The Weight Of Water Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES
Hell hath no fury...
A newspaper photographer, Jean, researches the lurid and sensational axe murder of two women in 1873 as an editorial tie-in with a brutal modern double murder. She discovers a cache of papers that appear to give an account of the murders by an eyewitness. The plot weaves between the narrative of the eyewitness and Jean's private struggle with jealousies and suspicions as her marriage teeters.
| Ciarán Hinds | Louis Wagner |
| Richard Donat | Mr. Plaisted |
| Sarah Polley | Maren Hontvedt |
| Ulrich Thomsen | John Hontvedt |
| Anders W. Berthelsen | Evan Christenson |
| Joseph Rutten | Judge |
| John Walf | Defense Attorney |
| Katrin Cartlidge | Karen Christenson |
| Vinessa Shaw | Anethe Christenson |
| Adam Curry | Emil Ingerbretson |
| Catherine McCormack | Jean Janes |
| Sean Penn | Thomas Janes |
| Josh Lucas | Rich Janes |
| Elizabeth Hurley | Adaline Gunne |
| John Maclaren | Dr. Parsons |
| Kathryn Bigelow |
6.00 out of 10 (2851 votes)
Visitor Reviews
I'd rather stare at the wall.
posted on 26 Jul 2009Not even Elizabeth Hurley's breasts can save this film.The characters are so poorly developed that it's hard to care about any of the dramatic conflict. Sean Penn and Hurley play a flirtatious game of shot/reaction shot through the whole film that is at first annoying, but after interminable repetition, becomes a sort of funny kind of pathetic overkill. Oh, and remind me never again to assume a film is good just because Sean Penn is in it. Those days are over. Okay, there's a feeble attempt to create some kind of conflict among the wives and husbands of this story; but really, who cares? We aren't given any reference to the strength of these relationships, so the suggestion of extra-marital hanky-panky is about as interesting as watching two dogs smell each other's butts. Oh, I almost forgot to mention that this film cuts back in time. You see, the extremely boring moments with Pen and Hurley are often interrupted by abrupt flashbacks to a murder-mystery story that is best described as "Little House On The Prarie meets The Shining" --but without drama, suspense, or any other entertaining value. Well, I gotta be fair; I did like the German womanizer character, Wagner. I mean c'mon--German accents are funny. And that's that.
Excellent Cast and Budget Wasted by a Confused Screenplay and a Terrible and Pretentious Direction
posted on 22 Jul 2009This movie could be an excellent film, having a great cast and budget, photography and soundtrack, but it does not work well. Why? Because of the confused screenplay and a terrible and even pretentious direction. There are two stories, one of them excellent. In 1873, two women are ax murdered in an isolated island in New Hampshire. A man is accused of the crime by the survival, Maren Hontvedt (Sarah Polley), and condemned to be hanged. This story, presented through flashbacks, is wonderful, with an outstanding performance of Sarah Polley. In the present days, the newspaper photographer Jean Janes (Catherine McCormack) is researching this murder. She is married with the famous writer Thomas Janes (Sean Penn), and she convinces her brother-in-law Rich Janes (Josh Lucas) to sail to the island in his yacht. Rich brings his girlfriend Adaline Gunne (the delicious Elizabeth Hurley), who is a fan of Thomas and tries to seduce him, playing erotic games. This story is totally confused, spinning and never reaching a point. The intention of the director was to have a parallel narrative, linked by common points. But in practice, it becomes a mess, with unresolved situations and characters not well developed. In the end, I felt sorrow for such a waste of a talented cast. My vote is five.Title (Brazil): `O Peso da Água' (`The Weight of the Water')
An oddly engaging film that explores provocative themes with a welcome adult sensibility.
posted on 20 Jul 2009In spite of it's convoluted plot, there is much to admire about this picture, particularly the sexual tension it exudes. The contemporary story is derivative of Polanski's brilliant KNIFE IN THE WATER, while the flashback story is ripe with atmosphere and an ominous mood that overwhelms the rest of the picture and sustains the whole movie. The ensemble performances are first rate, slightly uneven at times, but generally committed. Elizabeth Hurley is appropriately sexy in her bit, and no less interesting than anyone else, despite what you might expect. This is a rather somber, mood piece from Bigelow, whose reputation as a keen director of action movies is only briefly apparent in this subdued thriller. Well worth a look.
