Genres

Visitors Review

seanp2-1 2012-05-24 18:13:38

A defense of parallel plot lines

Contains a Spoiler!Although I have not read more than a half a dozen of the responses tothis film (nor, unfortunately the book), I do want to offer a offhandedtake which could clarify, scratch that, rectify, the confusion which isomnipresent (in the reviews I have read thus far) between the twoplot/time lines. I think that the drowning of the Poet (Thomas Janes) at the climax ofthe second plot line represents the figurative drowning of the Truth inthe first plot line. After all, despite the (soon to be drowned) Poet'sflirtation with the siren-like figure Adaline, which is againreiterated at the restaurant on the wharf with an even youngersycophant - Thomas remains true to his wife. Just as she relates thathis poetry has always remained true to the girl who died in his drunkencar accident.In the end it is the Poet Thomas's death which is the lynch-pinconnecting the death of the innocent boarder from the first plot linebecause it is Truth itself which is drowned under the weight of water.

2012-05-24 10:19:28

Beautiful Film, Achingly Lacking

I enjoyed the film for any number of reasons: Liz Hurley is beautiful, Sean Penn and Sarah Polley are fun to watch, the scenery is keen, the sense of place is strong. And Liz Hurley is beautiful. Have I mentioned that? Anyway, this film has several good things going for it, and I would recommend it based on these things. The flaws of the film pertain to it's rigid desire to maintain a parallel structure in it's two separate (yet connected) stories. The one story feels very original and fresh (though come to find out it is roughly based on a tragedy some 100 years before). But the other feels forced into an attachment with the primary narrative. Evidence --and reason-- as to why these separate stories deserve to be entwined appears lacking. Separately the narratives are strong, it's just the mating of them that creates rough edges. Thank you.R.P. Petalver

patstanley1 2012-05-13 16:50:03

Junior year abroad with literary fluff ....

Almost awful, but it is pretty. The title should clue you in: this isno "Knife in the Water". The patronizing and sophomoricliterary-cluttered conversations are not "cliched", as suggested, theyare down right insulting. The director seems to think she is still onjunior year abroad, her European, romantic literary tour. The poor SeanPenn character even has to "subscribe to the single ax theory" of themurder, to use this film's continuously dreary iconic phrasing. Well,not to be too harsh, I have to admit that the letters from home and thegift of a cute puppy do ring an even softer tone. Airlines offer barfbags, why not movie rental stores?

Melissa Mendelson 2012-05-13 09:34:45

A Haunting Tale

A calm draws us in, and we gently ease into a tale of drama, but thebeauty before us fades into mystery. And we are pulled in further asthe story unfolds, and conflict and depth threaten to wash over us. Andnow sharp currents of lust thrash wildly, and the coldness of murderfills our veins. And water coils around us tighter like a snake, andpast and future collide. And we are pulled under water, feeling itsweight, but the ending pushes us back to shore. And footprints remainin the sand of the struggle of life and chaos of love.Weight of Water is a haunting tale written and brought to life throughspell-binding craftsmanship. The heart and soul of characters echo theactors portraying them, pulling us further into their conflict anddepth. Music strikes the chords to our spirit, and we soar along a webof deceit, betrayal, and murder. And the drama of this story reflectson our own mistakes, our own choices, and as the waves of time returnto its peaceful calm, maybe we are better off leaving the past alone.

ParanoidAndroidMarvin 2012-05-10 09:59:46

Penn carries this so-so movie.

Kathryn Bigelow's The Weight of Water is a moody picture that employs thetalents of Sean Penn to keep the viewer interested. The film's biggestfailure come in Bigelow's incessant use of flashbacks. The flashbacks tellthe story of a murder that took place more than a hundred years ago. Whilethe past does have relevance to the present, the frequent flashing betweenthe two time periods becomes tedious and annoying. The real tension istaking place in the present, and flashbacks feel like speedbumps in thedevelopment of the real story.Perhaps if the flashbacks had been handled better, it would have worked. The viewer always realizes what's going on before the characters do,therefore it becomes boring to wait through the flashback scenes so we canget back to Penn and company in the present. As such, no matter how manythematic connections can be drawn between the two different stories, thejuxtaposition fails, because the tension of the first story has not beenduplicated in the flashbacks.Even so, Sean Penn is engaging to watch, and Liz Hurley is well cast as aflirty seductress. I found The Weight of Water to be very different fromBigelow's other work that I've seen, Strange Days and K*19:The Widowmaker. Fans of Penn or Hurley will no doubt be entertained enough, but all othersneed not apply.

Thomas Holbrook 2012-05-10 06:35:57

Not the sort of movie Americans are used to watching.

