Opinions will differ on this, but I don't think the
twist
justifies the unconventional narrative structure, which constantly robs the film of its momentum and muddles its tone. It would have played out much better in a chronological fashion (perhaps after the opening scene, anyway), which would have also necessitated tightening up the pacing, which would only have been a good thing. No significant complaints other than that though, Woodley was superb.
Is it perfect? No. But Woodley is the highlight. I would compare her performance to that of Robert Redford in All Is Lost and Naomi Watts in The Impossible. No spoilers, but she had a lot to do, and was cast perfectly in a role that in several ways defies gender conventions.
There are a couple pacing issues, but there is a twist that makes the movie better in the long run and some really neat cinematography/VFX.
I think I would have enjoyed this a lot more if the story was told chronologically... The constant shift in atmosphere did this movie no good. Otherwise an okay movie, not really a fan of the ending.
It’s intense.
The infinite horizon.
After a few days, I feel reborn.
You know, just you, the wind and the sound of the boat cutting through the ocean.
When you compare “Adrift” with the movie “All is lost“, where Robert Redford sailed across the ocean on board of a huge sailboat, you’ll notice some similarities. First of all, you can expect some idyllic footage once again. The words horizon, the setting sun, and sails that blow in the wind can be used to compose a corresponding sentence. In both films, it’s an upcoming storm that ensures that the spotless sailboat is reduced to floating wreckage. And then you see an admirable struggle for survival. These being the similarities, isn’t surprising. What else did you expect in a film about a shipwreck?
However, there are also some significant differences. Differences which make “Adrift” a more interesting film. First, let’s talk about the conversations. In “All is lost” there are as many dialogue lines as you encounter traffic lights on the ocean. None! But then again, Robert Redford was drifting all alone while Tami (Shailene Woodley) and Richard (Sam Claflin) had each other. If there would be no conversation at all, you could say those two Globetrotters weren’t really meant for each other. And the trip across the Pacific would have been boring as hell for both of them in that case. The most obvious difference is the gender of the person who does everything to survive. And finally, there’s the psychological aspect that reminds you immediately of “47 Meters down“.
The film can be divided into two chapters. One part before and one after the storm of course. Don’t expect an apocalyptic drawn-out part with a ferocious ocean that throws the boat around like a walnut after which it finally crushes it like a coconut by a heavy stone. Otherwise, you’ll be disappointed. The devastating storm itself is extremely short. The part that was given a lot of attention, is about Tami and Richard meeting each other. And on the other hand, the terrible period on a destroyed boat with a limited supply of food and something to drink. And as a vegetarian, it’s even more difficult For Tami. Because catching a fish causes her to gag instead of being happy. If I’d be in a similar situation, I would throw away my morals instantly.
In terms of content, both parts were interesting enough. Only the romantic stuff was a bit too much of a good thing. I understand they tried to show the contrast between the pleasant and the difficult moments. And then there’s the least successful part for me. The alternation of fragments from the two different timelines with the help of recurring flashbacks. Just when you are empathizing with the dramatic part of the story, in which Tami tries to cope with the situation and does the impossible to cheer up the badly wounded Richard, they jump back to a romantic scene with those two lovebirds watching a beautiful sunset while drinking a Cuba Libre. Even though these are sometimes scenes with beautiful images, I thought it slowed down the pace and decreased the tension. After every flashback, I thought to myself “Show up, you damn storm. Where are you?“. But once this terrible event is over, it’s still a fascinating film with a well-thought-out twist.
“Adrift” isn’t a bad movie. Or you hate romantic issues. Or you instantly get seasick when you look at a sailboat. What impressed me the most was the interaction between Shailene Woodley (who effortlessly transcends her acting level from “Divergent“) and Sam Claflin. Their love relationship felt convincing and realistic. No fake moments. They were two wandering souls who met each other by chance and together undertook this adventurous trip. They aren’t married yet and already they experience what it means to be together for better or for worse. The film is based on true facts. Mostly the result is a mocking chuckle when I read this. But for me the result was an enormous respect for that young girl who experienced this disaster. Tami Oldham is living proof that one should not talk about the weakness of women. She proves that women can stand their ground in certain circumstances. “Adrift” shows that the term “Girlpower” is not an empty concept. Only one advise. Best not watch this movie when you’re planning to take a boat trip in the near future. I’m sure you’ll start that well-deserved holiday with trembling knees.
Adrift is a competently made survival-at-sea movie, the true story of a couple who, back in the 80s, were hit by a hurricane while sailing the Pacific, amazing in that it didn't end in total tragedy. The film starts us off in the proverbial and literal deep end, and weaves in flashbacks to we can appreciate Tami Oldham's status as metaphorically adrift before she falls for the sailor who will affect her fate. The survival stuff is much stronger than the romance, which feels very typical, but the element is necessary to make sense of what goes on during the weeks spent on the drifting boat. But then, the typical is where the movie is aimed at. It doesn't always trust its audience (and shouldn't, I guess, judging by the confused notions overheard in the theater), and uses things like showing us footage of the real Tami in the end credits, a biopic trope I've come to despise as trite and jarring. A tale of survival worth telling, and not badly told, but a little obvious.