An almost laughable attempt to be artsy
posted on 30 Jun 2009Based on the box description and the cast (Sean Penn, Sarah Polley) I'd expected this to be a half-decent film. Sadly, I was mistaken. I think the intention was for this to be a somewhat artsy, hip film; jerky camera angles, jazz soundtrack, lots of smoking; instead, it just comes off as clumsily pretentious and dull. The characters in the "present day" half of the movie devote most of their time to pseudo-intellectual rambling and shooting dirty looks at each other. There's no real suspense or surprise throughout...this was one of those movies that left me feeling angry for having wasted my time watching it (the last movie that I can remember feeling this way about was eXistenz). Not even worth a cheap rental.
Good story, great direction and exceptional performances
posted on 25 Jan 2009This movie was done with all the craft and expertise that I've come to expect from the people who made it. It attempts to do a very tricky thing like balancing two separated, yet interconnected plots together well. It succeeds overall, although I have noticed with movies like that they try to incorporate too many transitional gimmicks to visually tie the two stories together, and honestly that was the only slight problem that I had with this one. Otherwise it was top notch in regards to cinematography, score and performances (especially Sarah Polley, who should have received more recognition for her brilliant performance in this). It's a change of pace for Kathyrn Bigelow from her other, more action oriented movies like Point Break or Strange Days, yet there are intelligent, subtle, sub-textual properties i noticed in all three. I recommend this movie to anyone who likes any of the actors in it, they are all in top form, and to anyone who likes a nice, character driven mystery that deliberately simmers throughout so that the little flurries of action are more intense and captivating. Good writing, good direction = good stuff. See this movie.
(POSSIBLE SPOILER)...An interesting failure...unsolved murder mystery remains a riddle...
posted on 17 Jan 2009The question that hangs over the opening scenes of THE WEIGHT OF WATER raises a puzzle in the viewer's mind: What has the past murder of two women got to do with the present occupants of a boating party who are revisiting the scene of the crime? Events keep shifting back and forth between past and present, as a photojournalist tells her husband that she wants to do further investigating on a murder that took place in 1873. The other guests on the boat include a poet (SEAN PENN) and his wife, his brother and his girlfriend ELIZABETH HURLEY. Penn seems to have his eye on his brother's flirtatious girl. The handsome, more carefree brother is played by JOSH LUCAS.Each time the events switch back to the 1870s, we learn more and more about the inhabitants of the small cottage where the murders took place. SARAH POLLEY is a hard-working housewife whose husband takes in a boarder (CIARIN HINDS) who immediately lusts after her, telling her that his rheumatism needs massaging from her. But as the plot thickens, the link between past and present never becomes clear. After a savage murder has taken place in the cottage, she blames him for the crime and is responsible for his hanging when she testifies against him.A storm at sea threatens to take the lives of those aboard the boating party--but even though the surf is rough, they manage to survive the storm after a brave attempt to save the life of ELIZABETH HURLEY results in the death of SEAN PENN, whose wife has been jealous of the attention he pays to his brother's girlfriend. But still, the weak link with the past events of murder fails to connect to the present except that jealousy is somehow implied.It's a curious film--with perhaps some deep meaning lurking beneath the story's surface, but the characters in the present aren't really fleshed out as well as those inhabiting the past. In the past, we learn what really is supposed to have happened that night in the small cottage by the sea. But then a disclaimer at the end of the film tells us that the murders were never actually solved and there is still doubt remaining as to what did really happen.Impressive performances by SARAH POLLEY, CIARIN HINDS and SEAN PENN stand out in the memory when the film is over. But it's a curious piece of film-making, disjointed in its use of flashbacks to cover the past and failing, ultimately, to make sense of what happens in the present.Summing up: An interesting failure without plausible explanations.
