I am not sure how fair it is to say it is unbelievable they were left behind the way they were when that has happened more than once in real life.
As far as a “true story” being fictionalized, every “Based on a True story” is fictionalized and in this case you have a scenario where no one knows what happened (only the end result) so it would have to be fictionalized more than most.
The story just did not work for you, which is fine. It was by far a perfect film for me too but the scene where the camera was high above them and we could see the sharks swimming underneath them really got to me. It could be because being stuck out in the middle of the ocean is one of my irrational fears but it worked for me.
As I recall, it wasn’t *just *a boobie shot. Gratuitous, yes.
I kept wanting the idiots to inflate their BCs, face each other, and put their feet under each other’s arms, so they’d make a stable float and could sleep without having to worry about drifting apart or having their limbs nibbled on.
The second movie pisses me off, two, because it was quite obvious that with a bit of teamwork they could’ve lifted the lightest female up high enough for her to climb back into the boat.
Re: the whole jumping off a boat without letting down a ladder - has that ACTUALLY happened to anyone? I remember trying to google such an incident out of curiosity once and was not able to find anything.
I forgot which ship, but there was some famous “ghost ship” found with not a sole on board, but no damage to the boat and a mystery to what happened to all the crew. The theory was there might have been some fear of a fire blowing up the ship or something and everyone jumping off the ship, only to find out there was no fire and now nobody could climb back up the ship.
We watched Open Water when it was first on HBO (or Showtime or whatever) and, well, by the time they both died we were sort of like - good…they were obnoxious idiots. Then again, I was called heartless when I suggested it was good that Into The Wild also ended as it did, as the dude was truly an idiot in every respect. Darwin wins.
Do you have the same complaint about Lincoln, or virtually every other historical drama that embellishes the very scanty known facts with character interaction and dialog?
Scene opens with closeup on Susan’s face as she is reading a book. She has some sort of white gunk smeared on her face - on the cheeks and nose. It is perhaps some beauty product to dry out oily areas or some such. Camera pans back. She is reclined in bed reading the book, naked, with covers and sheets on her lower legs. Boobies are evident. Won’t comment on appearance of said boobies.
Daniel comes over, climbs in bed, they talk, he lies down, she turns over. Camera view change. Looking from her side by lamp, she turns and turns out light. Good shot of boobies and pubic hair.
She turns over, they pull covers up. End of booby shoot. They kiss, laugh at stuff on his face now, talk, roll over and go to sleep. End of scene.
I never said that was unbelievable, merely ridiculously stupid.
It wouldn’t have been so bad if I knew that ahead of time. Then I could fairly assess whether I wanted to watch the movie. Thinking it was a survivor’s tale and then learning it was a complete fabrication was a bait and switch ploy.
The story was fine. The storytelling (i.e. pacing and filming and all that) was slow, awkward, and annoying. The misrepresentation is what really irks me the most.
You appear to be talking about the Mary Celeste. Interestingly enough, Cecil’s columnis presently under discussion.
Pretty much any recounting of something that happened less recently than yesterday is going to be pretty fictionalized. I could tell you true stories from my life wherein I make up most of it because I don’t have a perfect memory, especially for dialogue. [pothead]Dude, everything is like fiction, man.[/pothead]
We saw the movie in a theater - the open water aspect of it was very effective and almost nauseating. I recall Roger Ebert gave it a favorable review. It was a movie that I long remembered - and that seems to be an ongoing experience.
As far as the booby shot - they were a couple going to bed! I thought it rather refreshing that she wasn’t wearing a sheet and might actually be naked in a bedroom, as in real life.
As far as miscounting, we had something similar happen at a Boy Scout camp. There was an evacuation for a tornado warning in the middle of the night, and all 14 boys made it to the shelter. However, we forgot someone had just joined us that day, and the count should be 15. Fortunately the forgotten boy was found safe and sound asleep.
yeah, this. just because the movie wasn’t what you expected doesn’t make it a bad movie. you expected a survivor’s tale (why, i don’t know, since the story is based on a couple that were never seen again), and that’s not what this is. of course the details at the hotel and such are fiction. why wouldn’t it be? did you think it was a documentary?
I thought the story of the real couple was pretty well known. Obviously, a movie about what happened to them after they were left in the ocean is going to be speculation. I don’t see how this is much different from The Perfect Storm. No one really knows what happened on the ship either.
All the advertising that describes the movie being about “a couple abandoned at sea over night in shark infested waters”. The over night part suggests they were rescued. None of the descriptions say anything about a couple lost at sea and never found.
I thought this was a story, “This is what happened to us.” Instead, I got a story “Some people disappeared. Here is the kind of thing that might have happened to them.” That’s not the same story.
It’s like a ordered a Coke and got a Pepsi. No, Pepsi isn’t going to kill me, but I don’t like Pepsi, I like Coke, and I feel ripped off that someone ruined my Coke with a Pepsi. You knew you were getting Pepsi, or you like Pepsi, so you don’t care. I care.
I’m perfectly fine with a non-happy ending, it just wasn’t what I was expecting here.
No, what makes it a bad movie is the weird cinematography, the stilted acting, and the slow pacing. However, not being what I expected makes it a disappointing movie.
I didn’t know it was about a couple that were never seen again, I thought it was a story about a couple that survived to tell their harrowing tale.
Apparently not well enough known. That’s why I wanted to watch a movie about it.
Wouldn’t this be the perfect way to disappear? You want to escape from debts, criminal past, other issues-so you stage a death like this. You swim to a waiting boat, reach the mainland, and assume new identities-bingo?
Was this angle ever investigated?
Except you’d have to stage it with the scuba boat crew too. And the other passengers. Just going on lots of scuba expeditions and waiting for the crew to screw up the count seems like a pretty laborious process.
Much better to just tell everyone you’re going out fishing by yourself, fill the boat with empty beer cans and an unused lifejacket, leave it drifting and let the local cops draw their own conclusions.
If you actually want to disappear, you just convert all your assets to cash, buy a bus ticket and just go. You don’t even need a new ID if you pay for everything in cash, work under the table, and never drive a car. This is how real-life criminals disappear. They just move away and don’t tell anyone, and don’t give out their real name to their new neighbors. You don’t need anything elaborate. Faking your own death just leads to complications. You go out for a ride and never come back, just like the song.
This is the way you feel and of course you have every right to feel that way.
But I would guess that the majority of consumers of story (in movie or any other form) prefer to have the story’s suspense preserved. Most will not want the marketers to label the movie as having a ‘happy ending’ or ‘non-happy ending’ (on the question of whether or not the protagonists survive the danger depicted).