me something I have to think about.


----------



## davidpm (Oct 22, 2007)

Minnewaska said:


> Cool. This could be the most entertaining outcome of the movie.
> 
> He used an adjustable crescent wrench to tighten a round mast head antenna connector. (while watching a storm approach from the horizon)


Knurling Components - Straight Knurling Bolts, UHF Connectors, Straight Knurling Nuts and Straight Knurling Components Manufacturer & Supplier from Coimbatore, India

Second one down is knurled but with a couple of flattened spots for a wrench.

What else do you have?

By the way I'm not even reaching here. 
I'll bet that within an hour I could find some part that 7 out of 10 sailnet experts would say was not being used properly on any boat over 20 years old.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

He stopped trying to fish/eat because a shark snatched his first catch. 

He didn't try to keep the LR cover to protect him from the sun.

He let 2 ships sneak up on him (too late for the flares) after waiting for several days just to get in the shipping lane.

Then he burned his liferaft down.


----------



## davidpm (Oct 22, 2007)

smackdaddy said:


> He stopped trying to fish/eat because a shark snatched his first catch.
> 
> He didn't try to keep the LR cover to protect him from the sun.
> 
> ...


He no longer had any equipment to fish with. It was lost during the shark problem. I thought that was obvious.

I don't remember the LR cover sequence please remind me. I don't know what you mean by LR in any event.

Notice the challenge wasn't that every move he made was perfect from a monday morning quarter back perspective.

The challenge was to show something that happened in the movie that couldn't have happened. People that are tired, hungry and thirsty can make mistakes in fact I think you can count on them making mistakes.

I've already explained the burning down the raft. It may have been the most prudent course to give it his all and take a chance that a big stinky rubber fire would get some attention if he knew he wouldn't survive much longer anyway.

But since no one can come with anything that was impossible I'll extend the challenge to include seamanship choices.

He did a lot of things I would not have felt comfortable doing but none of those activities directly lead to worsening his situation.

What did he do wrong as a seaman, I'll bet I can defend everything he did.

I'm assuming the time frame was maybe the 60's when the radio he had was state of the art. I'm also assuming he had normal gear for his day for that kind of boat not anything cutting edge.

This one I'll probably regret as someone has to come up with something.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

LR = Liferaft.

As for impossible - my misunderstanding.

Okay - I'll stick with my damage analysis from the container. No freakin' way a boat gets holed like that by the corner of a container - ON THE *AFT TOPSIDE* - _WHILE SAILING_ - ON A CALM DAY!


----------



## 06HarleyUltra (Oct 27, 2011)

There are mistakes in the movie, just like in real life. I wonder how a mid aged, tired, thirsty, concussed (possibly), frustrated person would do in real life. 

Overall: not bad. Certainly not an award winner IMHO. 


Rich


----------



## downeast450 (Jan 16, 2008)

Fun thread! 

I guess I will rent it and watch now! Just to connect with all the discussion I am reading here. It might be more entertaining than the movie. It can't help but add to it!

down


----------



## benesailor (Dec 27, 2012)

> There are mistakes in the movie, just like in real life. I wonder how a mid aged, tired, thirsty, concussed (possibly), frustrated person would do in real life.


Having witnessed this first hand in the battlefield you would be surprised what happens. (5 tours in the middle east) 
Generally older more mature individuals adapt well and are able to rationalize risks and fight of fear/panic exceptionally well. (35-50 age group)
I have found that young (18-25) have the hardest time dealing with agonizing life and death issues. Not all, just some. I'd rather have a Army of 30-35 yr olds. Strength and brains.

This is why i had a hard time understanding his mental condition during the film. Ever heard the phrase"fight or flight".

It would have been much better if it hadn't been filmed in a pool and had somebody that made bad decisions rather then curled up in a ball and cried. (essentially) Don't know to many sailors that would behave like him. 
Would have been better if he tied an anchor to his foot and jumped overboard with it; at about the 15 minute mark. But then again, that would have interupted my nap.


----------



## flyingwelshman (Aug 5, 2007)

You know what bugged me the most (besides his complete lack of emotion (squint, stare, frown, shout a bit, repeat...); water-logged water-proof electronics; turning to starboard to bring the above-the-water-line-but still-pouring-buckets-of-water-into-the salon gaping hole below the water line, when a turn to port would have brought the hole further out of the water; taking a sighting through the clouds; etc. etc. etc.)?
What bugged me most was that he used a pen to mark his charts. A pen!


----------



## davidpm (Oct 22, 2007)

flyingwelshman said:


> What bugged me most was that he used a pen to mark his charts. A pen!


Maybe he wasn't planning on making any more trips.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

davidpm said:


> Second one down is knurled but with a couple of flattened spots for a wrench.
> 
> What else do you have?


Your challenge was a plausible backstory, not any backstory. It's plausible that the Director just didn't care about this detail.



> By the way I'm not even reaching here.
> I'll bet that within an hour I could find some part that 7 out of 10 sailnet experts would say was not being used properly on any boat over 20 years old.


Your challenge was on any event, ie using the wrong tool, not any part. You are reaching. 



> Shease give me something I have to think about.


Ok, then. The verdict is already in from the professionals that reviewed this movie. Zero oscar nominations.


----------



## newhaul (Feb 19, 2010)

davidpm said:


> He no longer had any equipment to fish with. It was lost during the shark problem. I thought that was obvious.
> 
> I don't remember the LR cover sequence please remind me. I don't know what you mean by LR in any event.
> 
> ...


Going on deck to put up the storm jib when it would have been more prudent to deploy the drogue to stabilize the vessel prior to going forward in those seas also he had no jack lines. he clipped his safety line into the lifelines a proper jackline would have kept him on deck. 
I would put the timeframe sometime in the last 5 years judging by the nice notebook computer on the Nav station when the vessel was first holed and the west system epoxy emergency repair kit he used to fix the hole 
You put forth the challenge


----------



## upshift (Sep 4, 2011)

You want an impossibility? 

Hooking a drogue up to the sea container in a flat sea would never flip it. The physics for that doesn't add up. A real anchor would have given a downward force and could have rotated the container if the math worked out but the drogue would simply float alongside…


----------



## newhaul (Feb 19, 2010)

upshift said:


> You want an impossibility?
> 
> Hooking a drogue up to the sea container in a flat sea would never flip it. The physics for that doesn't add up. A real anchor would have given a downward force and could have rotated the container if the math worked out but the drogue would simply float alongside&#8230;


Actually that was one of the weird things he did that made sense the drogue would increase the current pull on the container and him sailing against the current would dislodge the impaled container from the sailboat


----------



## davidpm (Oct 22, 2007)

newhaul said:


> Going on deck to put up the storm jib when it would have been more prudent to deploy the drogue to stabilize the vessel prior to going forward in those seas also he had no jack lines. he clipped his safety line into the lifelines a proper jackline would have kept him on deck.
> I would put the timeframe sometime in the last 5 years judging by the nice notebook computer on the Nav station when the vessel was first holed and the west system epoxy emergency repair kit he used to fix the hole
> You put forth the challenge


I missed those two modern items.
West has been around for many years but if you saw some modern packaging that's different.

So then my back story is the guy did a similar trip 40 year before and he wanted to recreate the experience so didn't bring much new equipment. Maybe not the best decision but not unheard of.
Sort of like the Pardee's of maybe 10 years ago.

As far a drogues and jack lines and that stuff yah he could have done it better, so what is your point? None of those things directly contributed to his death.


----------



## davidpm (Oct 22, 2007)

upshift said:


> You want an impossibility?
> 
> Hooking a drogue up to the sea container in a flat sea would never flip it. The physics for that doesn't add up. A real anchor would have given a downward force and could have rotated the container if the math worked out but the drogue would simply float alongside&#8230;


Wasn't supposed to flip it.
He was unable to sail away from the container as his boat and the container were stuck drifting together, so he changed the drift rate of the container so it would separate on it's own.
Probably the most realistic part of the movie actually.

Just like newhaul said.


----------



## remetau (Jan 27, 2009)

His boat received a second hole in the cabin from the dismasting. Personally I feel that he should have found a way to stop or at least slow down the ingress of water through that hole by maybe stuffing a cushion or something in it. Anything to give him some time to remove the water from below.

EDIT: That was a direct cause of his possible death because it was what sunk the boat.


----------



## newhaul (Feb 19, 2010)

davidpm said:


> I missed those two modern items.
> West has been around for many years but if you saw some modern packaging that's different.
> 
> So then my back story is the guy did a similar trip 40 year before and he wanted to recreate the experience so didn't bring much new equipment. Maybe not the best decision but not unheard of.
> ...


Forgive me if I'm wrong but a proper jackline would have kept him on the boat instead of expending all the energy he did to get back on the boat. Also earlier deployment of the drogue would have stabilized the vessel into the waves and he would have most likely not done the first 360 that led to the dismasting in the first place.