A good, but flawed film.
posted on 10 Nov 2008The Weight of Water is a pretty good film, it's more in the tradition of Kathryn Bigelow's wonderful 1987 film Near Dark (one of the best vampire movies ever). The film has the same quiet melancholy feel to it. The two stories are both told well, with great performances (particularly Catherine McCormack & Sarah Polley) and a script that is just fine. What kept it from being a great film for me was a certain lack of flow as far as switching between both stories- It felt like I was flipping back & forth watching two separate films. I think that it could have worked better (case in point:The Hours), but it is a worthy effort from a very interesting director. I'll be excited/interested to see what Bigelow will do next (hopefully another interesting indie!)
Two movies in one...
posted on 01 Oct 2008When I finished watching "Weight of water" I had the impression that I just had watched two different films mixed to each other. One of them was pretty interesting, and it told the story of a murder committed on an American small village populated by immigrant fishers 140 years ago. The other story was boring, the characters was such a mess, and it was plenty of narrative mistakes: occurred at present time and it's about a journalist who travels (along with his husband, her brother in law and the girlfriend of that one) to that small village in order to investigate the incident and take some pictures. We're told about his troubled marriage, and some other things we don't give a damn about. So one story destroys the other. One part of the script blows up the other one, and even the actors (especially Sarah Polley) made a better job in the "historic" part. Yeah, Sean Penn was over there, but this time his performance was pretty forgettable (he just shows us some of his most known "tricks") ... and what to say about Liz Hurley's work!! God, she may have an impressing body, but she's quite a bad actress with that femme-fatale look in her face 100% of the time. Anyway, I didn't expect that much of Kathryn Bigelow. Anyone did?*My rate: 4/10
Girl,you're gonna carry that weight ,carry that weight ,a long time!
posted on 06 Aug 2008Two stories,two plots which the scenarists try artificially and desperately to connect.For instance,both Maren and Thomas share an awful secret out of their prime youth.And as the murderer slaughters the unfortunate women with an ax,the boat is tossed by the waves in the storm.Is it enough to make a seamless whole?Frankly ,no.The costume drama is sometimes absorbing,showing influence from Sjostrom (Seastrom) Bergman,Dreyer or even Lars Von Trier or Jane Campion.The fishermen's life and the silent rivalry between the sisters are filmed with elegance even though Karen's part is too underwritten.The film has a construction based on the present/past/present/past and so on structure and features relatively short sequences.And compared to the costume drama ,the "modern" psychological one is rather trite.In spite of Sean Penn's incontestable talent.Elisabeth Hurley is decorative,that's all we can say of her character.These present sequences are also handicapped by risible metaphysical pretensions.Watchable for Maren's story...Like this?Try these: French lieutenant's woman (Karel Reisz ,1981) Dead again (Kenneth Branagh,1991)
Good Story, But Not Such a Good Movie
posted on 05 Jul 2008The Movie had most of it going for it, an interesting story, a great director (one of my favorites) and good actors (not counting Elizabeth Hurley). But the question that comes to my mind is: Has Kathryn Bigelow lost it, from making for great movies in a row, too her two most recent flopps.This is the woman that showed us that what you need to make movies, is a brain, not balls, and has time and time again showed us that she can make amazing movies out of good scripts. "Near Dark" IS one of the absolute best horror movies ever made, with it's eery style and presense. And "Strange Days" one of the best contemporary sci-fi movies ever. And from scripts that most director would have made plain and un-interesting movies, she made great ones, "Point Break" is a stylish action movie and "Blue Steel", a thriller with real suspence and empotion.The next part contains a few minor SPOILERS!But as she showed with "K-19" ("The Weight of Water" was released widely after "K-19" but made two years earlier), she don't use her typical style anymore, and maybe that actors and the producers of "K-19" had to much to say in it, but this movie could have been one of her best, but it's just so utterly booring. You know way before the guys on screen what happened, and it takes too long from you know, untill they know.But there are something good here to, the editing is superb, the cutting between past and present is just perfect, specially at the end, during the storm, and the scenes with Catherine McCormanck underwater is great.SPOILER END!The actors does a good job, Catherine McCormack is best, and Sean Penn is as normal good, but it's not his best part. Josh Lucas is good, but as Elizabeth Hurley is good as eye candy for Sean, she can't really sell that she knows poetry, it's just not her. Sarah Polley is ok, but as the rest of the 1878 scenes, the accent is bad, it's typical Hollywood; in stead of letting the immigrants speak they're native language between themselves, they speak with an accent, and it sound bad.I can deside if I want do give this movie 4 or 5 stars (of 10), but it might become better with more viewings, as most of Bigelows movies does.
