The Weight of Water (2000) User Reviews (99)

Excellent Cast and Budget Wasted by a Confused Screenplay and a Terrible and Pretentious Direction

[claudio_carvalho · 5/10 · 1 August 2004]

This 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')

A cruise to nowhere

[jotix100 · 7/10 · 12 December 2005]

The problem with "The Weight of the Water", the film, is the way the novel by Anita Shreve, was adapted for the screen. This is the basic flaw that even a good director like Kathryn Bigelow couldn't overcome when she took command of the production. The novel, as it is, presents grave problems for a screen treatment, something that the adapters, Alicia Arlen and Christopher Kyle, were not successful with their screen play.

The picture is basically a film within a film. Both subjects, the present time and the story that is revealed as Jane gets involved, parallel each other, but one story has nothing to do with the other. Also, the way this film was marketed was wrong. This is not a thriller at all. What the book and the film are about is human situations that are put to a test.

In the story that happened many years ago in a settlement in coastal New England, there was a notorious murder at the center of the narrative. It has to do with a wrongly accused man, Louis Wagner, a man that is basically crippled with arthritis that is accused by Maren Hontvelt, his landlady, as the one that killed two women, Karen and Anethe. In flashbacks we get to know the truth of how an innocent man is hung for a crime he didn't commit.

The second story shows how Jane who is traveling with her husband Thomas, in his brother's yacht. She is a photographer on assignment about the place where the women were murdered, years ago, is lured to the subject matter she is photographing, and makes the discovery of the truth. Her own relationship with her husband Thomas is a troubled one. They are doomed as a couple, one can only see the way he leers after his brother's girlfriend as she parades almost naked in the pleasure boat they are spending time. In the novel the tension comes across much deeply than what one sees in the movie.

The amusing thing about the film is that the secondary story is more interesting than the present one. Thus, the luminous Sarah Polley, who plays Maren in the secondary tale, makes a deep impression, as does the accused man, Louis Wagner, who is portrayed by Ciaran Hands. Sean Penn, comes across as somehow stiff as Thomas. The wonderful Katrin Cartlidge is totally wasted.

The film has elicited bad comments in this forum, but it's not the bad movie some people are trying to say it is. Better yet, read Ms. Shreve's novel as it is more satisfying than what came out in this movie version.

Underrated film by an underrated director.

[gridoon · 7/10 · 4 May 2003]

"The Weight of Water" (interestingly obscure title, isn't it?) is not a masterpiece, and sometimes seems to be striving for a "greater meaning" that simply isn't there. However, that's no excuse for its excessively poor critical reception. Yes, the "seduction" part of the present story is a bit cliched, and the story of the past goes pretty much where you expect it (after a point) to go. In spite of all that, the film is able to get by on the strength of Kathryn Bigelow's direction, which is, in a word, impeccable. Every single shot is meticulously planned and - when it has to be - visually beautiful. Bigelow has already proved that she is a master of her craft when it comes to directing high-energy action sequences; here she proves that she is equally adept at subtlety. There are facial expressions, small gestures and glances that speak volumes in this movie. Of course part of the credit for that has to go to the cast, which is mostly superb (with the notable exception of Elizabeth Harley); Catherine McCormack and Sarah Polley are the best, each one holds her own story together perfectly. The film also has stunning photography and a beautiful music score. (**1/2)

half a good film

[Buddy-51 · 1 August 2003]

In its basic structure and format, `The Weight of Water' is very similar to the far more impressive film `Possession' from 2002. In both movies, we get two different stories running simultaneously: one, a mystery set in the past, and, the other, a personal drama located in the present, involving a group of characters reflecting on and trying to make sense of the events that took place a century or so earlier.

