To anyone who gave this movie a four or less,I would like to ask why. Please justify your reason for the low score.
Also I will not accept any answer along the lines of
"It waz duh wurst moovee I evr saw becuz it waz duh most boringest moovee evar".
That doesn't count.
Justify? ok...
Factually it flunked. Realism..Bwahahahahaha!
As a sailor who raced in Transatlantic and long distance events, has raised a storm jib or storm trysail under crap conditions I found this movie to be insulting to every sailor has ever hoisted a sail. After the first three minutes I wanted to scream for my money back. But I weathered the storm by thinking "I'm a comedy". Hell,even junior sailors were laughing and scratching their heads.
Redford should stay on the dry and make movies about something he has some knowledge of.
I gave it 2 stars out of sympathy, but after your whining post I'm giving it a 1.
See you on the water...LOL
Redford is robotic and shows little humanity - as a result we don't care much about what happens to him. No connection is made with the audience as his personal life or internal thoughts are barely addressed at all.
There is no story. Redford repairs his boat for a couple of hours. Being pulled from the water at the end does not complete a non-existent plot line, apart from its simplistic castaway narrative.
3/10 for good detail.
Redford is robotic and shows little humanity - as a result we don't care much about what happens to him. No connection is made with the audience as his personal life or internal thoughts are barely addressed at all.
"It waz duh wurst moovee I evr saw becuz it waz duh most boringest moovee evar".
You made me laugh . Generalising has it's funny side.
To address your original post, I haven't seen the movie and honestly doubt I will.
I'm not a fan of Robert Redford so a movie with him exclusively in it is probably not going to be my cup of tea.
Also if what I'm reading on these boards is true, this movie could be an affront to anyone with common sense let alone sailing experience. I hope I'm not being too judgy there, I'm just the type who gets annoyed when characters in films do stupid things without explanation.
Because the viewer is expected to understand way too much about sailing to have any idea of the man's motivations or sanity. The wiki entry talks about how he tried to 'hove-to' at some point. I don't know what that is, nor do I care. But somehow it's relevant to the story, so the filmmakers should have somehow demonstrated why he was doing certain things, and not others. Why didn't he start sailing after he fixed the hole but before the storm came? I don't know, I'm not a sailing expert. The movie was exasperating, I found myself thinking 'how am I supposed to know what's going on here' constantly. I don't need a movie to explain everything to me, but this just went too far into the unexplained.
And the ending was laughable. Literally. So was the shaving. It would have been somewhat satisfying if he had just drowned. That would have been more consistent with (what I could vaguely understand) as the 'plot'.
Perhaps it is unfair to pick out one of the woeful negative takes on this film from the others, and perhaps as of today it is merely because chinaski's is the last on this thread (concededl not most recent, but in any event...).
First point. What do you mean by motivations or sanity? What connection do you expect between them and knowldge of sailing? It would seem obvious that such knowledge is kind of about the means to the end of being on the boat, and what that means in a more experiential sense, how being there obviously isolates one from others in a natural environment. Which is hte more signficant thematic element, as compared to the specifics of being on a sailboat.
Is it sane to wish to be where the Man was? Is is choice sane to take a trip of that sort? I suppose one could come up with reasons that might seem less sane than others. Some might say the whole idea is crazy from the get go, but others would find the challenge appealing. Motivations might include having time to think (and plenty of it!), a lifelong desire for that kind of adventure, really anythig along those lines.
The opening voice over, though, strongly implies a sense of alienation from a loved one, perhaps an estranged wife, and seeking time alone in a natural setting, adding in a sense of adventure and challenging adversity, making one feel more alive. The age of the Man suggests time running out on an ability to do this sort of thing. In the common parlance of our day, it could have been an item, albeit a big one, on his bucket list.
But the connection between his motives and his sailing knowledge is not significant other than as a means and ends kind of thing.