Left on the cutting room floor?
posted on 30 Apr 2008Maybe they started out with too many good ideas and left them on the cutting room floor? Somehow, most of the things you wanted to work well in this movie, just didn't, and this can totally confuse you. See other comments, I'm not alone, it does.The effect might have moved in the right direction, the mood set for greater things or a character had developed an interesting edge, then, wham, you lost it. Usually you forgot what it was you were in the mood for, as scenes dragged along at a snails pace, they cut to some other century, changed sequence of events, or threw in an exciting scene, which was irrelevant to where you were at the time. When you got back to your train of thought, it was gone, and you had to start all over.Nobody's character really worked.Sometimes you could see the interesting "artsy-fartsy" deep strategy of tying it all intricacies together, but it rarely worked. Be prepared to use your own creativity to re-cut and re-edit the movie. I liked one comment, which was, you could watch the two stories separately by using fast-forward and watching it twice, they didn't tie together anyway, so that might be a good idea. You can then spend a bit more time watching Liz, you didn't come here for Sean did you?
By the numbers drama
posted on 16 Apr 2008I like Kathryn Bigelow as a director and she can direct any type of film no matter how technically challenging but their was something really lacking in this film. I'm not sure what it is but my guess is its imagination. Their is nothing special about this story. The film is about two stories. One a true story about two women that were murdered at the Isles of Shoal in New Hampshire in 1873. The other takes place in contemporary times and its about a writer named Thomas Janes (Sean Penn) and his photographer wife Jean (Catherine McCormack) who are going to spend time on a chartered yacht with his brother Rich (Josh Lucas) and his sexy girlfriend Adaline (Elizabeth Hurley). While on the yacht they visit the the actual murder area and Jean starts to read actual letters and transcripts about the case and thinks that the man Wagner (Ciaran Hinds) who was hanged for the murder is actually innocent. The film goes back and forth telling both stories and the first has a woman named Maren (Sarah Polley) who is married but doesn't love her husband. One day her brother comes to visit with his new wife and this makes Maren upset. She is in love with her own brother and they share an incestuous past! The second story has Thomas jealous of his brother and jealous of his wife but still can't help but to stare and flirt with Adaline. The editing in the film tries to intercut both stories but the rhythm and flow seem uneven. The film tries very hard to make us think that both of these stories have a connection between them. But except for the obvious that its about trying to make amends for the past, their really is no hardcore evidence that they are connected. The film looks good, both of them! Bigelow knows how her films should look and she should be commended. Both stories have a very different look and feel and obviously a lot of time was spent on each story. The performances are pretty good especially Polley as Maren. She gives the type of performance that should send out a signal to all studios that she's a solid actress and should be considered for larger roles. Penn also is good as the writer with problems from his past and McCormack is exceptional. She really carries the film and her jealousy and boredom are very evident and understandable for her character. Some have said that Hurley is nothing more than eye candy for the film but I disagree. The film needed an actress that could make us believe that Penn's character would be tempted to stray from his wife and Hurley is so exceptionally beautiful. As she lies in her skimpy bikini or parades topless its hard to not believe that any male wouldn't flirt, even a little bit! But the film lacks any real passion or imagination. The storm at the end of the film seems so forced like its there as just an excuse to set up certain events. It just didn't ring true. When the filmmakers decided they were going to go ahead with this picture, what did they think the point of the film was? It seems both murky and a little contrived. Some real talented individuals were involved in this film but the core of the story seems very hollow.
