faminiter I saw this movie when it came out in 1957. I was nine years old. I have never forgotten it, even 58 years later, and never will. It presses upon the viewer a moral dilemma that cannot be avoided in the circumstances. It was, perhaps, one of those defining events that led me to study philosophy and law.The acting is superb. The sense of urgency is immediate and present throughout the story. The fear of those selected is palpable, and makes one reflect on the invidious selections going on under the Nazis just twelve years before the film was made. And yet this selection is not made out of animosity but necessity, if necessity can ever be a justification for killing someone.

Richie-67-485852 Most excellent entertaining movie bringing us a cross section of life and real life situations with human nature at work. Some very difficult decisions have to be made in this movie by everyone involved. We are reminded that when not challenged, your opinion or belief just sits there. You may or may not ever know if it bears fruit. But when summoned into action, the we find out what works and what doesn't sometimes much to our own disbelief too. In this movie, the players and even the viewer is forced to confront themselves. Is what we are seeing acted out real and is it plausible? Yes, frighteningly so. Should we all die unnecessary deaths or should some live for the right reasons. What makes you more attractive to "live" and contribute than let's say the other guy? Strangely enough, it is not being judgmental when you see the other persons abilities or lack thereof. Observing what will or wont work is raw reality and then acting on it is raw courage. That is what you will find here. Sometimes the majority is wrong and the minority unsure, but going along to get along is not an option. This movie presents and proves that point. The stage is set well in the beginning and then leads to a point where it roller coasters...then hold on..Popcorm recommended, I roast fresh sunflower seeds and chomp away....Enjoy and do spread the word and may all your decisions be your own

Robert J. Maxwell A case study in raw utilitarianism -- "the greatest good for the greatest number." A cruise ship explodes at sea and there are twenty-six survivors who find themselves in, or clinging to, a small boat with minimal provisions, designed to carry only nine passengers.No distress call was sent out and the boat is adrift in the south Atlantic, fifteen hundred miles from the nearest coast. The captain is aboard the boat but promptly dies, leaving another officer, Tyrone Power, in command.Well, Power has inherited a mess. The ship had hit a derelict mine that exploded under the keel, killing almost all the other passengers. Some of the survivors are injured or otherwise weakened by age or illness. The engineer, Lloyd Nolan, is mortally wounded. With his last breath he urges Power to get rid of the detritus and keep only the strong aboard, who might have a chance if they row for Africa. Noland dives overboard and drowns himself. Power broods and decides in the end that Nolan was right. There are too many passengers and he decides to abandon the weak.Nobody is particularly happy about this sort of Darwinism at sea, especially the weak and injured. As is usually the case, everyone wants the greatest good for the greatest number, but everyone wants to be among the greatest number, not the smaller one. At gunpoint, Power orders a half dozen injured passengers overboard to be left behind -- also one effete playwright and his French poodle. There goes the opera singer, then the nuclear physicist. For some strange reason, a beautiful and sarcastic blond who is in her underwear is kept aboard. She can probably row or at least tell funny stories.Thus lightened, the little boat manages to survive a terrific storm that night. The next day, everyone is grateful to Tyrone Power for having had the courage to dispose of some of the jetsam. A spokesman for the survivors begins to make a formal speech of gratitude to the now-wounded Power. But he's interrupted by the arrival of a freighter that rescues them. The survivors then move away from Power and sit with their backs to him. According to the epilogue, Power was charged with murder and given the minimal sentence.One of the first things a viewer might notice about the film is that it's so disjointed that it must be "based on a true story." Else why does Power first climb aboard a raft with four others, then leave them and swim to the distant boat. What became of the raft and the people on it? Why is the raft and its passengers IN the movie if it hadn't happened to be there in historic reality? Second, wow, what a lot of familiar faces are in this boat. Not just Power and Nolan, but a lot of British actors and actresses whose faces will be familiar, if not their names.Third, in certain very general ways the film resembles Hitchcock's "Lifeboat" but is far cruder in its execution. No time here for a semi-comic romance between a communist stoker and a rich socialite. This is all grim, tense, and moves inexorably towards its ambiguous and arguable end. Anyone who finds this story as involving as I do might want to watch Michael Sandel's lecture on The Queen vs. Dudley and Stevens (1884), a case of cannibalism at sea. Can I include a link here? http://www.justiceharvard.org/2011/03/episode-01/#watch And it IS a gripping story. Tossing a dignified old opera diva overboard or a fairy playwright is one thing -- but a dog? "They'll be in the hands of God," says Power, but of course it's his hands that are putting them there. There isn't much room for character or development and, as I say, the movie rushes like an express train along its moral path. There is a black crew member aboard and, though he does get to sing a "Negro spiritual," at least he's a complaining pain in the neck most of the time. Power undergoes one transformation -- from not knowing what to do, to a solemn and unbreakable determination to save most of the passengers at the expense of a few of them. If there's a problem with that transformation it's that after it takes place Power seems to ENJOY his authority over the lives of others. The guy is pitiless. But it's hard to condemn him out of hand. I don't know what I'd have done -- probably melted away under the stress. What would anyone do? I honestly recommend catching Sandel's free lecture, which is anything but intimidating.

lora64 This was my first viewing of the film and in my humble opinion Ty Power was terrific as a dramatic actor. It really opened my eyes to his capabilities. He had what it takes to project the reality across to us, the viewers. Although I wouldn't want to be in his situation, of deciding on the fate of survivors in a lifeboat, still I felt his decisions were the best that could be done in such an extreme and dire situation. I'm sure no one would want to be in his shoes at that time.Each actor contributed in their minor roles, - nice to see Stephen Boyd in an earlier role - Lloyd Nolan seen rather briefly, and Mai Zetterling as the nurse who was supportive throughout.Who can say what each and everyone would be willing to decide on if confronted with the inevitable decision of life and death, or basic survival as in this case. It's certainly something to think about in quiet moments.I found this film riveting throughout as the dialogue progressed and decisions were made, rightly or wrongly, on people's lives.It's a remarkably realistic revelation of human nature at its best and worse. A "must see" for those interested in drama, and particularly in Ty Power's development as a serious performer. Well recommended.