The story-within-a-story in `The Weight of Water' is a true-life account of a brutal double murder that took place on a remote island off the coast of New Hampshire in the 1870's. Two out of the three women who were on the island that fateful night fell victim to the murderer, with the third escaping and fingering a man - a former boarder - as the culprit. The man was convicted and hanged for the offense, yet, more than a century later, a shadow of doubt hangs over the verdict. One of the modern-day doubters is Jean Janes, a photographer who ventures to the island to do a shoot of the location, only to find herself strangely obsessed with uncovering the truth about the case. Accompanying her on her quest are her husband, Thomas, a celebrated poet; Rich, his handsome brother whose boat they use to get to the island; and Adaline, the latter's gorgeous girlfriend who also happens to be a devotee of Thomas' literary work and a bit of a `groupie,' as it turns out, in both tone and temperament, attaching herself rather obviously to the talented young bard, despite the fact that his observant wife is on the boat with them. As in `Possession,' the filmmakers in this film - screenwriters Alice Arlen and Christopher Kyle and director Kate Bigelow - shift constantly between the past and the present, allowing us to piece together the clues as to what really happened on that island over 130 years ago, and, at the same time, to examine the strained relationships among those contemporary figures looking for the answers.

The problem with `The Weight of Water' - as it is in many films with this dual-narrative structure - is that one story almost inevitably ends up dominating over the other. Certainly, both tales seem to want to make the same unified point: that love and passion are often such overwhelming forces in our lives that they can end up destroying us in the process. How often do luck, fate, personal demons or societal pressure force us to compromise those elemental passions raging within our hearts, leading us, ultimately, to all the wrong choices and wrong partners that we end up having to live with for the rest of our lives? This is certainly the case in the part of the story set in the past where loneliness, regret, even incest and lesbianism play a crucial part in what happens to the characters. We can understand what motivates these individuals to do what they do, since their hungers, needs and intentions are cleanly laid out and clearly defined.

The same, unfortunately, cannot be said for the outer story set in the present. These characters lack the necessary delineation to make us truly understand where they are coming from or to make us care where they are going. Catherine McCormack does a superb job as Jean, capturing the fears, jealousies and anxieties of this insecure modern woman, but the screenplay doesn't let us into her mind enough to show us what is really going on beneath the surface. We know that she is unhappy in her marriage, but we never really get to know why. The situation is not helped one bit by Sean Pean who barely registers an emotion in the crucial role of Jean's husband. Apart from the fact that he seems to be brooding all the time, we never get the sense that Thomas could really be the world-class poet we are told he is. As Adaline, Josh's tawny-haired girlfriend, Hurley looks great in her bikini, of course, but the character is little more than the stereotypical temptress placed there by the writers to serve as a source of strain and tension on the marriage. The movie also builds to a mini- `Perfect Storm'-type climax that seems forced, phony, arbitrary and all too convenient and, worst of all, fails to make the connection between the two narratives clear and comprehensible. The final scenes seem strained at best, as the authors attempt to bring all the disparate elements together - but to no real avail. The fact is that the filmmakers never make their case as to why we should find any kind of meaningful parallels between the characters and events in the two stories. The characters in the past are obviously hemmed in by the repressive society in which they live so we give them a little leeway and offer them our sympathy; the characters in the present, with so many more options open to them, just come across as whiney and self-pitying and we find ourselves growing more and more impatient with them (all except Jean, that is) as the story rolls along.

`The Weight of Water' wants to be an important and meaningful film, but only one half of its story truly earns those adjectives.

On The Water, Over My Head.

[rmax304823 · 7/10 · 25 May 2004]

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, and much of it is due to Polley's extraordinary performance.

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! Not that I mean to knock her and her beckoning lisp. 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 twitch 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.

One story in two

[stensson · 7/10 · 28 October 2002]

Clever script, clever acting, especially by the late Katrin Cartlidge. This is about a history murder case. Who did the axe killing? The supposed one or the certainly unsupposed?

There are two parallel plots here, the murder case and the case of those who are examining the case 130 years later. In many (emotional) ways the two plots are really the same. The murder case takes over the souls of the investigators.

You get confused and found out quite many things after leaving the movie house. That's typical for a good thriller.

By the numbers drama

[rosscinema · 5/10 · 14 June 2003]

I 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.

The world is full of talented assholes.

[lastliberal · 6/10 · 8 September 2007]

Love, hate, jealousy, desire sometimes work together with disastrous consequences.

Kathryn Bigelow put together an interesting story based on a novel using these themes. Action bounced back and forth between the present with Catherine McCormack, Sean Penn, Elizabeth Hurley & Josh Lucas; and the past featuring Sarah Polley.

A murder took place in 1873 and there is no doubt watching the action that Polley committed it. Unfortunately, a man hangs for the crime instead of her.