Boring, un-engaging all in all a terrible movie
posted on 15 Jan 2008A brother (Josh Lucas), his sister (Catherine McCormack) and their partners take a holiday on a sail boat and visit an island off New England in order for the sister to do some research into two women who were brutally murdered there in 1873. The movie incorporates two narrative strands, one based in the present and the other in 1873.I am a big fan of director Kathryn Bigelow but I found this movie to be incredibly boring, slow, dull and a complete waste of time. I think that Sean Penn is an excellent actor but here he was acting a totally annoying character, what made him think this film was a good idea!Elizabeth Hurley acted like the muppett she is, sticking her tits out for all the lads and using her sexuality as she has no acting skills. The actors in 1873 were shockingly bad, and that strand of the movie looked like a bad made for T.V movie.Nothing good to say about this it is terrible, my worst nightmare would be to have someone force me to watch it through again
Not true enough to the source
posted on 18 Dec 2007While I respect the intent of the author of the book this movie was made from, which was to invent another explanation for the manner in which a tragic event unfolded, and while the movie itself was aesthetically pleasing in many respects, I find it disturbing that key facts which were crucial to the outcome were changed for no apparent reason, or for reasons of convenience. I'm speaking of the absence of one of the main characters, and the ultimate substitution of that character's loss with that of another, whose survival in the book was, I believe, critical to the resolution. Also, the dating of the writing of the document which tells the alternative story of the historical facts as they're recorded to have occurred on the Isles of Shoals in the late 19th century, and its being not only made known to the authorities, but actually dictated to them, and yet suppressed, is ludicrous and a fabrication of the adaptation. In reading the book I had a very difficult time imagining the terrain and space in which those events occurred, and hoped that, like some other film adaptations, the movie would fill in the spaces in my imagination and complete the story in a physical way. And indeed I did get a better sense of the look and feel of the place and the people. But because of these essential differences in the storyline, I cannot recommend the movie as a companion to the book. It is not true enough to its source material. There are some times when an adapter should leave well enough alone and not tinker with the original story, but portray it as it occurs.I feel that Kathryn Bigelow did not do a service to Anita Shreve, whose working out of her plot was careful and thoughtful and just plausible enough to give doubt to the historical record...given the set of circumstances which she invented. (One must take the story in its fictional context in order to believe it; therefore though the premise is interesting, in the absence of the document that the alternative history is based on, we must rely on the conviction of the court in the case of the Isles of Shoals murders.) So although the film had many good points from the standpoint of execution, it failed in that it did not truthfully portray the events of the book.
I didn't get it.