----------



## minidude (Mar 12, 2012)

Someone asked if they really deepsixed the Cal39. The answer is no. I recently toured the Warner Bros. Studios in Burbank, while on vacation in California. Imagine my surprise when the studio tour brought us right by the boat featured in the movie, which was quite safely and properly perched on Brownell stands.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

davidpm said:


> Wasn't supposed to flip it.
> He was unable to sail away from the container as his boat and the container were stuck drifting together, so he changed the drift rate of the container so it would separate on it's own.
> Probably the most realistic part of the movie actually.
> 
> Just like newhaul said.


I agree with that one. That was the only time in the movie I thought - "Wow, this is a smart guy."

That must have been the point at which the sailing consultant was fired.


----------



## newhaul (Feb 19, 2010)

remetau said:


> His boat received a second hole in the cabin from the dismasting. Personally I feel that he should have found a way to stop or at least slow down the ingress of water through that hole by maybe stuffing a cushion or something in it. Anything to give him some time to remove the water from below.
> 
> EDIT: That was a direct cause of his possible death because it was what sunk the boat.


Actually did not see any below the waterline structural damage that would account for the length of time that the boat stayed afloat. It appeared to be a sudden and unexplainable failure of a thru hull fitting in the vee birth forward starboard area that caused the vessel to finally sink.if it had been a continual leak caused by debris breaking it the boat would have gone down much earlier during the night in the storm. Looked to be a sudden catastrophic failure.


----------



## davidpm (Oct 22, 2007)

newhaul said:


> Forgive me if I'm wrong but a proper jackline would have kept him on the boat instead of expending all the energy he did to get back on the boat. Also earlier deployment of the drogue would have stabilized the vessel into the waves and he would have most likely not done the first 360 that led to the dismasting in the first place.


All true but lots of people used to clip into the life lines and doing so in this case while creating a close call and depleting his strength didn't directly lead to his final situation.

Deployment of the drogue might have been a good idea or it might had made things worse, no one knows again, it didn't directly contribute to his finally losing the boat.

My challenge is not that in hindsight he couldn't have done something differently. Every time I go on the water there's something in hindsight I could have done differently.

The challenge is to find something the "director" got completely wrong. Something that either couldn't possibly happen or something that was so stupid almost any reasonably competent sailor would not have done what Redford did that directly lead to losing the boat and eventually possibly his life.

The lesson of the movie was that an experienced tough, prepared and mentally strong sailor (as a proxy for any man) can have a series of bad luck and not survive, **** happens. It is not a fun concept. We prefer James Bond where we fantasize jumping out of airplanes with skies and don't rumple our suit.

I have to admit I don't really like the movie particularly either, it makes me uncomfortable too, even though I got SmackD to say he loves it. 

My premise that the the reason it makes us uncomfortable is not because of any technical mistakes the director made, their are none of significance, but because we don't want to admit our fragility and that is uncomfortable.

If the director wanted to make the movie longer he could have had Redford with a sat phone that happened to be stored in the locker where the container hit.
He could have had Redford deploy the drogue earlier and the cleat tore out.

None of that matters. The only thing that matters is that Redford was strong, reasonably smart and very experienced and things still went pear shaped.

That is true it can and does happen.
The real question is if we want to spend 10 bucks to watch it happen and call it entertainment. For most of us apparently not.

If Redford had rolled the boat found his way to an island and made an imaginary friend out of a soccor ball called Wilson and built another boat and sailed away we would have loved it.

Who doesn't want to see indomitable will overcome insurmountable odds.

But just because we want to see it don't mean that is the way it always works out.

So basicly you guys got nothen!!!


----------



## newhaul (Feb 19, 2010)

The loss of physical strength and taxing on his mental state would most certainly contribute when physically and mentally exhausted you rarely make good sound judgements and a properly deployed drogue would have prevented or at least minimized the broaching that caused the rollover and subsequent dismasting


----------



## Skipper Jer (Aug 26, 2008)

When the DVD shows up in the five dollar bin at Walmart I'll buy it just so I can play the drinking game with my sailor buddies. There have been other movies with little dialog that are so much superior to this movie, most of Cast-Away (Tom Hanks) and Soldier with Captain Ron (Kurt Russell). Its time for Redford to sail into the sunset.


----------



## Steve523 (Jan 2, 2014)

weinie said:


> Sail magazine just summed it up best:
> 
> "The most anticipated sailing film of the past year, of course, was a major feature, All is Lost, starring Robert Redford as an unnamed solo sailor who loses his Cal39 in the Indian Ocean. Unfortunately, the film's creators made no effort to make it at all realistic and any sailor watching it is apt to feel insulted and annoyed.
> 
> I agree, and I kept trying to figure out why the hell he would not heave to, and no trysail, no sea anchor out, just hoist the storm jib and let it run? No real effort to provision early on for abandoning the vessel. I kept asking myself why the heck is he not doing this, why not that. Lost all his water to a vent cap!?? I would have had that thing buried in duct tape and a 20 foot painter on the handle!


----------



## TTC (Apr 29, 2013)

Flybyknight said:


> What I would like to know is:
> "Did they really deep six that Cal 39?"


Yes.

Three Cal 39s.

The credits name three Cal 39s that were bought in Southern California and have themselves to the art. The credits say, "Rest in peace," for the three boats.


----------



## kuriti (Feb 16, 2012)

Just saw the movie yesterday. I was also frustrated watching it. I guess if you stretch your mind that a completely irresponsible sailor made it from America to the middle of the Indian Ocean with fair wind and following seas, wherein only then began a cascade of terrible situations and decisions, then sure it's plausible. Had he been off the coast of Catalina I would be fine with the "old boat/rusty sailor" excuse. 

It doesn't make sense simply because the film makers were lazy. Somebody check me, but i thought i saw that he tied the bowline wrong in the first scene. He went in the hole instead of coming out. That kind of thing i can forgive, but not the sum total. It is the same issue with the recent Kon Tiki film. I re-read the book after watching the film. It is still exhilarating what actually happened. Why crap it up with ridiculous scenarios.

I like Redford, but his acting in this was wooden. If acting is behaving in a way that convinces us that he is really another person in a given situation, then he fails. Anyone who wakes up 1000 miles from nowhere with water gushing in their boat is going to freak the f#$% out, period. You would have thought a flying fish landed on the deck and he was getting up to kick it overboard. Unless his mysterious past was spending a decade in a Buddhist monastery, then his reaction was uncommon. If his calmness comes from his vast experience and inherent resourcefulness then he would have never been so unprepared. Maybe his stoicism comes from consistently finding himself in ****ty situations he created and this film just shows how it ended.

Last thing I haven't seen anyone mention. He abandoned ship with no supplies, ostensibly because he expected it to sink imminently, while tied to said ship. I was trying to suspend disbelief assuming they would just cut and the ship would be gone and we would pretend it wasn't attached in the previous scene. Then, low and behold, there is the ship in the morning, just like he planned? If it had gone down in the night, it would have pulled him down with it. If not, why abandon ship? 

just mental laziness on the film makers part.


----------



## neverknow (Feb 2, 2011)

Not only does this movie not deserve any awards they should be ashamed for making it. I mean the guy doesn't even ever put on a life vest. Even city people who have never been on a boat knows that should have been the first thing the guy should have done.


----------



## mhill0531 (Sep 4, 2012)

There are some compelling things about the movie I guess, but I found myself going crazy as the character in what should have been titled "The Knucklehead and the Sea" went from one really goofy decision/mistake to the next. I know I yelled "what are you doing?" at the TV like 20 times if I did it once. And it was really hard to suspend disbelief. 

I just don't see the sailor who is confident/knowledgeable enough in their experience and ability to solo into the middle of the IO being simultaneously so goofy. The whole scenario felt like he wasn't a real sailor, but got drugged and deposited on a sailboat in the middle of the IO, as half the movie seemed like he was surprised at yet one more aspect of sailing and the ocean in general. 

It was fun to watch once, but if I watched it again I'd be making notes and all the inconsistencies just to clown it on message boards. He wasn't snubbed for an Oscar nod, the movie simply isn't worth one.


----------



## lancelot9898 (Dec 30, 2008)

I haven't seen the movie yet and I'll wait for the DVD which is coming out soon. Once the price drops to 5 bucks I'll get it and put it next to the Dead Calm DVD. It can't be any worse than that one?


----------



## FirstCandC (Mar 26, 2013)

mhill0531 said:


> got drugged and deposited on a sailboat in the middle of the IO.


That was in the prequel, Redford Got Lost.


----------



## HEXE (Jan 30, 2014)

all i lost was 3.99 and 2 hours. 
I realy enjoyed this movie... it provided me with plenty of audience participation...
yes i was yelling at the tv many times.... 
NOW IS NOT THE TIME TO SHAVE !!!!!!!.....
found myself humming johhny cash ring of fire at the end.....

my only hope is that the boat got refitted and is sailing happilly someplace.. but i guess that hope was lost too.