The present day crew with McCormack doing a great job as a photographer investigating the murder seem to be having some of the same problems that beset Polley. Her husband (Peen) can't seem to take his eyes off Hurley (and who could blame him as she exposes ample skin to distract us should the story lag - which it doesn't), and there is some indication that more might have happened.

Just as things came to a head with Polley and a moment of madness overtook her, we can see the same things happening in the present.

The murdered are still be discussed 100 years later and only a couple of people know what really happened. We can also look at the present situation and discuss what went on in the minds of the characters in the storm. It leaves room for doubt, and that is what makes this an interesting story, besides, of course, McCormack's and Polley's performances.

Ridiculous story that ignores the facts of what really happened

[bgk1232004 · 2/10 · 21 February 2008]

Anybody who wants to know what really happened that fateful night in 1873 when two Norwegian women were murdered on an island off the coast of New Hampshire won't find out by watching this movie. There was an article written by a woman named Celia Thaxter who lived on the islands at the time of the murders and personally knew all of the people involved. Celia also saw Maren after the murders and talked to her. The article was called "A Memorable Murder" and was published in the Atlantic Monthly. You can read it at this website: http://seacoastnh.com/smuttynose/memo.html In it she describes the evidence that was found at the scene and on the person of Louis Wagner that clearly point to him as the murderer instead of the outrageous and contrived story that was told in the movie and showed Maren as the murderer. For example: his bloody footprints were found in the house and around the island. He was also found with property that belonged to the Norwegians that he stole the night of the murders. There were also witnesses who saw him coming back from the island. Don't know why the movie makers decided to portray this ruthless murderer as someone who was innocent and wrongly put to death. They instead took hard working and innocent Maren and assassinated her character by portraying her as some crazed and twisted lesbian and incestuous creature. What should have been put to death is this badly written and fictitious screenplay.

Mystery with a Norwegian rage theme in this suspense thriller

[be_free · 7/10 · 12 February 2005]

This is a film about suppressed emotions and the effect of how negating your true self can poison the human intellect. The Weight of Water is most likely what most Americans would consider a slow film, which generally is not a good thing. Reviewing from the point of view of a Swedish/American, I see it differently. The first thing that strikes me is how well the Scandinavian mindset and attitude is captured. It's almost to the point of parody when you're told the harsh life of the main character played by Sara Polley, in one of the film's two intermingled stories. Sarah Polley, however, does such an excellent job portraying a young Norwegian woman in lack of affection and the longing for her brother whom she loves dearly, that I let me get drawn into her world. This is where the movie excels and Polley carries the film so well just be being very believable, that it let's me forgive the not so great acting by some of her counterparts. Don't get me wrong; the acting keeps a high quality throughout. The problem is that these are very ambitious and pretentious quarters. The acting necessary to make this type of late 1800 reality drama believable is nothing your average American actor can pull through. It requires honesty and an innocence that is hard to come by, not less fake. Polley is stunning, and both beautiful, transparent, and scary. It is quite rare experiencing a movie that allows for such nakedness, sparse dialogue, interpretation of glances, gestures, and untold suggestions. I'm also surprised how well it works. Kudos to Catherine Bigelow for pulling this through.

Polley/the young Norwegian woman is in the center piece of an ancient murder mystery investigated by the other of the film's two main character's, in the settings that takes place in the modern time of the film, Catherine McCormack. McCormack is also doing a decent job portraying a photographic journalist who's investigating the old murder tale to write about it in a magazine. It is primarily McCormack's character's experience of the unfolding of the 1873 murder tale we as an audience get to see. During this, Catherine's character has qualms about her own relationship to a famous poet played by Sean Penn. Sean does a decent job enough to portray a selfish and uncompassionate writer, but unfortunately the dynamic between Penn and McCormack does not work very well. Overall, the modern story part of the film is less convincing than the 1800 one, although there are some obvious and some not so obvious parallels between the two. The modern story part of the film is where it is weakest, and almost feel redundant to me. This, without anyone doing a terrible job really. It's just that the pretentiousness doesn't work quite as well here. In the midst of it all, we have a bikini skipping Elisabeth Hurly who plays the part of a combination of an admirer of Penn's character's poetry work, and a sex tease. There is a bit of more complexity to her character in the mix, but Hurley does not manage to balance it well. The result us that she mostly annoying, although she's probably only doing what she is told. To put a more interesting twist to it, Hurley should have been to exchanged with a more subtle beauty who's sexuality is not posted on the bulletin boards. Penn's potential attraction to Hurley's character is what the parallel story's untold emotions revolve around. Here, the subtleness is less subtle, and it's interesting to see how these famous names does not manage to carry it's side if the film as well as the lesser known names in the 1873 murder tale part of the film. Josh Lucas also has a part playing Penn's character's brother, and Hurley's character's boyfriend. Lucas' character is opposite in temperament and looks of Penn's. Good looking, light hearted, playboy-ish. Where McCormick and Penn - who really just seem to need to get out more - take everything dead seriously, Lucas's characters smile aware of his brother's temperament and the potential hardships of young parents with small children who work too much and never gets out.