posted on 10 Dec 2007Maybe it's too "European" for me. I mean it's pretty slow, ponderous, portentous, and moody. It's also confusing, partly because the cuts back and forth between the current and past stories take place at awkward times and partly because the editing of the modern climax leaves me in doubt about exactly what the heck HAPPENED and in fact, even who SURVIVED.I've always kind of enjoyed Katheryn Bigelow's work. It's commercial, but man does she have an eye for the camera. In "Blue Steel" the lens lingers lovingly over a pistol's contours as if the two objects wanted to get it on.But here, well, I can't help wondering if she overdosed on a full sleepless weekend of Ingmar Bergman.The historic part first. I liked it. It reminded me a little of "Babette's Feast." The life is one of hard work and infrequent bare wooden pleasures. Bigelow does a splendid job of visualizing this nearly joyless existence and the acting is unimpeachable on the part of everyone concerned, especially Sarah Polley who is given a pinched wind-reddened face and a delivery that never deviates from the tone of a casual remark. She is what is known as repressed. It's like watching a boil grow as her emotions simmer. As in a Bergman film there's a lot of sex around here. Not just ordinary marital bliss, which never seems much fun, but homosexual and incestuous too. The final confrontation between the three women has Polley sitting in a bed with her sister-in-law and being accused of corrupting her. I can't get over the way Bigelow and Polley handle this important scene. Polley, previously the epitome of emotional restraint, glares at her accuser from under her tousled blonde hair, her blue eyes now big and blazing with anger, lighted from above so that they seem to glow from within the shadow of her brows. Finally Polley's character seems fully alive although mad. The story is a success in almost every respect.Then there is the modern story of four amateur sailors come to investigate this century-old murder case. There's a lot of sex in this part too. Well -- let's face facts. With Elizabeth Hurley in a major role, you get sex whether you want it or not. What a succulent morsel! To imagine Hurley chaste is like trying to imagine the young Ann-Margaret as a nun. Not that I mean to knock her. She's never delivered a better dramatic performance. Catherine McCormack has a better, more complex role, and she delivers too. She doesn't exude sexuality the way Hurley does but her beauty is more subtle and more enduring, the kind of woman you must get to know to appreciate. Sean Penn is unconvincing as a lapsed poet. The other guy seems a nice enough fellow but I'm not sure why he's around except maybe to introduce a fourth character on whom suspicions can be cast. This is a plot in which people sit around ogling one another and intuiting so many things about the other characters, without actually voicing them, that it's enough to make Henry James roll over in his grave. Somehow -- I'm just guessing at this -- McCormack identifies with the repressed Polley. When Penn approaches McCormack in the deserted library stacks and tries to make love to her up against the tomes, she balks and says, "I can't do this." I suppose this is to be taken as repression rather than just a lack of desire to perform this kind of acrobatic pas de deux while standing up. (Penn may be a poet but he's no gentleman.) There's also the evidence of identification provided by McCormack's drowning hallucinations about coming face to face with Polley's smiling corpse underwater. But that's about the only parallel I can see, if in fact it exists. It would have been easier to follow if McCormack had bopped Hurley over the head and flung the slut overboard, but that isn't what happens. The score is as moody as the picture. Lots of cello leads in the orchestration, although not Bach, as in that Bergman movie about sin and guilt and incestuous sex among family members on an isolated island. Nobody can criticize the photography though. In these latitudes, even in midsummer, the sun is never high in the sky but the weather is usually clear and windy, or at least it was during the summer I spent in Digby. It's a truly beautiful climate and it's thrilling to see it so well captured on screen.If you're caught in a storm offshore in a sailboat and lose your engine, can't you throw over a bow anchor and ride it out? Or, failing that, a drogue?I don't know. But then there are a lot of things about this movie that I didn't get.
Wrong filming location, distracts viewing pleasure.
posted on 29 Jul 2007The movie was based on a real murder,however, the location where it was filmed is nothing like New Hampshire. Anyone who has lived or visited NH can automatically tell that the film was not shot on the New England coast. The house and island which were used for the murder sequences do not even come close in similarity. There are brief scenes showing the present day characters swimming not too far from the island. This is not possible, the currents are too strong, not to mention too cold. In actually one will get pulled under, or when coming out of the water would be blue and covered in goosebumps. These obvious mistakes take away from what could have been a great film. [Also Elizabeth Hurley was completely miscast,someone with her features would not be found in New England.] This was very disappointing and distracting while watching the film. There are not many films where the subject involves New Hampshire, this would have been a great opportunity. Although the Isles of Shoals is protected, other areas of NH could have been used. If you want an accurate visual of what NH looks like, go visit it in person.
