ALL IS LOST: The Movie

[Hard Rock Candy]

I just watched it with my Son and his family a couple days ago. He is a land lubber but is an excellent craftsman. We could not believe how much he screwed up in almost everything he did. Even the duct tape in the fiberglass patch. We all figured he died because it showed him sinking without bubbles and down about 3 fathoms. so he was dead at that point. I've been sailing for about ten years and I'm sure I've been through about every posable kind of thing in my mind that I can think up. and my boat was prepared with almost anything I would need to patch a hole that size in less than half the time it took him. and I darned sure would have gotten the water out much faster. We all felt like it was a total waste of time. Mac

[Root16]

Well, I watched the movie couple nights ago and then read this entire thread to see what people thought of the movie, specifically the interpretation of the ending. I found the movie a little uncomfortable to watch in that Our Man reacted to situations in what seemed like too much of a lackadaisical manner. I appreciate that this was meant to portray him trying to control his emotions and not react frantically and to not panic, but the performance was a bit too understated for my taste; It didn't feel wholly believable. Right out of the gate in the opening scene I'm scratching my head at Our Man's "reaction" as the pouring water is coming into the boat; Our Man acts like he was unnecessarily woken up by a dolphin splashing water on his face or something.

I think the lack of him muttering to himself did have a positive impact on the film, in that it invited you to think about how he was feeling and helped bring you into the film more, but it also added to it feeling a bit slow going (at least in the beginning) and uncomfortable to watch. When he finally did release the pent up despair that he was trying not to show or express, it didn't feel to me like he was releasing it; it felt more like Robert Redford wanted to really make an impact when he delivered the expletive. It felt like an actor yelling a line; it didn't feel like a man at the edge of his limits, saying to hell with it and screaming. But maybe I just found the scene jarring. I recall that he almost stuttered delivering the line, tho, which seemed quite odd and misplaced to me. :-/

I was also disappointed that the waves weren't higher and that they didn't do a better job showing the boat being tossed about by the big waves.

I didn't find this film enjoyable, but I did find it engaging and uncomfortable (in a horror film kind of way) as it went on.

His treatment of the companionways was irritating (did they just not show him put them back for brevity or did he really just toss 'em every time, leaving his ship open to the elements?) While I am generally technically obtuse, I never did understand the significance of him shimmying up the mast to screw in a coax cable. Even though I don't have a clue when it comes to technical stuff, something seemed 'off' about this scene from a verisimilitude point of view. To me it just seemed like a dramatic way for him to discover the storm (I gave this scene a pass in the name of artistic license and drama).

His effort to save the electrical equipment from corrosion by splashing a little fresh water on it was a smart move, but it didn't seem like it was enough fresh water to have a meaningful effect.

The gash on his forehead looked like he had hit his head on a sharp corner of the stove or something, not a smooth, rounded pole. I guess an adventure movie is not an adventure movie without the use of those little butterfly bandages...

I liked that his character wasn't a proper seasoned sailor (in that he said SOS instead of May Day, and did other things that were sloppy); it gave you a sense of the kind of person he was, that he wasn't an expert sailor and that his blue water trip was outside the norm. I think there was a bit of a 'to hell with it' mentality in his embarking on such a solo voyage, before any of the mishaps happened. As others have stated, I think it is very plausible that all is lost in his personal life before he sets sail, which his letter/opening soliloquy hints at. I took the soliloquy to be referring to how he had been in life (but had failed or let down significant people in his life); not just his current predicament.

I thought the scene with him lighting the raft on fire was more compelling than silly. He's exhausted, he's desperate, and I thought the scene was done very well the way he suddenly realizes (having never even considered it would happen) that the fire had gotten bigger than he was hoping it would. This wasn't really a film about perseverance and cunning seeing you through. It was more a film like Jack London's To Build a Fire, about facing up to one's mortality (Chandor said it had to be an older guy playing the part of Our Man).