Second, the focus on sailing techniques indicates you see the film primarily in terms of plot. In other words, as you say why did he hove-to? The plot is not the main point of the film. The film is about the theme of challenges, existential risk, the relation of man to his environment. There is also the interesting subtheme of how our involvement in the world by means of useful machines and materials takes us to a certain extent, but can leave us at risk, against the larger backdrop of the world's economy, where a mundane thing like a container can fall off a ship and cause havoc.
In short, you were looking for the film to correspond to your expectations of what films do. For you they tell you what they are about, they are plot driven, and as a result your primary focus is looking for plot elements to provide meaning to your experience. This was not that kind of film.
In short, you were looking for the film to correspond to your expectations of what films do. For you they tell you what they are about, they are plot driven, and as a result your primary focus is looking for plot elements to provide meaning to your experience. This was not that kind of film.
Well said.
This is the most honest response I can give you. The movie starts with a depressing monologue - then there is nothing - it might be a metaphore for the life's struggle and the effort to surmount whatever comes our way. But my head bobbed... I was simply bored - despite Robert Redford, his wonderful speaking voice and all...Also being alone in the ocean is mighty frightening - nothing can be more lonely than that. Would rather be alone in the woods. I am a bit under the weather at the moment and do not need further sadness...However, if I ever venture to watch it again and reach the end - I shall tell you.
Ilania Abileah
Artist, and Culture Reporter
ilania,
I have moods when a certain kind of film will probably not be best received by me. We all do.
But I do try to avoid slamming films with intrinsic value because of being in a bad mood.
yup you are right...but I did not slam....just gave it an honest view. Some films somehow never really appeal even when I try again...and many I watch over and over again. I am afraid this was not one of the latter. I simply replied because yours was just about the only intelligent reaction to this film, except from another one that actually went into the trouble of discussing the depth of it. Many of the people writing on these boards should probably avoid writing anything.
Ilania Abileah
Artist, and Culture Reporter
This is the most honest response I can give you. The movie starts with a depressing monologue - then there is nothing - it might be a metaphore for the life's struggle and the effort to surmount whatever comes our way. But my head bobbed... I was simply bored - despite Robert Redford, his wonderful speaking voice and all...Also being alone in the ocean is mighty frightening - nothing can be more lonely than that. Would rather be alone in the woods. I am a bit under the weather at the moment and do not need further sadness...However, if I ever venture to watch it again and reach the end - I shall tell you.
Thank you - that is a good review. I am glad that you got something positive out of this film.
Ilania Abileah
This movie as you call it is so wrong everything he did in the movie was not what any seasoned sailor would do.
[deleted]
Just thinking that you were a "junior varsity sailor" that must have been back 50 or more years ago due to your thinking.Why don't you STFU!!!!! I have been a sailor for over 30 years and have crossed 3 oceans. Get a life!!!!!!!!!!!!!
share[deleted]
Haha, 95% of the nitwits here only wish they could be as resourceful and intuitive as the man in this film. These schmucks would have been dead days before.
"I was a junior varsity sailor and I woulda done this and that!" STFU...and go back to your desk job you useless trolls. And I mean USELESS.
To skyepeacock:
Does that include distilling his drinking water from seawater? I thought that was pretty resourceful.
I gave it a 3/10. This is a short story that was painfully stretched into a feature film. That is - by and large - the biggest problem. It was doomed from the beginning.
Redford's performance was very lazy and tired. He is too old to be acting. It happens to everyone, but I hate watching great actors well past their time attempting roles they can no longer pull off. The opening monologue was rough in and of itself. I was half paying attention throughout the film because it simply couldn't hold my interest. It was boring. Simply put. Even people that like the movie should understand that most people are not going to be entertained by this. This type of movie does not have mass appeal.
But I'm getting tired of movies where people are stranded at sea. The premise is becoming terribly cliched. There have been far better movies before All is Lost on a similar topic. Three main points were mildly interesting: Opening monologue, accident scene and the ambiguous ending. That's about 15 minutes worth of film; maybe 20. I'd probably like the short story.
So tell me, where the fack is Ringo?