Excellent drama from an excellent director, if not her best
posted on 17 Jun 2007Five years after the still underrated Strange Days, admirers of the considerably talented director Kathryn Bigelow were wondering when they would see her next project. When it appeared, The Weight Of Water proved much more consciously 'literary' (being adapted from a novel by Anita Shreeve), being conceived on narrower scope than the previous film, but exceeding its temporal complexity. In her recent films, Bigelow has seemed intrigued by the way in which flashbacks can section a narrative, and dictate tension. Strange Days notably included the visceral thrill of replayed memories, demonstrating all the dangers of literally living in another's head. The present film juxtaposes old and new events much more traditionally, but still creates unsettling experiences in parallel - in ways sometimes reminiscent of The French Lieutenant's Woman (1981).For those used to the usual Hollywood clichés, the prospect of a boatload of innocents visiting an isolated scene of an old terror might suggest the imminent arrival of vengeful possession. To their credit, Bigelow and her source are above such routine stuff, although the script manages some genuinely creepy moments as Jean (Catherine McCormack) contemplates the gruesome past of Smuttynose Island on, and off, shore. As other reviewers have noted, The Weight Of Water is less about ghastly occurrences than a parallel study of two women, both trapped in loveless relationships. One, the 19th century immigrant Maren Hontvedt (Sarah Polley) reacts with uncharacteristic violence; Jean, the other, is powerless (or even initially willing?) when seeing her man slipping away - either emotionally or then physically. So stark and successful are the scenes set in the past (the first time that Bigelow has directed such historical material) that one wishes that the modern day episodes aboard the Antares were more engrossing. Part of this is to do with the casting. Although much better than she would prove next in Bedazzled, as the coquettish Adaline Gunn Elizabeth Hurley is simply too shallow an actress to suggest the complexities and depths that her part deserves. Some of this is the script's fault, giving her little chance to express herself in anything but blatant body language. Whether lounging in her provocative white bikini, or sucking and toying with ice cubes like a nymphet arousing the poet Thomas (a troubled Sean Penn), our interest in her is usually limited to whether she succeeds in seducing half of the dysfunctional couples sharing the yacht. "Women's motives are always more concealed than men's," suggests Thomas at one point. Unfortunately, in Adaline's case at least, they are as obvious as the look on her face.Both the house on Smuttynose Island and the 'sort-of vacation' enjoyed by those on the Antares, are threatening and claustrophobic. The atmosphere between consenting adults on board reminds one at times of that on the boat in Polanski's Knife In The Water (aka: Nóz w wodzie, 1962), although events turn out differently. As Jean observes, at the time of the killings it was felt that Louis Wagner (Ciarán Hinds) "was in love with one of the women, (and that) murder was the only way he could possess her." "I like that," comments Adaline tritely, unconsciously inviting an echo of this obsessive behaviour towards herself. At one point a rogue wind literally flaps her in some original documents relating to the case, a tangible suggestion of a bond between past and present. Although she doesn't succumb to the same Lizzie Borden-nightmare that took place on shore, the tension is there.On board the Antares from the start, the drama of sexual attraction is of more importance than the violence of historical events, even though it is the old criminal case which has drawn Jean, leaving its emotional shadow. It is ironic and apt that her preoccupation with it partly makes her refuse Thomas' belated advances in the archive library. Usually, before this moment of romance, he glumly chain-smokes or decries the sensitivity which first attracted Jean - indeed for a poet, he remains curiously inexpressive of his feelings. It turns out that while contemplating the tanning body of Adaline he's absorbed with the death of an old girl friend in a car crash, one for which he was responsible and which inspires his famous poetry. In contrast, Rich Janes (Josh Lucas) the poet's brother and Adaline's current lover, seems unaffected either literature or the strained atmosphere - even at one point making light of his own lack of emotional commitment. With such a crew, one main difference between the 19th and the 21st century, the film suggests, is that of emotional engagement. All of the real 'drama' takes place in the wood cabin. On the yacht it is left deliberately shallow, and largely unexpressed - even if just as desperate. It is Bigelow's skilful cutting between that century and this, and her suggestions of patterns both here and there, which makes the film so enjoyable and interesting. The film stands or falls by this technique and a typical criticism of it has been that 'the issues are subtle to the point of mere implication', or that the final moments of catharsis carry little weight as 'so little of dramatic interest' precedes them. But much of the pleasure from the picture lays precisely in the undecided or the unspoken, where a wife's desperation can be blown away in the wind and sea, and love is a trap. A more exact resolution of Jean's emotional dilemma, or a stricter line drawn between time zones would have reduced the mystery considerably. This is a film where it is simply enough, as Jean rightly observes, "that you sense something is about to happen - and when you realise it already has." Hurley's shortcomings as an actress aside, most of the cast is excellent. Sarah Polley seems to have found her dramatic niche in cheerless historical settings (she was also in Winterbottom's excellent The Claim, 2000) and projects just the right degree of Scandinavian angst. Bigelow uses all of her locations effectively, with some especially impressive shoreline work, and the plot flows easily. This director's admirers should seek this out, and welcome her talent back without delay.