Creditable effort by all concerned, but lacks a certain spark, which isperhaps a matter of pacing. Polley and Penn are fine, as is the entirecast. But "Why am I watching this?" comes to mind too often when viewingthe movie.

oldsue 2012-05-05 04:17:11

Initially apprehensive, pleasantly surprised

I was initially apprehensive about seeing this movie, as casting Sean Penn(Sean Penn!!) as the poet Thomas seemed a bit of a stretch. Butfortunatelyhis role is not major and although they took some liberties with the book(dropping Billie, the child, completely and changing the ending) the filmwas quite viewable and entertaining. The depiction of the 19th centurymurders was especially well done with strong performances from that cast.The 20th century part was a bit too moody for me and perhaps hard tofollowif you hadn't read the book, but all in all, not bad.

PeachHamBeach 2012-05-04 11:59:35

Two stories in one

I liked this movie. It wasn't really about murder as much as aboutjealousy, obsession and about other conditions that can drive anormally sane person over the edge. It illustrated human frailty andimperfection very well. There were a lot of twists in the plot andgreat acting by all. Sarah Polley and Catherine McCormack inparticular, were excellent. It was like seeing the same person inparallel time periods, suffering the same emotions. The dark hairedsister Karen seemed cruel as she taunted Maren with tails of theirbrother coming to America. While Adaline wasn't nearly as "cruel", herceaseless tactics of seduction right in front of Jean seemedinappropriate and inconsiderate to say the least. I think this is avery well plotted and enjoyable mystery thriller.

djraymond 2012-05-04 10:45:22

Stunning cinematography, predictable plot.

This movie was predictable right from the start. There are actually twomovies rolled into one; a murder from 1873, and marital discord from 2000. Though passingly interesting, each is predictable and neither is explored indepth. However, the cinematography is exceptional. The close-up camerawork is wonderful, as are the scenics, and the lighting is perfect. A greatvisual feast, but leave the brain at home.

PaulW-7 2012-05-03 23:44:19

The acting is good, but...

....other than that I found the film pretty dire. The connectionbetween the two stories told in the film is nebulous to say the least.The story of the original murder is told in a very straight forwardfashion, but what is going on in the modern story is most unclear.After watching the film, I honestly don't know if it is meant to be thecase that the Sean Penn character had an affair with the ElizabethHurley Character, whether she was trying to seduce him, whether he andhis wife are happy, and many more things that are hard to mentionwithout creating spoilers.Watch something else!

plumberguy66 2012-05-02 06:20:35

My two cents...

If I may… (some possible spoilers) To me this movie told the story of twowomen in two very different times enduring the circumstances of their livesboth of which come to a head in the location around the same island. On onehand we have Maren who is displaced from her homeland to a desolate islandwith a husband that she does not love with no companionship to speak of.Then we have Jean who is in a strained relationship with her writer husband;both not able to deal with the inability to communicate honestly with oneanother. Time passes for Maren then one by one her sister, brother andsister-in-law arrive and she ends up being nothing more than a ‘mother hen'to them. To keep her brother's affections near by, Maren is willing toendure the life she now has. For Jean she endures the blame, infidelity andresentment from her husband due to his troubled past and inability to writeany longer. At some point in the movie both women make a choice to do whatthey must to survive and keep the men they love. In one time Maren ridsherself of her problems and in the other Jean holds on to save herself. Bothchoices have similar consequences and both women suffer loss. There is a lotmore in between but that, to me, seems to be the common thread here. PerhapsI'm reading too much into this film. Whatever the case, it's visuallystimulating, well tooled and haunting. Sarah Polley is, with out a doubt thegem in this movie. I was captivated from the first frame to the last. Yeah,I liked it.

2012-05-01 17:35:39

Be patient...

I have never read the book.. So this is just based on what i saw of the film...It was a great movie.. A bit sluggish but worth it towards the last half hour.. Very well acted and played out. Beautifully filmed. Definetly check this out.. If you have no patience and hate waiting for something to happen, then this MIGHT not be for you.. But if you want to see a good movie don't pass this one by..