It never occurred to me that the boat that rescued him might have all been an hallucination, but after reading the links in this thread I think it makes sense: I was wondering why the film cut before showing him pulled into the boat? And it fades to white (hinting at seeing a white light), and he doesn't release any air bubbles coming up. Also, what was the fishing boat doing out in the middle of nowhere? He wasn't that far outside the shipping lanes and thus still very far from land, therefore seems very unlikely a small boat would be hanging out there. The tone of the film up to that point wasn't really one where you were expecting him to survive, either, (the tone was really very similar to To Build a Fire). The title of the film also doesn't really lean toward a happy ending.

I may watch the film again, which must say something about its merits. I guess I'd like to better understand why so many critics thought it was such an excellent film. I like these kinds of films; castaway types. I loved reading about José Salvador Alvarenga's survival story. Yesterday, I also bought Callahan's Adrfit per recommendation in this thread. And I love any stories involving the sea, so I was hoping this movie would be more exciting and compelling, but my initial viewing of it leaves me with the experience of a B, maybe a B+.

[thomm225]

Read this real life account of a sailor in a similar situation. You'll notice quite a few similarities.

This book though is much better than the movie All Is Lost.

The book is about Steven Callahan's 76 Day "voyage" in a six man Avon Life Raft after his 21' sailboat hit something and sank in the Atlantic.

Adrift: Seventy-Six Days Lost at Sea by Steven Callahan — Reviews, Discussion, Bookclubs, Lists

Experience: I was adrift on a raft in the Atlantic for 76 days | Life and style | The Guardian

[Therapy]

Originally Posted by Root16

I may watch the film again, which must say something about its merits.

I read this thread and will not bother watching it the first time.

[Rustic Charm]

I 'attempted' to watch it again a few weeks ago. I got as far as ten minutes in and thought this is just going to peeve me off so turned it off.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by Root16

Well, I watched the movie couple nights ago and then read this entire thread to see what people thought of the movie, specifically the interpretation of the ending. I found the movie a little uncomfortable to watch in that Our Man reacted to situations in what seemed like too much of a lackadaisical manner. I appreciate that this was meant to portray him trying to control his emotions and not react frantically and to not panic, but the performance was a bit too understated for my taste; It didn't feel wholly believable. Right out of the gate in the opening scene I'm scratching my head at Our Man's "reaction" as the pouring water is coming into the boat; Our Man acts like he was unnecessarily woken up by a dolphin splashing water on his face or something.

I think the lack of him muttering to himself did have a positive impact on the film, in that it invited you to think about how he was feeling and helped bring you into the film more, but it also added to it feeling a bit slow going (at least in the beginning) and uncomfortable to watch. When he finally did release the pent up despair that he was trying not to show or express, it didn't feel to me like he was releasing it; it felt more like Robert Redford wanted to really make an impact when he delivered the expletive. It felt like an actor yelling a line; it didn't feel like a man at the edge of his limits, saying to hell with it and screaming. But maybe I just found the scene jarring. I recall that he almost stuttered delivering the line, tho, which seemed quite odd and misplaced to me. :-/

I was also disappointed that the waves weren't higher and that they didn't do a better job showing the boat being tossed about by the big waves.

I didn't find this film enjoyable, but I did find it engaging and uncomfortable (in a horror film kind of way) as it went on.

His treatment of the companionways was irritating (did they just not show him put them back for brevity or did he really just toss 'em every time, leaving his ship open to the elements?) While I am generally technically obtuse, I never did understand the significance of him shimmying up the mast to screw in a coax cable. Even though I don't have a clue when it comes to technical stuff, something seemed 'off' about this scene from a verisimilitude point of view. To me it just seemed like a dramatic way for him to discover the storm (I gave this scene a pass in the name of artistic license and drama).

His effort to save the electrical equipment from corrosion by splashing a little fresh water on it was a smart move, but it didn't seem like it was enough fresh water to have a meaningful effect.