Penn carries this so-so movie.
posted on 13 Jun 2007Kathryn Bigelow's The Weight of Water is a moody picture that employs the talents of Sean Penn to keep the viewer interested. The film's biggest failure come in Bigelow's incessant use of flashbacks. The flashbacks tell the story of a murder that took place more than a hundred years ago. While the past does have relevance to the present, the frequent flashing between the two time periods becomes tedious and annoying. The real tension is taking place in the present, and flashbacks feel like speedbumps in the development 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 can get back to Penn and company in the present. As such, no matter how many thematic connections can be drawn between the two different stories, the juxtaposition fails, because the tension of the first story has not been duplicated in the flashbacks.Even so, Sean Penn is engaging to watch, and Liz Hurley is well cast as a flirty seductress. I found The Weight of Water to be very different from Bigelow'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 others need not apply.
If only I had not read the book!
posted on 09 Mar 2007A few years ago I read Anita Shreve's novel and was moved and even floored by this story. When I heard about this film I was excited by the cast and director. This film never seemed to come out theatrically and I wondered why. Well it wasn't because of the powerhouse cast! The story told in the movie differs from the novel in one too many crucial ways. What was profound in the book seemed a bit silly on screen. And the conclusion... puh-leeze! Sarah Polley was excellent, however, and the late Katrin Cartledge once again created a fascinating 3-dimensional character. Vinessa Shaw was also a standout in her small yet crucial role.It's just too bad about the story! Why couldn't it stay closer to the novel? Who was the studio worried about offending?
In response to Claudio's review
posted on 15 Aug 2009Please do not let Claudio from Brazil's comments influence appreciation of this film; he can't even get his English right - Jean (main character, photojournalist) is married "to" Sean Penn's character Thomas Janes, not married "with" Thomas - And apparently Claudio did not get the fact that Adeline had an affair with Thomas when he met her at an awards dinner honoring one of his books. As the (contemporary) story progresses, and the 1870's story is revealed, Jean realizes her suspicions about Thomas and Adeline are right, and she tries to speak to him about their relationship and her many regrets as the storm hits, and then it is all too late. He drowns after saving an overboard Adeline, who may or may not have gotten a push from a distraught Jean. Herein lies the comparison being made about the isolation and despair that finally pushes Maren to explode in a murderous rage. The storm of the modern story is symbolic of the storm building in Maren.The story reveals human fallibility, weakness and desire. Two women whose lives are more than two centuries apart share the same loss of self, the need to be loved for who they are, the test to find a sense of purpose in it all and then ultimately, failure to maintain a good front. In the end, they are as alone as they were in the beginning of the movie, left to rebuild some vestige of themselves knowing they have lost control and lost the very love they sought.Although the double narrative of the film may be less than obvious to the average viewer, you need only follow the dialogue and subtle interactions of the characters to find a good story here. The cinematography is lovely and consciously evokes the stark beauty and ever-changing light of the North Atlantic islands.