Jizdenky 2012-05-01 15:08:23

The Weight of Two Stories: Only One Weighs Heavier

'The Weight of Water' tells two stories simultaneously. It is onlyMaren's story that keeps the viewer engaged while Jean's story ishalfbaked. In spite of having a stellar cast, the latter story requiredfurther development. For example, one doesn't understand why Jean feelsso connected to the murders that happened more than a hundred year ago.She's so drawn to it that she prefers to give that more focus than herfailing marriage. With the exception of Jean, none of the othercharacters seem defined enough for us to care about. Maren's story endsup dominating the other. It starts off as rather boring but as eventsunfold, we're further drawn into it. Yet, more importantly, what is theconnection between the two stories? That's one crucial point 'TheWeight of Water' fails to make. Catherine McCormack does a fine jobwith a difficult role. However the screenplay, does not allow her toportray the complex feelings her character is experiencing. SarahPolley too impresses with a complex role. Sean Penn disappoints. Heseems rather uninterested most of the time. Elizabeth Hurley is quitealright as a shameless seductress. She does look sizzling but thescreenplay doesn't give her much scope to perform. 'The Weight ofWater' tries to be an impactive film but it just doesn't work. Onlyhalf the film is worth watching.

cmac 2012-05-01 05:11:19

Good lord NO!!!!

oh man this movie sucked.if you like Crap then go head and watch this movie because that is what you will get.Along with bordem and suckieness.So by all means watch it if that is what you want.

2012-04-28 19:40:03

Water-logged

Whew! After reading other reviewer's remarks, I'm glad to see I was not the only one who thought this movie was crap. The cinematography is great, and the look (art direction) is authentic. I too had trouble following the double-storyline. Just when I started to get interested in the modern-day story, the action cut back to the past. I don't know if it was poor choices during the editing processes or what. I have seen many other movies that use flashback and dual-timeline stories. None of those were this boring. By the time you get to discover the real truth behind the century-old murders, you really don't care anymore. And I don't see how the climactic storm at sea resolves the modern-day storyline.In terms of casting, I have to agree with the other reviewers: why cast two British actress as the modern-day leads. To me, the character of Jean should've been played with either an American actress (or at least a British or Australian actress with an American accent)instead of Catherine McCormick. I also couldn't begin to identify with the character. She seems so obsessed over this murder but completely inarticulate when discussing it (unless that's the point). Sean Penn sits around and broods as her husband, a has-been poet. Josh Lucas and Elizabeth Hurley (as Sean Penn's brother and the brother's girlfriend) really don't have much to do except add some eye candy (Josh for the ladies, and Elizabeth for the guys, and believe me, I kept wanting to see more of her in the bathing suit -- with and without the top). Some say Josh Lucas's acting is a bit wooden and stiff in this role; I say he has nothing to work with: the character is just there to steer the boat and give Hurley backrubs. He has no real personality quirks and Lucas works best when he plays someone who's a bit flawed (he is a rare case of a character actor who has leading-man good looks but bland roles don't suit him). Sean Penn, on the other hand, looks like he's sleepwalking through half the movie. His alcoholic poet seems more like he's stoned on Prozac; there's no passion, even when he quotes Dylan Thomas. I think this was a miscasting; he's not sympathetic either. (SPOILER ALERT: His character's fate during the storm is almost deserved; one cannot feel sympathy for him.) The story set in the last century is much more interesting but because of the cut-up flashbacks, one doesn't hold interest. Sarah Polley is a good actress, but her moping around -- "Oh, I'm stuck in a loveless marriage, and I really want to sleep with my brother again," attitude gets old. Yes, dear viewers, I gave away another spoiler: incest. The other actors that play in the murder mystery story (aside from Polley and the great Ciaran Hinds as the wrongly accused murderer) are all Scandinavian and I've never heard of any of them before. They do a good job with the material they're given, but it's hard to connect with them as well. Perhaps this is one of those movies that you grow to like after repeated viewings. Once was enough for me. Perhaps you also need to read the original Anita Shreve novel before you watch it. If so, I understand the movie is quite the literal adaptation. This may be its biggest flaw: novels can be cinematic in their themes, imagery and their dialogue; they become water-logged when one tries to adapt the same style in telling two contrasting stories. It also helps that when reading a novel with two story lines, it's much easier to go back and re-read parts of it, when the action gets confusing.

2012-04-28 01:25:24

Worth watching, but with serious defects.

The 19th century story is beautifully filmed and acted, and deserves 5 stars on its own merits. Sarah Polley in particular does a terrific job as the Norwegian immigrant incestuous lesbian ax-murderer. The location filming on the Isles of Shoals was spectacular.The 20th century story is visually beautiful, with lots of sun, skin, and sailboats, but it wasn't filmed at the Isles of Shoals - people don't go swimming out there without a wet suit, even in the summertime. It's the North Atlantic, remember? The acting is spotty and the plot is incoherent. The storm episode does not hang together. Why no life vests for the men? Why no safety lines? Why does Hurley climb out of the hatch in the middle of a storm - is she psychotic? Sean Penn plays Sean Penn very well, but he is not credible as the anguished poet. Elizabeth Hurley is absolutely delicious to look at, which alone may provide sufficient motivation for some to see this movie. Katherine McCormack does neurosis reasonably well.It's an interesting film, worth seeing for the 19th century murder-drama and for the view of Hurley's nude torso.