Going on a trip on a sailing boat, and working at the same time, would be "almost like a vacation". These are among the first words that open the movie and you realize early it is not going to be an ordinary vacation. This early realization, the calm tempo, and the strained emotions of the films main characters, is what keeps the movie suspense, despite its slow tempo. Then it has the usual ingredients necessary, the questions. Who did what, and why? What are the motives behind people's actions? Who is good, who is bad? Thankfully Bigelow does not comment on it, and let the film speak for itself. It's no big mystery, it's more of a study of human nature.

While Polley carries the 1873 part of the movie with her sensitive acting and expression, McCormack saves the modern part. She looks haunted enough for me to stay interested, and her good intentions manage to keep the plot of the acceptable side of what could otherwise have been embarrassingly banal.

If you're looking for a slightly different movie with some suspense, some people you recognize, and at the same time are willing to get exposed to a type of acting and story telling you might not be used to, I recommend The Weight of Water. Despite my perhaps harsh words, I give it a strong 7 out of 10 since the bottom-line is that I stayed interested through the entire movie, and enjoyed it a great deal.

Sarah Polley deserved so much better.

[k_bradshawiii · 5/10 · 17 January 2007]

I will only briefly echo the sentiment so widely agreed upon throughout these comments: Sarah Polley is absolutely amazing in this film. I always feel badly for actors when their greatest performances come in otherwise crappy films. It seems so unfair. It's like they're being robbed. Sarah Polly is done a grave injustice by this film, specifically, the modern-day portion of it.

The revelation of Polley's inner pain, loneliness, and need as expressed solely through her facial expressions in the bedroom scenes toward the end of the film were enough to demonstrate how too good for this movie she is ultimately proved. Polley and her supporting cast were phenomenal in this film, and so I rate it a 5 for the half of the film that actually deserved to be made.

Two stories in one

[PeachHamBeach · 9/10 · 10 October 2004]

I liked this movie. It wasn't really about murder as much as about jealousy, obsession and about other conditions that can drive a normally sane person over the edge. It illustrated human frailty and imperfection very well. There were a lot of twists in the plot and great acting by all. Sarah Polley and Catherine McCormack in particular, were excellent. It was like seeing the same person in parallel time periods, suffering the same emotions. The dark haired sister Karen seemed cruel as she taunted Maren with tails of their brother coming to America. While Adaline wasn't nearly as "cruel", her ceaseless tactics of seduction right in front of Jean seemed inappropriate and inconsiderate to say the least. I think this is a very well plotted and enjoyable mystery thriller.

Initially apprehensive, pleasantly surprised

[oldsue · 6/10 · 27 June 2003]

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

(POSSIBLE SPOILER)...An interesting failure...unsolved murder mystery remains a riddle...

[Doylenf · 5/10 · 18 September 2006]

The 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.

An oddly engaging film that explores provocative themes with a welcome adult sensibility.

[TheVid · 26 March 2003]

In 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.

Uneven, yet pretty good Kathryn Bigelow movie

[Red-Barracuda · 7/10 · 4 April 2022]

This is a sort of forgotten Kathryn Bigelow movie. It took two years from initial festival screenings until it was released theatrically. It didn't receive very good reviews by all accounts and more or less disappeared. While its true that its definitely uneven, like all Kathryn Bigelow films, its worth watching. The structure of the story has two parallel stories - one set in contemporary times and the other back in the 19th century. The latter is about a double murder on a remote island in which there has always been doubt if the correct person was actually the one caught for it, the contemporary part of the film centres on a group of people on a luxury yacht who visit the site of this historical murder, with one of the characters writing a story on it. The two threads don't mesh together as well as they could, with the 19th century murder/mystery being the stronger and more focused. But it does have a good cast - Sean Penn, Sarah Polley, Elizabeth Hurley, etc - and its overall pretty good!