----------



## TJC45 (Jul 10, 2013)

AS a pilot i'm always frustrated watching movies about flying. The directors never get it right. Many times it takes me right out of the movie. Finally, with the movie Flight, they got a lot of the tech stuff right. But Flight isn't a movie about flying. And "All is Lost" isn't a movie about sailing. That many didn't enjoy Redford's wordless performance neatly explains why most of us should never go to Sundance. It's what my friends and i call an artsy movie. Where the imperiled character shaves to do something normal one last time before he dies ,honestly, who's gonna get that other than an artsy film critic? 

it's a movie that defies conventions and stereotype. As one friend put it, sailors are gonna be disappointed because it's not a movie about sailing, it's a movie about sinking. Those who like everything spelled out with a tidy ending are going to feel very cheated. 

As for the technical omissions, even run of the mill action movies have our heros climbing out of cars wrecked at high speeds. You know, the kinda crash that sends anyone in them to an ER or morgue. Yet we enjoy those movies. We suspend belief. Relative to that, this movie was just fine.


----------



## TJC45 (Jul 10, 2013)

They used 3 Cal 39's. All three were pretty much used up in the movie. One was holed for the exterior sailing shots. That boat was actually sailed daily in and out of a marinas while used in production. Another was used for interior shots, many flooded. the third was used for the rolling sequences. because CGI was used only to produce storm effects, the film's makers rolled a real boat to create the scenes. 

I haven't found anything that tells of the fate of the boats, but sounds like they were pretty much done in by the movie's production. 

That said, the film's producers own the boats and could be contacted to see if there is anything left worth buying if one was interested.

Interestingly, years ago, on the original Hawaii Five O McGarret's cars attracted a fan club. That Jack Lord, who played McGarret had an affinity for Mercurys played a part. 

The original Hawaii Five o car, a 1968 Mercury Park Lane, was destroyed on camera in a collision and fire in about season four or five. 20 plus years later some guy tracked the car down to a warehouse in Hawaii spent a long time sorting out ownership Bought the car, which wasn't destroyed, restored it and uses it as a show car. 

My way of saying, anyone who wants a cheaper Cal 39, make a phone call, ya never know!


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Hey, I finally have something positive to say about this movie. We rented Bad Grandpa this past weekend. Shut if off half way in. I would watch All is Lost again, before finishing it.

However, AIL still stunk.


----------



## flyingwelshman (Aug 5, 2007)

TJC45 said:


> That many didn't enjoy Redford's wordless performance neatly explains why most of us should never go to Sundance.


That old chestnut that states: "It's a great movie! If you didn't like it it's because you didn't understand it." doesn't always (often) hold water. Most of the time, including this time, the movie is crap plain and simple.

The whole 'suspension of disbelief' concept is critical to the effectiveness and popularity of a film. Why would movies about robots and spaceships, dwarves and wizards etc. have such mass appeal otherwise?

Most audiences know the impossibility of surviving car wrecks, plane crashes, alien invasions, zombie apocalypses etc. but we allow ourselves to buy into them because the plot, the acting, the cinematography, the music, etc. make us want to.

In the case of All Is Lost we weren't caught up in or distracted by the acting, the plot, the grandeur, the music etc. so we focused on the mundane realities of those things with which we are familiar. And we found them unrealistic.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar and sometimes a bad movie is a bad movie.


----------



## weinie (Jun 21, 2008)

TJC45 said:


> They used 3 Cal 39's. All three were pretty much used up in the movie. One was holed for the exterior sailing shots. That boat was actually sailed daily in and out of a marinas while used in production. Another was used for interior shots, many flooded. the third was used for the rolling sequences. because CGI was used only to produce storm effects, the film's makers rolled a real boat to create the scenes.
> 
> I haven't found anything that tells of the fate of the boats, but shounds like they were pretty much done in by the movie's production.
> 
> ...


If no one bought the Captain Ron boat, certainly no one is buying this one.


----------



## TJC45 (Jul 10, 2013)

flyingwelshman said:


> That old chestnut that states: "It's a great movie! If you didn't like it it's because you didn't understand it." doesn't always (often) hold water. Most of the time, including this time, the movie is crap plain and simple.
> 
> The whole 'suspension of disbelief' concept is critical to the effectiveness and popularity of a film. Why would movies about robots and spaceships, dwarves and wizards etc. have such mass appeal otherwise?
> 
> ...


What you mean to say is that you weren't caught up by the acting. Which is a shame cause Redford did one hell of a job! But i get it, the movie wasn't what you expected. You expected to see a sailing movie and instead you got a movie about man verses adversity. A movie that purposely let the camera sit on Redford as he performed mundane realities, like eating for instance, juxtaposed against the danger of his situation. A movie that uses none of the cliche devices we'd expect in a movie like this. And finally, a movie that uses a sailboat a mere plot conveyance.

So i can't agree with you that it was a bad movie.

I understand why you are not happy. Lionsgate, the film's distributor agreed and cut it off at the knees with a limited showing. Probably cost Redford a best actor nom. But business is business. The good news is "Ride Along" is still playing at theaters, making big money with all the familiar "suspension of belief" devices proving that Hollywood knows what sells. Something for everybody!


----------



## flyingwelshman (Aug 5, 2007)

TJC45 said:


> So i can't agree with you that it was a bad movie.


Well, 'one man's meat is another man's poison' as they say.

You are right, I was not taken by Redford's acting. I found it wooden and lacking any semblance of subtlety or nuance. His two forays into emoting consisted of over-the-top and unrealistic hamming. The majority of the film had 'Our Man' looking confused and overwhelmed. A great actor could make the act of shaving, eating or any other mundane activity interesting. Not so Redford in this film.

I believe that the distributors of the film made the right choice in cutting their losses and not promoting the film more than they did. They probably did Redford a favour by not exposing this embarrassment to a wider audience.

Your attempt to elevate this film by speculating on and demeaning the type of entertainment enjoyed by others does nothing to bolster your argument or sway anyone to your opinion.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

As I've said in one of these threads, we have an indie film theater within walking distance. We attend all the time and consider ourselves fans of the approach. Almost everyone I know locally, disliked this film. There were a couple that admittedly just can't dislike Redford or found a film without words to be different enough to maintain their attention. None thought it was a particularly well done piece and neither did the distributor nor the Academy. in fact, it close in our theather in about a week, which is unusual. Trivializing one's critique as expecting a sailing movie is unjust. Other than my wife and I, none others are sailors nor expected a sailing movie. The trailers made that quite clear.


----------



## blowinstink (Sep 3, 2007)

Minnewaska said:


> As I've said in one of these threads, we have an indie film theater within walking distance. We attend all the time and consider ourselves fans of the approach. Almost everyone I know locally, disliked this film. There were a couple that admittedly just can't dislike Redford or found a film without words to be different enough to maintain their attention. None thought it was a particularly well done piece and neither did the distributor nor the Academy. in fact, it close in our theather in about a week, which is unusual. Trivializing one's critique as expecting a sailing movie is unjust. Other than my wife and I, none others are sailors nor expected a sailing movie. The trailers made that quite clear.


Maybe the most entertaining movie I saw last year.


----------



## TJC45 (Jul 10, 2013)

Yet the movie received major critical acclaim, with something like 87% of reviewers giving it a positive review. Good enough to earn it 4.5 stars out of five.

That said, I agree that a movie such as this can be frustrating to watch because it is not conventional. Which is the proper context of my reference to the other film. Which is nothing but conventional. ( not a put down)

We all watch movies, or read books, or attend concerts, or participate in sporting events to be entertained. Entertainment is a highly personal pursuit. Some things ring the bell and others are a complete miss. But to call any movie bad simply because you, personally, didn't like it is off the mark. it's like me saying Soccer sucks because I can't watch it for more than five minutes without nodding out. So, more like, not my thing. 


Anybody want to talk about "Cloud Atlas?" LOL!!!!!!


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

I suppose we should all stick to our opinion, as one has never been changed in the history of the internet, and discontinuing trying to tell those with the opposing view why they feel the way they do.


----------



## Delta-T (Oct 8, 2013)

I am looking forwards to seeing this movie. Netflix just released it today, 2/11/14 I have been avoiding these threads for some time now.


----------



## flyingwelshman (Aug 5, 2007)

Minnewaska said:


> I suppose we should all stick to our opinion, as one has never been changed in the history of the internet, and discontinuing trying to tell those with the opposing view why they feel the way they do.


That's your opinion!  (smiley added to ensure clarity)


----------



## RocketScience (Sep 8, 2008)

Delta-T said:


> ...I have been avoiding these threads for some time now.


Same here.

Saw it last night tho. Absolute rubbish.

Steven Callahan has gotta be LHAO...


----------



## captainbri (Dec 16, 2012)

Only the second movie I have ever walked out of. Sure im going to get off my boat and hop on a container in the middle of the ocean


----------



## captainbri (Dec 16, 2012)

Not worth wasting time to see even if it is free


----------



## TJC45 (Jul 10, 2013)

Minnewaska said:


> I suppose we should all stick to our opinion, as one has never been changed in the history of the internet, and discontinuing trying to tell those with the opposing view why they feel the way they do.