Add your comment
Comments 1 - 8 of 8
Ralf
Shailene Woodley is like a young Kate Winslet, no?lachyas
Opinions will differ on this, but I don't think theEmiam
6/10Fascinating and interesting.
ntan
I enjoyed this film.Is it perfect? No. But Woodley is the highlight. I would compare her performance to that of Robert Redford in All Is Lost and Naomi Watts in The Impossible. No spoilers, but she had a lot to do, and was cast perfectly in a role that in several ways defies gender conventions.
There are a couple pacing issues, but there is a twist that makes the movie better in the long run and some really neat cinematography/VFX.
4/5
Wistaire
I think I would have enjoyed this a lot more if the story was told chronologically... The constant shift in atmosphere did this movie no good. Otherwise an okay movie, not really a fan of the ending.ikkegoemikke
It’s intense.The infinite horizon.
After a few days, I feel reborn.
You know, just you, the wind and the sound of the boat cutting through the ocean.
When you compare “Adrift” with the movie “All is lost“, where Robert Redford sailed across the ocean on board of a huge sailboat, you’ll notice some similarities. First of all, you can expect some idyllic footage once again. The words horizon, the setting sun, and sails that blow in the wind can be used to compose a corresponding sentence. In both films, it’s an upcoming storm that ensures that the spotless sailboat is reduced to floating wreckage. And then you see an admirable struggle for survival. These being the similarities, isn’t surprising. What else did you expect in a film about a shipwreck?
However, there are also some significant differences. Differences which make “Adrift” a more interesting film. First, let’s talk about the conversations. In “All is lost” there are as many dialogue lines as you encounter traffic lights on the ocean. None! But then again, Robert Redford was drifting all alone while Tami (Shailene Woodley) and Richard (Sam Claflin) had each other. If there would be no conversation at all, you could say those two Globetrotters weren’t really meant for each other. And the trip across the Pacific would have been boring as hell for both of them in that case. The most obvious difference is the gender of the person who does everything to survive. And finally, there’s the psychological aspect that reminds you immediately of “47 Meters down“.
The film can be divided into two chapters. One part before and one after the storm of course. Don’t expect an apocalyptic drawn-out part with a ferocious ocean that throws the boat around like a walnut after which it finally crushes it like a coconut by a heavy stone. Otherwise, you’ll be disappointed. The devastating storm itself is extremely short. The part that was given a lot of attention, is about Tami and Richard meeting each other. And on the other hand, the terrible period on a destroyed boat with a limited supply of food and something to drink. And as a vegetarian, it’s even more difficult For Tami. Because catching a fish causes her to gag instead of being happy. If I’d be in a similar situation, I would throw away my morals instantly.
In terms of content, both parts were interesting enough. Only the romantic stuff was a bit too much of a good thing. I understand they tried to show the contrast between the pleasant and the difficult moments. And then there’s the least successful part for me. The alternation of fragments from the two different timelines with the help of recurring flashbacks. Just when you are empathizing with the dramatic part of the story, in which Tami tries to cope with the situation and does the impossible to cheer up the badly wounded Richard, they jump back to a romantic scene with those two lovebirds watching a beautiful sunset while drinking a Cuba Libre. Even though these are sometimes scenes with beautiful images, I thought it slowed down the pace and decreased the tension. After every flashback, I thought to myself “Show up, you damn storm. Where are you?“. But once this terrible event is over, it’s still a fascinating film with a well-thought-out twist.
“Adrift” isn’t a bad movie. Or you hate romantic issues. Or you instantly get seasick when you look at a sailboat. What impressed me the most was the interaction between Shailene Woodley (who effortlessly transcends her acting level from “Divergent“) and Sam Claflin. Their love relationship felt convincing and realistic. No fake moments. They were two wandering souls who met each other by chance and together undertook this adventurous trip. They aren’t married yet and already they experience what it means to be together for better or for worse. The film is based on true facts. Mostly the result is a mocking chuckle when I read this. But for me the result was an enormous respect for that young girl who experienced this disaster. Tami Oldham is living proof that one should not talk about the weakness of women. She proves that women can stand their ground in certain circumstances. “Adrift” shows that the term “Girlpower” is not an empty concept. Only one advise. Best not watch this movie when you’re planning to take a boat trip in the near future. I’m sure you’ll start that well-deserved holiday with trembling knees.
More reviews here
buc86
Confusing if you know the true story.Siskoid
Adrift is a competently made survival-at-sea movie, the true story of a couple who, back in the 80s, were hit by a hurricane while sailing the Pacific, amazing in that it didn't end in total tragedy. The film starts us off in the proverbial and literal deep end, and weaves in flashbacks to we can appreciate Tami Oldham's status as metaphorically adrift before she falls for the sailor who will affect her fate. The survival stuff is much stronger than the romance, which feels very typical, but the element is necessary to make sense of what goes on during the weeks spent on the drifting boat. But then, the typical is where the movie is aimed at. It doesn't always trust its audience (and shouldn't, I guess, judging by the confused notions overheard in the theater), and uses things like showing us footage of the real Tami in the end credits, a biopic trope I've come to despise as trite and jarring. A tale of survival worth telling, and not badly told, but a little obvious.