Less would have been more.

[=G= · 6/10 · 6 March 2003]

"The Weigh of Water" interleaves a present day story of two DINK couples on a boat exploring the New England coast where the second story of the murder of two Norwegian women took place 127 years before with the second story. Sound confusing? Well, the film is surprisingly coherent considering it's a Rubik's cube of scenes with flashbacks within flashbacks and two stories going on simultaneously. Unfortunately, the present day story isn't very interesting unless you want to see Hurley sucking on ice and bathing her naked flesh in with it or Penn drunkenly spouting poetry. The more interesting 19th century tale is a so-so drama with Polley at the center which just takes too long to get where it's going because of the constant interruptions. "The Weight of Water" includes many interesting elements such as murder, treachery, deceit, incest, etc. but annoyingly jerks the viewer from one story to the other not allowing for a continuously engrossing experience. A clear case of less would have been more, this flick gives the illusion of quality entertainment while squandering its solid cast on a junked up screen play with Polley carrying most of the weight of the water of her delicate shoulders. (B-)

Half of a very good film

[noncentz · 5/10 · 22 October 2002]

The period storyline is engrossing and wonderfully rendered in details and performances that ring true. truly transcendant was a scene in which Sarah Polley is finally shown some human tenderness and it all plays on a close-up of her face. The modern day allegorical tale, however, sinks the film, appropriately enough given what the film is called. No French Lieutenant's Woman, this. The overt sexual tension between the characters caused the audience to laugh in the theater in which I saw this. Saxophone, ice cubes and Hurley's breasts, though elementally splendid, add nothing to this weak storyline. They should have jetisoned the modern day story but then they would have had a period piece and people wouldn't pay to see that, right? Such a waste.

And what a weight it is on the viewer

[KaoticKelly · 6/10 · 10 April 2003]

It was an annoyingly hard decision as to what to vote for this film. Really, in all fairness, I think IMDb should make an exception with this film and allow each person two votes. One for the modern day story with Sean Penn, Catherine McCormack, Liz Hurley and Josh Lucas, and an entirely independent vote for the original mystery in the 1800's centered around Sarah Polley's character. Since there is no exception though, I found myself having to split it down the middle and give it a 5. Frustrating indeed given the excellent work of Polley.

The 'story' centers around a couple (Penn and McCormack) whose marriage is troubled and who decide to leave their kid at home for the weekend while they use a photographic assignment that McCormack has as a chance to hook up with her brother-in-law, Lucas and his new girlfriend, Hurley. This part of the film is nothing less than discombobulated from the get go. And really, given the lack of any really stake behind it all, it's less than boring, it's just downright annoying. Elizabeth Hurley as Adaline seems to think that it's enough to wear itsy-bitsy tiny white bikinis and suck on a lollipop to show her oral skills. Penn as McCormack's husband, spends the majority of his time either looking at Hurley, smoking, or looking at Hurley while he smokes. McCormack as Jean tries to give her character whatever depth one can in the middle of a masturbatory set of acting sequences but still manages to fail, and surprisingly, at least for me, only Josh Lucas as Penn's younger brother comes across without making you want to put a fly swatter to the screen. In fact, this side of the plot is so self-absorbed that one wonders why it was even included, besides from the fact that it was in the novel, thus making it necessary to be put down on film (what a waste).

All of that being said, the real 'mystery' in this story lies in why after viewing all the footage, Bigelow didn't just decide to put politics aside and focus only on telling the events of the double killing in the late 1800's on Shoal Island. Because that is where the story came to life, the characters became compelling and the actors morphed into all too human people that were worth the watch. Sarah Polley. One could stop there without adding a word. Polley's performance as Maren Hontredt, a young Norwegian woman bought to this far away land far from her family and married to a much older man, is not only compelling but mature beyond her years. It is Polley who not only brings her own character to life but also seems to bring the everyday life of the island itself and it's history and it's lonely location to reality vs. film reality. As I watched this film, I would increasingly be waiting for the 'modern' day bunch to finish spouting off their lines so that I could get back to Maren and the other interesting and diverse characters that comprised the REAL story. The actual mystery of Shoal Island is well worth the watch. The details of daily life and the characters that occupied it are wonderful to watch. Their chores, the way they interacted as a society, the hardships that were normal for that time period in such a location - all of these things were like a wonderful education of the past and seemed quite authentic to the untrained eye.