The gash on his forehead looked like he had hit his head on a sharp corner of the stove or something, not a smooth, rounded pole. I guess an adventure movie is not an adventure movie without the use of those little butterfly bandages...

I liked that his character wasn't a proper seasoned sailor (in that he said SOS instead of May Day, and did other things that were sloppy); it gave you a sense of the kind of person he was, that he wasn't an expert sailor and that his blue water trip was outside the norm. I think there was a bit of a 'to hell with it' mentality in his embarking on such a solo voyage, before any of the mishaps happened. As others have stated, I think it is very plausible that all is lost in his personal life before he sets sail, which his letter/opening soliloquy hints at. I took the soliloquy to be referring to how he had been in life (but had failed or let down significant people in his life); not just his current predicament.

I thought the scene with him lighting the raft on fire was more compelling than silly. He's exhausted, he's desperate, and I thought the scene was done very well the way he suddenly realizes (having never even considered it would happen) that the fire had gotten bigger than he was hoping it would. This wasn't really a film about perseverance and cunning seeing you through. It was more a film like Jack London's To Build a Fire, about facing up to one's mortality (Chandor said it had to be an older guy playing the part of Our Man).

It never occurred to me that the boat that rescued him might have all been an hallucination, but after reading the links in this thread I think it makes sense: I was wondering why the film cut before showing him pulled into the boat? And it fades to white (hinting at seeing a white light), and he doesn't release any air bubbles coming up. Also, what was the fishing boat doing out in the middle of nowhere? He wasn't that far outside the shipping lanes and thus still very far from land, therefore seems very unlikely a small boat would be hanging out there. The tone of the film up to that point wasn't really one where you were expecting him to survive, either, (the tone was really very similar to To Build a Fire). The title of the film also doesn't really lean toward a happy ending.

I may watch the film again, which must say something about its merits. I guess I'd like to better understand why so many critics thought it was such an excellent film. I like these kinds of films; castaway types. I loved reading about José Salvador Alvarenga's survival story. Yesterday, I also bought Callahan's Adrfit per recommendation in this thread. And I love any stories involving the sea, so I was hoping this movie would be more exciting and compelling, but my initial viewing of it leaves me with the experience of a B, maybe a B+.

Well, you seemed to have got enough for a pretty descent review

The ending scene whilst clearly being ambiguous, was clearly not the Director's intention, as indicated in interviews available on Utube. He was surprised at the ambiguous result.

And Fishing boats do fish in the middle of nowhere all the time. That's what they do.

[AiniA]

We tried to watch this movie and gave up after about 30 minutes. I figured the next hour of my life could be better spent doing almost anything else. If I was making a movie about long distance sailing and did not know much about sailing I would hire a technical expert for advice and then listen to the advice. My wife and I found the movie silly.

[senormechanico]

Originally Posted by Therapy

I read this thread and will not bother watching it the first time.

+100
Why waste your time to see if it's as bad as everyone says?
You don't need to stick your nose near a dog poop to know it smells bad...

[Badsanta]

[QUOTE
The ending scene whilst clearly being ambiguous, was clearly not the Director's intention, as indicated in interviews available on Utube. He was surprised at the ambiguous result.
.[/QUOTE]

So what was his intention?

[Root16]

Originally Posted by Badsanta

So what was his intention?

So I watched the film again tonight and I enjoyed it more this time; especially Robert Redford's performance. I have really no qualms with how he played the part anymore. I think he does a very fine job of portraying his character dealing with the series of setbacks in his own way as an old man.

*major spoilers follow* (the end of the film described in detail)

*major spoilers follow* (the end of the film described in detail)

The final scene still feels like he was rescued when I watched it, even though I had decided that he wasn't based on interviews and other viewers' comments. The film for me doesn't really portray that the boat is an illusion. Really the only clue is the fade to white at the end and not following up his rescue--having the movie end as soon as his hand is clasped. To answer your question, I think the intention of the filmmaker was that he hallucinates the boat and being saved.