Minni, I'm just having a little fun. taking the opposing view. Though much of what i posted is what the critics have said.

We expected a sailing movie or the more conventional man against adversity. I do respect Redford for doing the movie.

That said, I realized that because of the movie's technical deficiencies the movie would be a complete miss to the million or so sailors on the planet. But those glaring miscues won't matter to the intended audience, the 7 billion or so non sailors among us.

Usually any movie billed with "Critical Acclaim - means wait for the DVD. And usually a very short wait that will be.

Wanna see a good movie that is entertaining? American Hustle.


----------



## FirstCandC (Mar 26, 2013)

Not here to defend The Electric Horseman, but I believe The Artist won Best Picture in 2012, no? Here are a few little problems with that movie, per IMDB:
Goofs
Showing all 35 items
Jump to: Anachronisms (16) | Continuity (6) | Factual errors (3) | Incorrectly regarded as goofs (3) | Revealing mistakes (4) | Spoilers (3) 
Anachronisms 
When a poster is shown of new talents of the sound era in 1929, actress Lucille Ricksen is among those listed. Ricksen was in fact a silent screen actress who died in 1925. 
2 of 2 found this interesting Interesting?YesNo | Share this 
Share this: Facebook | Twitter | Permalink Hide options 
The phonograph used is a Guild "Graphanola" - a hi-fi made to look like an outside horn machine. These were built in the mid 1950's when Hi-fi was the newest sound technology, almost 30 years after when this movie is set. A non-electric inside horn machine like a Victrola would have been more than likely used in the late 1920's, as outside horn machines were outdated by then. 
2 of 2 found this interesting Interesting?YesNo | Share this 
Share this: Facebook | Twitter | Permalink Hide options 
In all of the films screened, the THE END title dissolves onto the screen, either over the action or as a separate card. This practice did not begin until the early 1940s; prior to that, all films simply faded to black, then faded in on the end title (the only exceptions being gags, such as a character walking onscreen holding a sign reading THE END). 
2 of 2 found this interesting Interesting?YesNo | Share this 
Share this: Facebook | Twitter | Permalink Hide options 
Peppy's chauffeur driven car appears to be a 1937 or 1938 Cadillac Convertible Sedan with its 'Goddess of Speed' hood ornament, which did not exist at the time the movie takes place. 
2 of 2 found this interesting Interesting?YesNo | Share this 
Share this: Facebook | Twitter | Permalink Hide options 
In the early part of the film an issue of Variety is shown, with the front page covered with photos. Photos were allowed in Variety only in advertising copy. After 1920, it was an important style point of Variety that the publication never used photos on the front cover. They re-introduced photos as late as 1988, when the Silverman family sold Variety to Cahners. 
2 of 2 found this interesting Interesting?YesNo | Share this 
Share this: Facebook | Twitter | Permalink Hide options 
Women's fashions changed a great deal from 1927 to 1932; however, Peppy's wardrobe appears to remain in 1927. By 1932, hems were mid-calf and waistlines were at the natural waist. 
2 of 2 found this interesting Interesting?YesNo | Share this 
Share this: Facebook | Twitter | Permalink Hide options 
When Valintin destroys his film prints he opens can after can of film and takes out reels of film. The reels have rolled edges and are the type manufactured by Goldberg Bros. or Tayloreel Co. in the late 1940's at the earliest. In the thirties film reels did not have rolled edges and a projectionist could burn or cut his hand if he tried to stop a rapidly spinning reel. Most reels were of a spoked design having 4, 5 or 6 "arms" or spokes. A few reels were manufactured with circular holes but they usually had 6, not 5 holes. Further, the film cans he empties are "raw stock" cans, designed to hold film "off reel". The additional thickness of the metal reel would not allow the lid of the can to close making that type of can useless for mounted prints. Films on reels would always be kept in fireproof rectangular metal shipping cases. However, the public recognizes film "cans" better than shipping cases, which is probably why they used them in this scene. 
2 of 2 found this interesting Interesting?YesNo | Share this 
Share this: Facebook | Twitter | Permalink Hide options 
The pistol George takes out of the box is a Smith and Wesson model 36 "Chief's Special." The model 36 was not produced until 1950. 
2 of 2 found this interesting Interesting?YesNo | Share this 
Share this: Facebook | Twitter | Permalink Hide options 
The number of George's house is painted on the curb in front. Los Angeles did not begin this practice until decades later. 
2 of 3 found this interesting Interesting?YesNo | Share this 
Share this: Facebook | Twitter | Permalink Hide options 
In the film within a film at the beginning, the characters escape in an airplane called a Ryan ST. This plane was not built until 1934, well after the film is set. 
1 of 1 found this interesting Interesting?YesNo | Share this 
Share this: Facebook | Twitter | Permalink Hide options 
In the filming for the start of the sound era, a noisy "unblimped" motion picture camera is shown doing the shooting. Early sound movies would have used either an enclosing thick metal "blimp" to mute the camera noise, or a noise-deadening booth containing both camera and cameraman. 
1 of 1 found this interesting Interesting?YesNo | Share this 
Share this: Facebook | Twitter | Permalink Hide options 
While autographing photos for George, Clifton uses what appears to be a Parker Streamlined Vacumatic fountain pen which did not exist until 1937. Other pens used in the movie appear to be European pens from the 1940s. 
1 of 1 found this interesting Interesting?YesNo | Share this 
Share this: Facebook | Twitter | Permalink Hide options 
George's chauffeur driven car is a Lincoln supposedly from 1929. It is actually a later model, most likely a 1932. 
1 of 1 found this interesting Interesting?YesNo | Share this 
Share this: Facebook | Twitter | Permalink Hide options 
"Pennies from Heaven" by Arthur Johnston and Johnny Burke was first introduced in the movie of the same name in 1936. 
1 of 1 found this interesting Interesting?YesNo | Share this 
Share this: Facebook | Twitter | Permalink Hide options 
(at around 1 min) The 1950s-era record changer is shown "playing" a 1930s-era 78rpm disc, but rotating at only 45rpm - a speed developed for use with the 7-inch vinyl disc format which would not be introduced until 1949. 
1 of 1 found this interesting Interesting?YesNo | Share this 
Share this: Facebook | Twitter | Permalink Hide options 
When George meets Peppy for the first time he is surrounded by reporters and photographers. One reporter has the typical "PRESS" card stuck in his hat brim, but the typeface is Helvetica, not introduced until 1958. 
1 of 1 found this interesting Interesting?YesNo | Share this 
Share this: Facebook | Twitter | Permalink Hide options 
Continuity 
The mike disappears during Peppy's interview and then suddenly reappears. 
1 of 1 found this interesting Interesting?YesNo | Share this 
Share this: Facebook | Twitter | Permalink Hide options 
When Peppy bumps into George Valentin, she had dropped her small black bag and picked it up. The bag disappears from her hands in the next scene and then appears again. 
1 of 1 found this interesting Interesting?YesNo | Share this 
Share this: Facebook | Twitter | Permalink Hide options 
In the scene when George removes a white sheet from the things that Peppy bought at auction, in one moment the sheet is in his right hand and in the next frame it's in his left hand. 
1 of 1 found this interesting Interesting?YesNo | Share this 
Share this: Facebook | Twitter | Permalink Hide options 
When George wakes up from his nightmare, he is clearly propped up on pillows, almost sitting upright, with at least two pillows stacked vertically behind his head and shoulders. However, three seconds later, when he gets out of bed, the pillows are stacked horizontally, with one in front of the other and none of them are vertical. 
1 of 1 found this interesting Interesting?YesNo | Share this 
Share this: Facebook | Twitter | Permalink Hide options 
Early on when Peppy dances through her quickie audition she places her purse on the ground immediately to her right. In the next cut, with the surrounding ground space in full view, the purse is nowhere to be seen. Then, dance done, the purse reappears. 
1 of 1 found this interesting Interesting?YesNo | Share this 
Share this: Facebook | Twitter | Permalink Hide options 
In the restaurant scene where Peppy is giving an interview, there is a shot from behind where the person wearing the headset has just one ear covered by the headset. In the next shot from the front both his ears are covered. 
1 of 1 found this interesting Interesting?YesNo | Share this 
Share this: Facebook | Twitter | Permalink Hide options 
Factual errors 
A fire due to burning of film would have produced a lot of toxic gas. George should have been dead from smoke inhalation long before the dog could have gotten the policeman to come to his rescue. 
2 of 2 found this interesting Interesting?YesNo | Share this 
Share this: Facebook | Twitter | Permalink Hide options 
Back page of Variety is full-page ad for Coca-Cola; ads in this trade paper were always for show biz-related concerns (studios, stars, agencies, upcoming productions) but never for traditional consumer products like soft drinks, cigarettes, cars, etc. 
1 of 1 found this interesting Interesting?YesNo | Share this 
Share this: Facebook | Twitter | Permalink Hide options 
The pair of white porcelain 'art deco' figurines seen time and again behind Doris and used as a metaphor for George's and Doris' relationship aren't actually art deco or French, but made in Devon in the late 1970's by master ceramist Rod Hill. 
1 of 1 found this interesting Interesting?YesNo | Share this 
Share this: Facebook | Twitter | Permalink Hide options 
Incorrectly regarded as goofs 
During the montage of films starring Peppy Miller, the spelling of her name on the movie posters changes from Pepi to Peppy. This may be deliberate - it is not uncommon for those with small parts to have their names misspelled. 
2 of 2 found this interesting Interesting?YesNo | Share this 
Share this: Facebook | Twitter | Permalink Hide options 
It is correct that the SMPTE leader shown did not come into use until television, but the writer says it should be Academy leader (Start..11..10..etc). This was not put into use until after 1930. The earliest sound films had a "Start" frame, but then just 12 feet of black film until the picture began. 
1 of 1 found this interesting Interesting?YesNo | Share this 
Share this: Facebook | Twitter | Permalink Hide options 
In a hospital scene (1930 or 1931), Calvin Coolidge is pictured in a photo-portrait on a wall. Coolidge left the presidency in 1929. But of course that fact does not imply that his photo-portrait would never be seen on walls. 
1 of 1 found this interesting Interesting?YesNo | Share this 
Share this: Facebook | Twitter | Permalink Hide options 
Revealing mistakes 
When George sees the large marque for Peppy Miller's movie Beauty Spot, the beauty spot on her image is on the wrong side of her face. 
2 of 2 found this interesting Interesting?YesNo | Share this 
Share this: Facebook | Twitter | Permalink Hide options 
In the opening sequence, when George watches the film in the theater, the on-screen car appears to be left-hand drive. Since he is standing behind the screen, the image should be reversed. 
1 of 1 found this interesting Interesting?YesNo | Share this 
Share this: Facebook | Twitter | Permalink Hide options 
During the electrocution scene in the movie-within-a-movie ("A Russian Affair"), close-ups of the control panel show an odd mixture of Russian and English labels. For example, the label for the push-buttons reads "Washwater Flow." 
1 of 1 found this interesting Interesting?YesNo | Share this 
Share this: Facebook | Twitter | Permalink Hide options 
In the movie-within-the-movie shown at the beginning of the film, Valentin's character is being tortured by the application of electrical shocks. While the "Russian" labels on the gauge and rheostat do refer to voltage and current (in what appears to be grammatically incorrect Russian), the the panel to the left of the gauge refers (in English) to "Washwater Pressure" and the gauge itself is marked (in English) as showing pressure in pounds per square inch. 
1 of 1 found this interesting Interesting?YesNo | Share this 
Share this: Facebook | Twitter | Permalink Hide options


