There have been plenty of movies made about the open ocean. More accurately, movies about the fear and the dangers that exist at sea. Nine times out of 10 they revolve around sharks or storms…and occasionally both. Regardless of plot, survival is always the common theme throughout these films. Adrift doesn’t stray far of course when it comes to titles in the genre, but the incredible true story adds a little something extra.
This story takes place in the late summer/early fall of 1983. Two adventurous lovers agreed to take a job sailing a luxury boat from Tahiti to San Diego and ran into Hurricane Raymond, a category four. Unable to outrun or out maneuver the storm, their ship was badly damaged and left floating in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. I will do my best to not give away what exactly happened but, *Spoiler Alert*, obviously someone survived to tell the story.
Director Baltasar Kormákur and the writers took a few liberties with the source material and left out one of the most interesting parts, but did a solid job conveying the most compelling elements. As a filmmaker, he is no stranger to survival (Everest) or shipwreck movies (The Deep). There’s a place in the human spirit where we can all connect to those kinds of stories, especially true ones. Considering this kind of movie had been done before, and not just by him, Kormákur was wise to shift the narrative focus away from the familiar and onto the relationship between the main characters, Tami and Richard. As the present timeline unfolds on screen, flashbacks tell the story of their romance and effectively make that the centerpiece instead. That decision served a twofold purpose, helping to break up the monotony of 41-days at sea and injecting hope in an otherwise hopeless situation. However, no matter what you do as a filmmaker, some things just aren’t there.
This was surely marketed as a coming out party for Shailene Woodley. The star of the Divergent franchise turned a corner with her performance in HBO’s Big Little Lies and was seemingly ready to be a legitimate leading lady in Hollywood. Ultimately, that just wasn’t the case here. Her performance as Tami wasn’t bad, but it wasn’t anything special either. The role required a good deal of physical dedication and she deserves credit for that, but there was an awkwardness to her throughout the film that just never went away. Her laughter seemed forced and her posture and body language around Sam Claflin (Richard) just never felt authentic. Given the aforementioned narrative choices, a lack of believability from the lead role doesn’t help your movie. Maybe my expectations were a bit too high, waiting for her to give a game changing performance, but I just don’t see it stacking up against the best performances of the year.
Claflin, on the other hand, was refreshingly strong opposite Woodley and he had to work twice as hard to make up for her lack of interest. While it was difficult for me to believe that she really loved him, it was abundantly clear that he loved her. The last time I saw him was in the snoozefest period thriller My Cousin Rachel, so this was a pleasant surprise. If it weren’t for his performance, the entire love story narrative would have capsized long before their boat and drowned the audience in a sea of apathy. It’s an interesting story either way, but Claflin gave the audience something to cheer for and that goes a long way when telling this kind of story…otherwise we’re just waiting for them live or die.
The most impressive aspect of this movie was the cinematography by Robert Richardson. He’s Quentin Tarantino’s go-to guy since Kill Bill so you know he’s got a good eye for close ups and grand wide shots. What I found most impressive was the use of small cameras to capture the water level shots and build scale for the shots on board. The underwater scenes are exceptional and one shot in particular shows Tami and Richard as they hike inland to a secluded river and then follows them as they jump in off a cliff face about 30 feet above the water line. His kind of imagination and ingenuity behind the camera gave the final product a strong visual presence and went a long way in making the film enjoyable to watch.
While the story itself is absolutely extraordinary, the film is anything but. It’s well made on most fronts, but it lacks anything special to put it over the top. The true story angle created some play, but the lack of adhesion to the source material eliminated some of the most interesting character elements and played up unimportant moments that didn’t really happen anyway. If you pay fairly close attention, the not so subtle foreshadowing undercuts the central plot mechanism at the end and leaves you feeling very…meh. Despite an fairly aggressive ad campaign, Adrift never really delivered.
Recommendation: It’s incredibly rare for me to say this, but wait to see this on demand or catch it at a bargain theater in a couple of months. It feels really long even though it’s only 96-minutes and there’s just far too much competition at the box office right now that’s a better use of your consumer dollar.