But the whole scene just doesn't really work for me: Our Man gives up when his raft is completely engulfed in flames and he has to jump in the water. Fair enough; makes sense. He contemplates the last moments of his life as he momentarily treads water (with some difficulty) and then, like he had been doing the entire film, makes a calculated decision to do something; this time it's to close his eyes, stop breathing and sink beneath the surface. He then sees the light of a flashlight from above (I guess the author meant this to be the white light people see when they die?). So he opens his eyes and swims to the surface and grabs hold of the hand reaching into the water for him.

I think a better ending would be to have the ending just as it was, but as soon as he clasps the hand, the hand and the light and the boat disappear, and he realizes that it had been a mirage, and he is still alone in the water, with a round burning disc next to him. We are still close up on him as the dancing flames play drama on his face: a moment of despair and panic as he momentarily looks around desperately, struggling to keep his head above the water. Almost immediately he starts taking on water and then sinks beneath the black murky surface and we fade to black, the camera staying level with the surface of the water.

In writing this out I kinda understand why the film ends the way it does; showing Our Man die on his terms with dignity and hope. It's a clever/artistic way to end the film, but it's not a satisfying or meaningful ending for me; I mean it doesn't feel real. :-/ It's like the director wanted to put a positive spin on a sad ending, which to me just seems to rob the final scene (and by proxy the rest of the film) of its gravitas. It kinda cheapens the whole experience I just had watching him get beaten by the wide open sea.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by Badsanta

[QUOTE
The ending scene whilst clearly being ambiguous, was clearly not the Director's intention, as indicated in interviews available on Utube. He was surprised at the ambiguous result.
.

So what was his intention?[/QUOTE]

Well, he doesn't clearly say, other than he was surprised when during a test audience and some discussion broke out about whether viewers thought he died or lived 50% disagreed. This he said surprised him as the ambiguous ending was not something he planned. It just happened. So he decided to leave it as ambiguous and let the viewer decide.

Robert Redferd during the same interview said, 'well, I'm here aren't I'! To some laughter.

So, I think it's clear he initially intended a rescue, but decided to leave to the audience. He pointed out that the 'ending' was never intended to be the object of the movie.

The 'answer' then? According to the director is what ever you the viewer desire it to be.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by senormechanico

+100
Why waste your time to see if it's as bad as everyone says?
You don't need to stick your nose near a dog poop to know it smells bad...

For the very obvious reason that we are all different and enjoy different things. I enjoyed watching it the first time, but thought it was very poorly made, though I thought redfords part was as usual for him exceptionally well played.

I think on a forum for sailors your obviously going to get less enjoying it than non sailing community.

[LLCoolDave]

I watched the film a couple of days ago on netflix. Sure, the film is manufactured drama. This thread is getting long and I didn't read all of of it. He was in very calm seas when the hull was ruptured. It seems either the boat or the container would need greater velocity to puncture the hull. Also when he gets swept over board when he tries to put up the storm jib. You should put that up when you see the storm when it is a bit far off, not in the middle of the storm. Correct? It just seems it was worst case scenario after another. Not many would be so unlucky.

[Badsanta]

He was too busy shaving to put up the sail.
He was holed while not keeping a proper lookout. Lol


Sent from my SM-G860P using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[AmericanVagrant]

I also didn't realize the ending had ambiguity, I figured he had been rescued cut and dry (ignoring that he almost certainly would have already drowned) - not by a fishing boat but rather a lifeboat from the tanker he had been attempting to flag (given the shape/size/dimensions of the hull).





I enjoyed the movie more when I had a non-sailor nearby to vent my frustrations about his behaviors to. It would be difficult to sit quietly and internalize it. With this luxury, I found it entertaining enough to have seen it a couple times.