----------



## FirstCandC (Mar 26, 2013)

Wow, Argo won Best Picture in 2013. Didn't realize it had so many errors:
Argo (2012) - Goofs - IMDb
Again, I liked All is Lost. May never see it again, but I watched it.


----------



## mhill0531 (Sep 4, 2012)

Clarifying my earlier angst, and without rehashing the many goofs in the movie, I think what triggers my "this movie annoys me" alarms is that it's one more time the seafaring community is made to look idiotic by a movie showing a main character doing a ton of things no sailor ever would, and not doing a ton of things every sailor would have. 

Like how "The Perfect Storm" movie made Ray Leonard (captain of the Satori) look like some alcoholic, Cpt Bligh version of a yachtie moron. 

I just wish some real actual sailors had been consulted on the film. You could have created a similarly exciting nailbiter, but actually made the sailor in question technically competent. The ocean is a thrilling and terrifying place when experienced sailors are doing things right. You don't need one bonehead thing after another to make an exciting movie about the open ocean and a singlehander. He could have been razor sharp and actually on his game and the ocean can still provide tons of popcorn, theater excitement.

I don't know. I just don't like sailors looking like goofs. YMMV.


----------



## flyingwelshman (Aug 5, 2007)

I'm sure there are many errors in most, if not all movies (with the obvious exceptions of _Monty Python & The Holy Grail_ and _Jaws_): anachronisms; continuity errors (although I have read that some directors do this deliberately to keep the audience on their toes - Hitchcock was apparently one proponent of this); crew/equipment visible; etc. My point is this: if the movie is engaging you don't sweat that stuff. If you aren't buying in to the film all of its flaws become glaring.
Think of a past lover: when things were going well - and you had, shall we say 'other' distractions - they were the most perfect creature on the face of the earth. Once they became less interesting all of their blemishes (physical and otherwise) became blatantly clear.


----------



## TJC45 (Jul 10, 2013)

For those who fault the movie for not being realistic, in that no sailor would act that way. Or for the movie portraying sailors in a poor light, thus giving the non sailing public the wrong idea, ah, i think reality has got the movie beat. 

On these very pages right now is a thread running about a professional captain running his boat square on into one of the biggest hurricanes in a decade. Past that, on a regular basis these pages fill with back and forth as members deconstruct the latest nit wit move by someone who has gotten his scrotum caught in his zipper. From newbies who step off their boats in mid ocean believing them to be sinking, to professional delivery captains run to ruin by making a single bone headed decision. 

There is nothing in this movie that comes close to the reality blooper reel running on these pages.


----------



## blutoyz (Oct 28, 2012)

I downloaded it for free so I got my money's worth....

I didn't watch it as a training film so technical errors didn't bother me. I thought is was interesting but I couldn't help but think that this poor bastich just couldn't catch a break.

It is no caddyshack


----------



## FirstCandC (Mar 26, 2013)

blutoyz said:


> it is no caddyshack


freeze, gopher!!


----------



## mtitus (Jul 10, 2001)

The only thing "Lost" in "All is Lost" was my 6 bucks spent on PPV and the evening. 
All the distribution on the planet wouldn't have garnered an Oscar nod period.


----------



## jgeissinger (Feb 25, 2002)

This was not intended to be a documentary or an instruction manual. It was a drama that happened to be set in the middle of the Indian ocean. I thought it was very good, and I thought Redford's acting was a dramatic tour de force.


----------



## benesailor (Dec 27, 2012)

jgeissinger,
Please elaborate, we would love to hear more.


----------



## abrahamx (Apr 3, 2006)

Just watched it last night. I thought it was pretty good.


----------



## capecodda (Oct 6, 2009)

Watched on pay per view last night. Advice to film makers, a film title that starts with an "A" appears at the beginning of the PPV menu, more likely to be watched.

Redford looked better after a few days in the life raft than I look after an overnight passage, even when conditions are so good that we have Eggs Benedict for breakfast. He older than me too...a guy could get depressed


----------



## SJ34 (Jul 30, 2008)

Haven't seen the movie yet but was at a film festival a couple of weeks ago where he discussed the movie. Apparently at 78? years old he did a lot of the underwater stunts himself. He also put a lot of the blame for the failure in the box office to a lack of promotion/distribution. It was in my local theaters for just a week or two.


----------



## jzk (Feb 25, 2008)

I think the issue is that it very easily could have been made more "true to sailing" and yet still been true to the writer's and director's intent.

How about a bucket? How much would that have cost? And, how about a little sense of urgency? I just can't imagine a sailor causally wading around in waist high water in their boat...

It is not the "errors" that detract from the movie, but just the lack of realism. All sailors make "errors."


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

I watched the movie the other day and thought it was good movie.

But then I knew it was a movie and not a documentary and didn't expect it to be a sailing instruction video. After all if it was really a sailing issue with the boat all he would have had to do was a take a Viagra and he would have known how to fix the boat's problems (if you haven't seem the commercial you wouldn't get it).


----------



## jzk (Feb 25, 2008)

Except the Viagra still wouldn't give him enough sailing knowledge to know when the jib is backwinded....



Don0190 said:


> I watched the movie that other day and thought it was good movie.
> 
> But then I knew it was a movie and not a documentary and didn't expect it to be a sailing instruction video. After all if it was really a sailing issue with the boat all he would have had to do was a take a Viagra and he would have know how to fix the boat's problems (if you haven't seem the commercial you wouldn't get it).


----------



## jimrafford (Jan 7, 2011)

I just attempted to watch "all is lost". Whom ever directed this has no knowledge of sailing and boat systems. Worst piece of crap I've seen in a long time. 
Jim


----------



## Skipper Jer (Aug 26, 2008)

jimrafford said:


> I just attempted to watch "all is lost". Whom ever directed this has no knowledge of sailing and boat systems. *Worst piece of crap I've seen in a long time. *
> Jim


Why don't you tell us what you really think of that "movie"?


----------



## SailRedemption (Jun 29, 2013)

Just watched about half of the movie and then skimmed through the remainder as I sat on watch in the bridge at work... 

