If a just-opened film contains a big surprise, critics will usually observe silence until the first-weekend crowd has had a chance to catch it. Indiewire‘s David Ehrlich has thrown that rule out the window. This morning he spoiled the big secret in Baltasar Kormakur‘s Adrift. Ehrlich’s article allows Kormakur to explain his reasons for inserting a big fake-out (“Adrift Director Baltasar Kormákur Explains the Reasoning Behind the Movie’s Wild Plot Twist”).

As long as the cat is out of the bag and presuming that at least some HE readers have seen Adrift last night, what are the reactions?

HE riff, posted a couple of days ago: “You can tell right away that Adrift wants to deliver coo-coo romantic vibes for its target audience (i.e., younger women, couples). Loving currents first and surviving nature’s wrath second. This strategic determination, crafted by screenwriters Aaron Kandell, Jordan Kandell and David Branson Smith and obviously agreed to by Kormakur, results in a significant third-act revelation or confession that reveals their lying, cheating hearts.

“Adrift creators to audience: “We wanted to give you a film about a young, loving, struggling-to-survive couple, and we did that for the most part so too effing bad if we flim-flammed you. Get over it. Life is full of fake-outs and people dealing from the bottom of the deck. We didn’t do anything that bad. Have some more popcorn.”

“At the very least Adrift reminds you how much better All Is Lost was, is and always will be. All hail J.C. Chandor and Robert Redford for delivering a stone classic of this realm. Anyone who sees All Is Lost and goes ‘yeah, not bad, decent’ needs to get his/her pipes cleaned. It’s made of landmark, classic, world-class stuff, and is most definitely a metaphor for the struggle and the loneliness and sometimes the feelings of futility that comes with late-period aging (which I got from the experience of my parents when they hit their 80s).”