All in all, I believe if Miss Bigelow had just gone with a murder mystery in the 1800's with the extremely talented Sarah Polley delivering the performance she did, this movie would have really been something. As it is, it is mired in so much babble and imperfection that would be hard to recommend this film to anyone besides from die hard Polley fans. Too bad.

Two different generations of despicable people

[blott2319-1 · 2/10 · 5 November 2021]

The Weight of Water is a movie that is almost indescribably bad. Every single aspect of it was some level of annoying or stupid, and yet it's constructed like Oscar bait that might appeal to the film elite. I can only bear to touch on a few of the low-lights, because if I think about this movie too long I'll just get more angry. Let's just start with the fact that half the movie is a flashback to what could have been an intriguing murder mystery. If only they didn't telegraph who did it and even have one of the present-day characters call out who did it, early in the film. This means, from that point on, the entire sequence in the past is just an agonizingly slow plod until we finally see HOW the person did it. They add one dumb reveal that is intended to shock the audience at the end, but didn't surprise me all that much (not that I cared at this point.) If you don't establish good characters, then you shouldn't discard a whodunnit and turn it into a how-and-why-dunnit.

Then there's the garbage going on in the present day. I have no idea why we're meant to care about anyone here. Sean Penn is at his all-time smarmiest, and there isn't a single moment where you don't want to punch him in the face. Elizabeth Hurley is there as the shameless tramp who has no qualms about throwing herself at a married man in front of his wife and her boyfriend. And the other two are the hapless idiots who just sit there and refuse to vocalize anything about it. Their journey makes no sense to me, and when it reaches the end I was hoping the entire boat would capsize so every single character would die. The only reason I don't call The Weight of Water one of the worst movies I've ever seen and give it the lowest possible ranking is the early flashback scenes. There is a moment when I was hooked and thought this was going to be a solid murder mystery. Then we entered modern day and I regretted ever thinking the movie might be good.

Sarah Polley is Extraordinary; Her Performance Should Not Be Missed!

[guy_lazarus · 7/10 · 14 March 2003]

Sarah Polley is extraordinary in the fatally flawed film "The Weight of Water." Is there a better actress in films today than this remarkable Canadian? Her performance of the psychologically pressured Maren easily surpasses that of the much-ballyhooed Nicole Kidman's Virgina Woolf in "The Hours" (a performance I liked very much, but Kidman isn't half -- nay, a third -- the thespian Polley is).

Unfortunately, this brilliant actress' beautiful performance is in a film whose release was delayed more than a year (and then barely put into distribution) because of the fact that the "modern" story in this bifurcated drama is, to put it simply, simply AWFUL. A shame, since Polley's performance should not be missed.

The 19th century murder mystery part would have been enough

[Catharina_Sweden · 5/10 · 26 August 2015]

I think the 19th century part of this, after the real life murder mystery, was fine, interesting, well-acted and very believable - although no one can of course know if this was what really happened. But the culprit and the motive were an original and not impossible suggestion. I also liked it a lot that they used real Norwegian actors who actually spoke Norwegian, in the scenes that should take place back in Norway. That, and also the fact that the Norwegians wore Norwegian clothes from the right time period and had with them some Norwegian furniture etc. to America, gave it an authentic feel.

I did not think that the cutting between modern times and the 19th century worked, though. There were too many people to keep apart, and especially towards the end the cuts became too short and too fast and it all became just muddled. I am not even sure I understood what happened on the sailboat in the modern times. It would have been a much better idea to do the 19th century murder mystery only, and flesh it out a little instead.

Great movie!

[DrLovelick · 9/10 · 3 May 2001]

I was lucky to catch a screening of the new movie, "The Weight of Water" at the San Francisco Film Festival with a friend and three of her friends. Considering Sean Penn is in this film, my friend is completely in love with him, which is mainly why she bought the tickets for us. We caught a show a few nights ago, 4/25, at 9:30 at the AMC Kabuki 8. Lovely theatre, by the way. Everyone seemed to be jazzed for the festival and the films playing as well. The whole crowd looked to be very diverse.