Someone said it, it's not the errors that bothered me to no end, it was the way he was just so casual about the entire thing. You don't tack the boat to the side with a gapping hole in your boat. He didn't have much concern about the water just sitting in his boat, heck he went to sleep with it there. Look I'm not saying the guy should have panicked or freaked out the whole movie, but he was just way to calm and collected. And you would think that since he was calm and collected he would have made better decisions.. And prioritized better. It was almost like he wasn't actually in the middle of the Indian Ocean.. . Oh wait.... Haha! 

I thought the movie was terrible. And I take back what I said about the errors, they were terrible and too many. Let me shave before this storm hits instead of reefing or putting my storm jib on..... Sea Ancho ready, maybe? 

Also, from a professional mariner, you don't ever leave your floating vessel for a liferaft unless it is in fact sinking! 

And what really got me at the end is when he is in the rafters for days with all this time on his hands, yet when he sees a ship, he has to read the directions on the flare. Twice. If I'm stuck in a raft alone, you better believe I'm going to know everything about what's in that emergency bag nd how to use it.

And that is what I think of the movie. Also, I'll never get that time back. 

Sent from my HTC6500LVW using Tapatalk


----------



## seafrontiersman (Mar 2, 2009)

While there were some obvious technical errors, I understand that this movie is a work of art and I found it refreshing when compared to the drivel normally put out by Hollywood.

No gratuitous swearing, no lesbian scene, no obligatory scene of a White racist beat-down, no Christian or Conservative bashing. The film makers didn't go out of their way to make a straight White man seem stupid, weak or evil.

I liked it!


----------



## benesailor (Dec 27, 2012)

"work of Art"....? ...Really..?..?....WOW

I can forgive all the errors with the sailing......It was the filming that was awful !


----------



## CLucas (Feb 10, 2007)

seafrontiersman said:


> While there were some obvious technical errors, I understand that this movie is a work of art and I found it refreshing when compared to the drivel normally put out by Hollywood.
> 
> No gratuitous swearing, no lesbian scene, no obligatory scene of a White racist beat-down, no Christian or Conservative bashing. The film makers didn't go out of their way to make a straight White man seem stupid, weak or evil.
> 
> I liked it!


Some gratuitous swearing and a lesbian scene may have helped, though...

Just sayin'


----------



## benesailor (Dec 27, 2012)

There is going to be a remake of "All is Lost".

Collarboration of Directors Tarantino and Van Sant ! 

They said they would put the "gratuitous swearing, lesbian scene, obligatory scene of a White racist beat-down and Christian/ Conservative bashing. " back into the movie.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

He did swear. It was one of the only lines. I guess it wasn't consider gratuitous.


----------



## vega1860 (Dec 18, 2006)

Bene505 said:


> Thanks David.
> 
> Regards,
> Brad
> ...


I can think of better reasons. IMO, Redford hasn't made a movie worth watching since Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, and Fonda's best was Barbarella. Jus' sayin'...


----------



## jimrafford (Jan 7, 2011)

If that's art I have some waterfront property on Mars for sale.
A technical error is forgeting to lift the toilet lid before you take a dump. He forgot to drop his shorts first!
I couldn't get past him casually walking past the hole w/ water pouring, doing nothing about it and going out to the cockpit. The shaving prep for the storm was a nice touch. 
I found myself banging my head on the desk about the same time he did the head plant into the mast. That was the end for me. Just plain stupid!
What amazed me is acquaintances of mine that don't sail loved it! Go figure.
Oh. And how did he manage to avoid a tan in the middle of the Indian Ocean w/ no sun protection.
Just sayin.
Jim


----------



## seafrontiersman (Mar 2, 2009)

Minnewaska said:


> He did swear. It was one of the only lines. I guess it wasn't consider gratuitous. [/
> 
> Watch as much "training day" as you can stomach and you'll see gratuitous.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

seafrontiersman said:


> Watch as much "training day" as you can stomach and you'll see gratuitous.


I can watch me trying to get the generator impeller replaced in a month or so, instead.


----------



## davidpm (Oct 22, 2007)

Does anyone remember exactly what sank his boat?
I saw it when it first came out so I don't remember everything.
I remember he fixed the hole from the container.
His boat apparently did a 360 after that.
When he left the boat the seas were calm.

Where exactly was the hole that sank the boat and how did it happen?


----------



## SailRedemption (Jun 29, 2013)

davidpm said:


> Does anyone remember exactly what sank his boat?
> I saw it when it first came out so I don't remember everything.
> I remember he fixed the hole from the container.
> His boat apparently did a 360 after that.
> ...


It sank because he was not smart and ditched the boat for the life raft so it filled with water during the storm. Then when it somehow made it through the night, he managed to get what he could off the boat instead but didn't think to try to bail the boat out.

It sank from idiocy. The small boat just couldn't handle all that weight.

Sent from my HTC6500LVW using Tapatalk


----------



## nauticalrich (Aug 31, 2001)

I believe that the patch job came lose after or during the storm. Too much water to bail after he woke up.

It's just a movie.


----------



## i_amcdn (Jul 4, 2012)

Whose hand reached out for him? The rescue swimmer's or Mother Nature's?


----------



## newhaul (Feb 19, 2010)

BoatyardBoy said:


> It sank because he was not smart and ditched the boat for the life raft so it filled with water during the storm. Then when it somehow made it through the night, he managed to get what he could off the boat instead but didn't think to try to bail the boat out.
> 
> It sank from idiocy. The small boat just couldn't handle all that weight.
> 
> Sent from my HTC6500LVW using Tapatalk


Read my post #68 it explains it fairly well from the point of view of a navy damage control specialist and retired shipwright.


----------



## SailRedemption (Jun 29, 2013)

newhaul said:


> Read my post #68 it explains it fairly well from the point of view of a navy damage control specialist and retired shipwright.


I was only making joke, I remember the bubbles when he was retrieving his shaving kit haha!

Sent from my HTC6500LVW using Tapatalk


----------



## newhaul (Feb 19, 2010)

BoatyardBoy said:


> I was only making joke, I remember the bubbles when he was retrieving his shaving kit haha!
> 
> Sent from my HTC6500LVW using Tapatalk


I have seen several people on here that missed that part is all but you are right the thing that caused all his problems was stupidity and lack of attention to detail. Here's a thing I have always heard and I agree with you never abandon hip until you have to "STEP UP" into your life raft. His shaving kit was another of those good things people missed it had a signal mirror in the kit. Before thestorm he was using it to shave with.


----------



## mike21070 (Aug 21, 2012)

I just watched it myself, also avoiding all of these threads so as not to spoil it.

My habit after watching a movie is to go to Wikipedia and read all about it. I was surprised to read how well it was received by critics and scored pretty high on its reviews. I'm just a noob, so a lot of the technical stuff went past me, but I could not get over the fact that he never once reached for a life vest....especially when jumping onto the container. I think the other aspect that bothered me was I didn't see any emotional outburst, save for the one word on the life raft. I kept saying to myself as I watched it "Really? He's not going to yell because of what just happened?" 

When his boat was hit initially, he just kind of casually looks over the water pouring into the boat.....hmmm, well that's something you don't see every day. I also thought that while he was in the water with the life raft aflame, he should probably hold on to see if it actually attracts attention before sinking...

It was good, but I won't watch it again. Many thanks to the Pirate Bay...

Kudos to Redford for doing his own stunts, though. 

Mike


----------



## mike21070 (Aug 21, 2012)

I just copied this from the ending credits of the movie:

"All is Lost was shot on three 1978 Cal 39 sailboats purchased from their owners in Southern California. These three boats generously gave themselves up for art: Tahoe, Tenacious, and Orion. They took their final sail in the Pacific Ocean and performed beautifully in the film as Our Man’s boat, the Virginia Jean. Rest in peace."

I think it's pretty cool that he gave a shout-out to the boats themselves. I wonder how the owners feel knowing their boat was used and sunk for the film.


----------



## Skipper Jer (Aug 26, 2008)

mike21070 said:


> I just copied this from the ending credits of the movie:
> 
> "All is Lost was shot on three 1978 Cal 39 sailboats purchased from their owners in Southern California. These three boats generously gave themselves up for art: Tahoe, Tenacious, and Orion. They took their final sail in the Pacific Ocean and performed beautifully in the film as Our Man's boat, the Virginia Jean. Rest in peace."
> 
> I think it's pretty cool that he gave a shout-out to the boats themselves. I wonder how the owners feel knowing their boat was used and sunk for the film.


What a terrible and senseless waste of three fine boats.