Palermo-3 2012-04-26 15:25:12

Still not Bigelow's breakthrough

My hope was that The Weight of Water would finally bring Kathryn Bigelowtherecognition she deserves. Her beautifully directed Near Dark is the bestfilm about contemporary vampirism, and her sci fi drama Strange Days wasoneof the most underrated movies of 1995. And so it's with a certain dismay tofind myself reporting that The Weight of Water is a mess. It's ambitious,yes, but uninvolving and mechanical in its story construction. CatherineMcCormack plays a journalist who, along with her husband (Sean Penn) andanother couple (Elizabeth Hurley and Josh Lucas), sails to the location ofacentury old New Hampshire axe murder that's lone witness was a younghousewife (Sarah Polley). Interweaving the present investigation withflashbacks of the events surrounding the crime, we're expected to realizethe similarities between the two timelines. The problem is that they havemuch less to do with each other than Bigelow wants us to believe. Whilebothhint at themes of infidelity, and add up to say something vague about theprevailing power of love, the issues are subtle to the point of mereimplication. With the modern day events left particularly undeveloped,there's surprisingly little dramatic weight to the final moments ofcatharsis. It's hard to know what Bigelow was going for here. She'sobviously put a lot of care into her direction, which maintains a rhythmicelegance throughout. The sets and costuming, as well as Sarah Polley'sperformance, are authentic. There's also a memorable scene where ElizabethHurley gives head to an ice cube. But these things are only minordistractions during a long journey to nowhere.

bas rutten 2012-04-26 04:33:39

Should have sticked to the historical tale

This movie sets a new definition of the terms "boring". Somehow, I guessthis movie was meant to be clever and refreshing, but the implementationleaves so much to be desired that this movie ends up being a two-hoursleep-inducing affair. Basically, it consists of two parts, a modern-day part and a historicalpart, set in the 19th century. The 19th century part shows promise andactually gives a pretty interesting view of how a mysterious double murdertook place, but ultimately it's underdeveloped and a bit boring.However, compared to the modern-day part, the 19th century part is Oscarmaterial. The modern-day part seems to rely on one thing only: Liz Hurley'sbreasts. Now you won't hear me complain about that, but if that's all thereis, then you just don't have much of a movie. Seriously, the modern-day partis filled with endlessly drawn out unnecessary shots and quasi-philosophicalnonsense conversations. What's missing is an actual storyline, and it hurts. All in all, this movie is more boring than anything. Any parallels or deepermeaning get hopelessly lost under a sluggish pace and overly dramaticdialogue. Definitely not recommended.*1/2 out of **** stars

michaelmoelle90 2012-04-19 21:29:26

solving a hundred year old crime, on a boat.

Well, what can you say about this film.It wasn't a good movie despite the danish actors, Thomsen and AndersWillum.It was this kind of film which doesn't matter, the crime part wasn'tmerelyexciting not even when it reaches its climax. Then there is the partwhereyou expect something interesting would happen between Penn and Hurley butdoesn't :-(The movie was a mayor drag and I only saw it to the end hoping for somemoreHurley nudity:) 5/10 (because of nudity).

Harry T. Yung 2012-04-19 09:33:14

Feeble structure, redeemed by strong acting

SpoilersThe Weight of Water is not comparable to Possession. Whatever similaritythat presents itself to the audience is superficial. Possession isbeautifully constructed with two parallel stories of intriguingrelationship. The investigative process of a ¡§mystery¡¨ in the past isentirely relevant and skilfully spun out in seamless symmetry. The presentstory exists within as well as above the past story. In The Weight of Waters, the link between the present story and the paststory is haphazard. The focus of the movie is very much on the past storywhich by itself could be a complete movie. If some distancing is required,the present investigative can be made into a single person narrative. Thewell-intentioned ambition of giving the audience more ends up backfiring,with the present story being rather hollow, contrived anddistracting.Excellent acting, on the part of the two lead women, goes a long way inredeeming a movie that tries to do too much. Sarah Polley gives a powerfulperformance, bringing to life a fascinating character with a huge range ofemotional spectrum. If that is somewhat remote, Catherine McCormack balancesit perfectly with a convincing portrayal of a present day character that theaudience can completely empathise with: an outwardly successful woman who isinwardly plagued by doubts and uncertainties. The rest of the cast is goodtoo, but those in the past story have an easier job, with characters thatare well defined. The strong cast in the present story (Sean Penn, JoshLocus, Elizabeth Hurley) has to contend with the platitude in the script andmake the best of it.