Friday, June 1, 2018

Adrift [2018]

MPAA (PG-13)  CNS/USCCB (A-III)  RogerEbert.com (3 Stars)  AVClub (B-)  Fr. Dennis (2 Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (K. Jensen) review
Los Angeles Times (J. Chang) review
RogerEbert.com (S. O'Malley) review
AVClub (J. Hassenger) review


Adrift [2018] (directed by Baltasar Kormákur, screenplay by Aaron Kandell, Jordan Kandell and David Branson Smith based on the memoir [GW] [GW2] [WCat] [Amzn] of Tami Oldham Ashcraft [GW] [WCat] [Amzn]) tells the true story of Tami Oldam Ashcraft (played in the film by Shailene Woodley) who (it was 1983) had been sailing a yacht with her fiancé Richard Sharp (played in the film by Sam Claflin) from Tahiti to San Diego when they got themselves caught in a Hurricane Raymond (they were unable to outrun the storm).

The 40+ foot waves severely damaged the ship and threw Richard overboard.  The story that followed was about getting that ship, again severely damaged, with only a make-shift sail, from the middle of nowhere in the Central Pacific over to Hawaii (without missing the islands ...) to safety.  It took 41 days.

As compelling as these stories always are [1] [2] -- "alone on the sea" -- the current film IMHO did have a somewhat CREEPY DIMENSiON in its filming.  Yes, the film involved a young attractive actress portraying who would have been a young attractive woman first sailing and then adrift for over a month in circumstances where keeping clothes clean, dry and not covered with salt, would be really hard + one would have had _a lot more to worry about_ than about what one was wearing (largely alone) and how.  But one got the sense that the film makers took the approach of "trying to show as much of" the actress, here Shailene Woodley, as she as the contract with her would allow.

So ... while there actually wasn't a lot of actual nudity -- indeed there was EXACTLY ONE VERY SHORT SCENE that could have been _easily_ cut from the film WITHOUT LOSING ANY OF ITS CONTENT ("But Shailene, you're contractually obligated to "give us" at least one scene like this no matter how stupid or pointless to the story it may be...") -- there were _a lot of shots_ with her in tight, wet, form-fitting clothes (get the picture...) that after a while made one roll one's eyes thinking "Oh come on ..."

Seriously, it was silly ... but I do hope that in the post-Weinstein / #MeToo Era this would be one of the last Hollywood films that oozed such creepiness.

Those who would read my blog regularly would know that I rarely complain about either sex or violence portrayed in film SO LONG AS IT LEGITIMATELY FURTHERS THE STORY.  But when it is gratuitous (even of a "glass shattering" variety) or exploitative as it felt here, I make mention of it.


NOTE - Do you like what you've been reading here?  If you do then consider giving a small donation to this Blog (sugg. $6 _non-recurring_) _every so often_ to continue/further its operation.  To donate just CLICK HERE.  Thank you! :-) >>

No comments:

Post a Comment