----------



## Jak (Sep 7, 2012)

Horrible movie... Seriously.. "My boat is full of water, think I'll climb in the hammock and take a nap". Had he done two simple things... grab a bucket and bail out the boat, and thrown and ugly but serviceable fiberglass patch on the hull he would have been fine. I can not think of anyone that would have gone to sleep before those two things were done. 
Redford seemed like a feeble confused old man throughout the movie... made me feel sad, like he needed a big hug or something


----------



## Smier (Nov 14, 2012)

Jak said:


> Horrible movie... Redford seemed like a feeble confused old man throughout the movie... made me feel sad, like he needed a big hug or something


I agree. My wife and I finally got to see it last night. We both hated it. I think this is what I hated the most about the movie. Redford's character reminded me of my 75 yr old father in law. Some one described his acting as wooden, but it really reminded me of an old guy who's starting to deal with early dementia or maybe even Alzheimer's... His emotionless reactions to crisis were exactly how my FIL wanders thru life sometimes with just a blank stare that makes you wonder if he's all there. I had such high hopes for the film, waited months to finally see it. If I hadn't paid $4.99 to stream it in HD, I probably would have turned it off.


----------



## Classic30 (Aug 29, 2007)

It's finally made it's way over here and I watched it on the plane yesterday.



newhaul said:


> I have seen several people on here that missed that part is all but you are right the thing that caused all his problems was stupidity and lack of attention to detail.


Thoroughly agree. Since Robert Redford is a highly respected and capable actor, from the opening until the very end, the level of stupidity demonstrated in all seriousness by his character was truly extraordinary and I worry about the message that the lack of an EPIRB (on boat or raft), failure to wear a life-jacket at any point and embarrassing attempt to radio a Mayday might send to anyone in the audience who was rather new to sailing.

You could argue that he was exhausted and so not thinking clearly at any point in the film, but having to go up the mast to re-attach the antenna which somehow miraculously unscrewed itself around the same time as the container strike was astounding to me. Perhaps it should have been called "How Not To Sail A Boat".

At least Captain Ron was funny..


----------



## dbrimm (Oct 10, 2007)

Anyone care to theorize why when his boat rolled it went calmly and smoothly over until completely inverted then stayed there a long, calm time before more or less gently rolling back upright? 

My first though was "oh **** he lost his keel" but that didn't seem to be the case and I have a hard time imagining the boat staying inverted like that with the keel still attached. I've been in a few knockdowns and in one partial roll over and it was anything but slow, smooth and calm.. and when the boat came back up it did it rather violently. 

Then there's the dismasting and him cutting the rig free. There was only 1 line still holding the mast to the boat and he just simply cut it with his knife? No other rigging whatsoever still attached? No stay or shrouds? No running rigging? 

Also when he was first holed and his ship was flooding did he not have any electric bilge pump(s)? No engine? No bucket?


----------



## Chas H (Sep 6, 2013)

I was hoping to learn something about sailing watching this movie. What a disappointment. Instead I remembered some bonehead things I've done when over tired; things I would "never" do on a sunny morning after a good nights sleep. I once sailed into five feet of water with a five foot draft that I clearly saw marked on my paper chart. I was tired and wanted to tie up in a small marina. I didn't have to tie up or drop the hook until it was time to kedge off. I once anchored at dusk in a small cove with a rocky bottom and a lee shore. I did sleep soundly. I'm sure an angel stood on the anchor all night.

"All Is Lost" was a disappointing movie. I didn't want to put myself in Redford's Topsiders either. It was uncomfortable enough being on the same boat with him.

A great movie that is technically accurate for the most part and has some wonderful sailing footage of early 20th century fishing schooners is the 1937 production of "Captains Courageous" starring Spencer Tracy (who won an Academy Award for "Best Actor"), Lionel Barrymore, and Mickey Rooney. I'd sail with capt'n Disko Troop anytime.
-CH


----------



## Skipper Jer (Aug 26, 2008)

" It was uncomfortable enough being on the same boat with him."

That has to be the most accurate, the best summation, the epic statement concerning how I and most others who have commented thought/felt/experienced about this movie.


----------



## SJ34 (Jul 30, 2008)

Finally had a chance to watch the movie. It was about as technically accurate as any movie I've seen lately. I always have to turn part of my brain off, which I did with this one before hitting play, having just heard Our Man say that he isn't a sailor and obviously neither is the director. After all, it wasn't intended to be an instructional video. 

All in all I enjoyed the movie and plan on watching it again with my non sailing friends, I'm pretty sure they'll enjoy it.


----------



## oysterman23 (Jul 22, 2011)

Interesting to read everyone's reactions to the film. I expected to makebit about 15min and ended up watching to completion. The film is not about sailing and is damn sure not about seamanship. It would have improved a lot by avoiding many of the flaws mentioned but lives up to the rules it makes along the way. It is very much about a man at crisis point and aims to address a variety of past films . though it is by no means on the same level as FitzCaraldo it has more to do with that sort of internal battle "to be or not to be" than an epic directly related to sailing . anyway It was grabbing for something rather difficult to attain. The crew took too many shortcuts on the way (especially his magical restoration to strength at the end on sighting the boat bottom. But Redford did some spectacular physical acting and sustained the thing for most of its length himself. if we lived in a era less dominated by sycophants in the film bizz its possible the director and producers might have addressed the worst of these issues but....then again they wasted how much on Burton and Liz in Cleo and that sucked from day one.....I think Redford saw something essential something reminiscent of Camute etc Anyway a seafaring yarn it is not Conrad or Courageous it is not but nothing ventured....nothing gained.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk


----------



## Classic30 (Aug 29, 2007)

dbrimm said:


> Anyone care to theorize why when his boat rolled it went calmly and smoothly over until completely inverted then stayed there a long, calm time before more or less gently rolling back upright?


Yep.. Choose either (a) there a limit to what their rotating stage was capable of or (b) there's a limit to what a 77-year-old actor was willing to put himself through.. after all, it isn't "supposed" to be a movie about sailing. 



dbrimm said:


> Then there's the dismasting and him cutting the rig free. There was only 1 line still holding the mast to the boat and he just simply cut it with his knife? No other rigging whatsoever still attached? No stay or shrouds? No running rigging?


I noticed that too. Highly convenient really, not having to use a rusty set of bolt cutters.



dbrimm said:


> Also when he was first holed and his ship was flooding did he not have any electric bilge pump(s)? No engine? No bucket?


That one's easy.. it seems we're brought in at the point where the electric pump has clogged up with bilge debris and allowed the water level to short out his electrics. Could you short out SLA batteries that way? Not sure, but that's another story.

On the subject of errors like that... maybe someone can check it if they're bored, but I vaguely remember the opening scene going something like this:
1. He wakes to see the container poking into the hull on a glassy sea with no wind.
2. He lowers the main(?) and tethers the container with his magical sea anchor...
3. He sails(*) off tacking a couple of times with enough breeze to heel the boat several degrees - enough to alternately get the above-waterline hole clear of the water and next tack put it back under. What would that take on a Cal 39? +5 knots??
4. He sails up to the container again to find the wind has magically died again and there's hardly a ripple on the water..

Compared with the 'technical defects' in "Gravity" (which (a) this movie is up against in the ratings and (b) is "not about space") which were mostly to do with orbital mechanics beyond the realm of most mortals, the 'technical defects' are both glaringly obvious and absolutely unnecessary. IMHO, compared to this, "ABBA" was a great sailing movie - also "not about sailing"..

EDIT: * = From pics available on the web it would seem he is 'sailing' quite happily to windward with NO sails up at all - which explains how he's able to achieve this. If true, I guess that makes him the most talented yachtsman on the planet and technically summarises the whole film.. 










(with apologies for the image size - I could find none smaller)


----------



## dvuyxx (Jun 23, 2009)

I finally saw this movie. I thought it as was a good film. Not an instructional video. Not a movie about doing all the right things. Just a convincing story about Our Man's struggle and accepting fate. I wished he had an EPIRB, but it would have made for a much shorter flick.


----------



## Classic30 (Aug 29, 2007)

dvuyxx said:


> I wished he had an EPIRB, but it would have made for a much shorter flick.


Maybe... but what if the batteries were flat? Or it fizzed out like his radio? No, I think having an EPIRB would have made it a better flick. Or a marginally more believable one at any rate..

But then I still can't believe he didn't have any Orange Smoke flares in the liferaft - since that would have been a better choice in daylight than the Hand-held Red he used: actually, I found that part of the movie quite instructive, not having seen any demonstration before now of how difficult it is to see a red flare against a setting sun.


----------



## dvuyxx (Jun 23, 2009)

What if he had a hot air balloon?


----------



## dvuyxx (Jun 23, 2009)

Okay, Classic, I see your pic now ... I concede that is a little suspect.


----------



## dieselboy (Aug 29, 2009)

I have been trying to watch this move so much so i have been doing it installments. it just makes me so mad that so little research went in to it. RR did the best job he could with such poor writers. There are so many poor and just plain bad decisions, things that few if any of us would do " like shave instead of prep your boat for a storm, sail around in a circle while your boat is holed etc" . It just insults my intelligence. When a 10 year old little girl looks up at me and asked why this guy is so stupid... That said it all right there.. 
RR did a good job but.. All is truly lost in this flick.


----------



## Dave_E (Aug 7, 2013)

The wife and I just got done watching the movie. I agree with most... It was.... Terrible. Sorry, that was NO Oscar performance. Glad I didn't pay for it in a theater!


----------



## Classic30 (Aug 29, 2007)

FWIW here's a recent interview with the director - which I must admit, like the movie, makes no sense at all to me:

All Is Lost director JC Chandor on Robert Redford, the challenges of a wordless film and the fight for survival - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Perhaps it's what some people call "art"??


----------



## L124C (Oct 4, 2007)

I think post #5 sums the film and Redford's performance up perfectly. I also wonder how the OP is in any way "sailing related".


----------



## cranki (Jun 11, 2006)

The movie was not made for sailors so they felt they could leave out things like EPIRBS and life jackets and heaving to, etc. etc. It was made for a general audience and for that the pace was way too slow. They would have been better off making this movie for us sailors because, other than what the RR name will bring there is no audience for this film.

I thought it sucked on many levels and Redford's performance was nothing special. 

Caveat: I saw it on a plane ride and it ddi not do a great job holding my attention. I watched Captain Philips next, on the same plane ride and saw Tom Hanks deliver the best performance I have seen from him maybe ever.


----------



## Brewgyver (Dec 31, 2011)

smackdaddy said:


> LR = Liferaft.
> 
> As for impossible - my misunderstanding.
> 
> Okay - I'll stick with my damage analysis from the container. No freakin' way a boat gets holed like that by the corner of a container - ON THE *AFT TOPSIDE* - _WHILE SAILING_ - ON A CALM DAY!


As David said, unlikely, definitely not impossible. Our Man asleep below, boat strikes moving container (driven by wind and current, as well as pitching due to motion of the ocean), even at a large, obtuse angle it's goint to punch a hole.


----------



## Brewgyver (Dec 31, 2011)

minidude said:


> Someone asked if they really deepsixed the Cal39. The answer is no. I recently toured the Warner Bros. Studios in Burbank, while on vacation in California. Imagine my surprise when the studio tour brought us right by the boat featured in the movie, which was quite safely and properly perched on Brownell stands.


It _might _have been used in some shots, but they actuall bought THREE Cal 39's here in So Cal, and took them down to Baja. None of those three came back.

(Excuse me if this thread has been considered dead, I just saw the movie last night, and had purposely avoided all of these threads until I had seen it for myself).


----------



## L124C (Oct 4, 2007)

Brewgyver said:


> As David said, unlikely, definitely not impossible. Our Man asleep below, boat strikes moving container (driven by wind and current, as well as pitching due to motion of the ocean), even at a large, obtuse angle it's goint to punch a hole.


While I'd agree the way they portrayed it was impossible, the premise that a container could punch a hole in a hull is not. So, far from the most egregious oversight of the film.
On the other hand - A 70 year old man climbing back aboard after being swept over? - Ain't gonna happen! 
BTW...Since he was dumb enough to tether himself to the lifeline, he would have never made it to 70. Darwin would have intervened long ago.

The boat rolls with the companion way hatch open (another Darwin award nomination) and gets back on her feet with little water below? Not gonna happen. 
Either have him do the right thing and close the companion way in seas that could roll a boat, or let him be a dumb ass and pay the price (he'd have to bring out his mop again... or maybe he would shave first!:laugher) I could go on...

I'll give film makers some room for artistic license. However, this was just sloppy film making IMO.


----------



## FirstCandC (Mar 26, 2013)

James Gund of "American Theater Magazine" writes: "True story: I fell asleep during the production, and when I woke up was so convinced that I was still dreaming, I got up onstage and walked around. The odd thing is the show is such an ugly mess that no one seemed to notice or care." 

OOPS nevermind this is from a Bob Goulet SNL skit.


----------



## jnew (Aug 3, 2000)

Chas H said:


> A great movie that is technically accurate for the most part and has some wonderful sailing footage of early 20th century fishing schooners is the 1937 production of "Captains Courageous" starring Spencer Tracy (who won an Academy Award for "Best Actor"), Lionel Barrymore, and Mickey Rooney. I'd sail with capt'n Disko Troop anytime.
> -CH[/SIZE][/FONT]


"If Walt Cushman beats me inta hahbah, I'll hang myself with an eel!"


----------



## Chas H (Sep 6, 2013)

jnew said:


> "If Walt Cushman beats me inta hahbah, I'll hang myself with an eel!"


"Oh what a terrible man, oh what a terrible man!"


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Louis CK certainly hated it:



> Celebrity catfight alert? Louis CK recently sat down with NPR-and, in an amusing tidbit of the interview picked up on by Vanity Fair, the comedian revealed that he was not a fan of Robert Redford's sailing drama, All Is Lost. You see, CK has a yacht, just like Redford's character in the movie and, well, "you shouldn't see movies about something you know about because I'm very into the boating and I know how to navigate," CK explains. "But this guy in that movie, he made so many stupid choices. So every 10 seconds I was just yelling at the screen."
> 
> He continues: "You know, there was a million things he could've done to ensure his safety that he didn't. Like, he's trying to figure out how to use a flare gun. I'm like who doesn't know how to use a flare gun who's in the ocean? You're in the open ocean and you're sleeping? He didn't have his water anchor out. A million things that he did that were stupid and it just made me mad." As for boating, though, CK explains that he loves it because "I love to learn. ... I have this 42-foot boat that can sleep six people and it can go anywhere almost in the world. I love that I used to stand next to a boat and go I have no idea how to do that. And now I do, from trying it."


----------



## caberg (Jul 26, 2012)

smackdaddy said:


> Louis CK certainly hated it:


Well, that's sort of a comical critique. Louis C.K. is hilariously funny, but he really can't hold himself out as some ocean going passage making expert.

Apparently he does own a boat, though.



Photo: Louis C.K.'s Yacht Gets Stuck In The Mud: Gothamist


----------



## Dave_E (Aug 7, 2013)

How's that saying go? Glass houses are kettles or something like that? Anyone who can work a flare gun in the ocean ought to be able to read a tide book???


----------



## mstern (May 26, 2002)

smackdaddy said:


> Louis CK certainly hated it:


I mean, I love Louis CK, and that movie was far from realistic, but I didn't think it so unrealistic that a solo sailor sleeps. And, "water anchor" Louis? Really?

I'd stick with the comedy; that he clearly knows how to do.


----------



## L124C (Oct 4, 2007)

mstern said:


> I mean, I love Louis CK, and that movie was far from realistic, but I didn't think it so unrealistic that a solo sailor sleeps. And, "water anchor" Louis? Really?
> I'd stick with the comedy; that he clearly knows how to do.


Yeah...I gave up on the water anchors years ago. Could never get them to bite! 
Let's hope he meant a sea anchor. It's been a while, but I don't remember that being one of the film's many issues.

C.K. also said he would never take his yacht out in the rain, and that if he did he would be out of his depth (as in the picture!). 
Why Louis? Afraid the boat would get wet? A gale, maybe...but rain? Especially on that party barge. You'd have to go out of your way to even feel a drop!


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Now that I know a stinkpotter didn't like the film, it's growing on me.


----------



## rbrasi (Mar 21, 2011)

Check out Louis CK on the Seinfeld show, Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee. Most of that episode takes place on his boat and he tells the story of how he ran aground. It is funny. I think he was using All is Lost for material. He is not a sailor. Take his jokes for what they are- a bit.
As for the movie- wow! This thread has legs! More so than the movie.


----------



## L124C (Oct 4, 2007)

rbrasi said:


> Check out Louis CK on the Seinfeld show, Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee. Most of that episode takes place on his boat and he tells the story of how he ran aground. It is funny. I think he was using All is Lost for material. He is not a sailor. Take his jokes for what they are- a bit.
> As for the movie- wow! This thread has legs! More so than the movie.


This is really funny (and I didn't even like the Seinfeld show!). C.K. has moved up to a classy stink pot. The bit about the grounding is great. He says it was in the same boat, but it obviously wasn't. Funny anyway!
Louis C.K. Comedy, Sex and The Blue Numbers - Comedians In Cars Getting Coffee by Jerry Seinfeld


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

L124C said:


> This is really funny (and I didn't even like the Seinfeld show!). C.K. has moved up to a classy stink pot. The bit about the grounding is great. He says it was in the same boat, but it obviously wasn't. Funny anyway!
> Louis C.K. Comedy, Sex and The Blue Numbers - Comedians In Cars Getting Coffee by Jerry Seinfeld


That's great!! Never saw this series before. All time keeper of a line from CK.... "I can't afford this yacht. You shouldn't buy a yacht, unless you can afford ten yachts".


----------



## scratchee (Mar 2, 2012)

Minnewaska said:


> "...You shouldn't buy a yacht, unless you can afford ten yachts".


That is actually a very concise way to express a true fact about "affording" a boat!


----------



## jzk (Feb 25, 2008)

So we are watching All is Lost (my second time) right now. If you look closely, you can see the green flash when the sun sets....


----------