At 9:30, an introduction was given for "The Weight of Water." I believe this was the head of operations for the SF Film Festival (not too sure now, because my brain isn't as photographic as it used to be) who gave the intro. Then after that, for a few mins, one of the film's producers, Janet Yang started talking. If you aren't familiar with her past work, she was the producer of "The Joy Luck Club," "South Central," "The People vs. Larry Flynt," "Zero Effect," and others which I haven't mentioned. My friend, well, she was expecting Sean Penn to be at this premiere, so she dressed up. Unfortunately, no one apart of "The Weight of Water" was present besides Janet Yang, so my friend was let down a little. Yang mentioned that this film was in desperate needs of seeking a distributer, because originally the president of Lion's Gate loved "The Weight of Water" so much, that he decided that the studio would distribute the film for release last fall (or was it this coming fall?). Unfortunately, that president has recently left the studio, so the deal went off and now it may not be that this film will be released in theatres at all this fall. Yang had no idea that "The Weight of Water" was a part of the SF Film Festival. She heard about its premiere at the last minute, so no actors appeared at the screening.

So anyway, after Yang had her talk, the film began...

I've never really written a review before for a film, so I don't know how to begin. I myself am a cinema student at San Francisco State University, but I have yet to learn how to write a good film critique. Anyway...

Oh, you recall director Kathryn Bigelow? You know, the one behind "Point Blank," "Strange Days," "Blue Steel," that vampire flick, "Near Dark" and the upcoming Harrison Ford starrer, "K-19: The Widowmaker" (awfully strange, btw, seeing Ford playing a Soviet, but he did do a German impression in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, so I guess that's close... maybe). Well, this is a very different film for her in part because it's made completely differently than any of her other previous films. The beginning starts in a very routine way. Cuts are rather quick, dialog is pretty standard, and the characters don't seem to be all that unique. The story at the beginning takes place in the late 1800's, where a man is convicted of a brutal axe murdering of two women. He believes he's innocent, but others reject his desperate plea for being saved, as he is to be hanged after the jury in the court reaches a verdict of "guilty." "The Weight of Water" then cuts to present day, where a beautiful photographer, Jean Janes (Catherine McCormack) is going on an expedition with her husband (Sean Penn) and her brother and his girlfriend (Elizabeth Hurley) to figure whether or not this man who was hanged in 1873 was really innocent or not. Eventually we are treated by numerous flashbacks which illustrate what Jean Janes is thinking when she's trying to figure this whole mystery out. Looking back into time, however, distracts Janes a little from her present life, especially when in this one scene where she's at a watch tower, she attempts to have sex with her husband. This attempt fails, because Jean is caught up with trying to figure out if the murderer was really innocent.

I've been told that this movie has gotten negative reviews from many. I can see why, because the backstory in this film isn't that interesting. However, I don't think "The Weight of Water" is all that bad. In fact, it's quite good. Not a great movie, but better than most people thought it was.

The thing that really struck out for me at first, was the GORGEOUS cinematography. Again, mentioning director Kathryn Bigelow, this film almost looks completely different from her other body of work. It seems to be a complete departure. The photography is just beautiful. There is this one scene where Jean Janes walks on the rocks and sees Maren Hontvedt (Sarah Polley) jumping from one rock to another in a bleak flashback. The blueish and whiteish colors that illustrate this scene are just stunning. There is also this scary and exciting axe scene, where the one of the murdered girls is slayed. This scene is illustrated in dark colors, really haunting. As a matter of fact, I believe this scene is a lot more scary than watching any of the axe murder scenes in "Sleepy Hollow." I don't wanna give away anything else as far as cinematography goes.

With the acting, I'd say it's a lot better in the present day than for the backstory that's given. Actors such as Sarah Polley do well with their performances, but the accents could be a little less stagey and more the less sounding as if they come from the native tongue. In the present day, the acting is a lot more realistic. Sean Penn delivers one of his better performances as Jean Janes' husband, in a low-key, laid back sense (my friend was pleased by this). Catherine McCormack as Jean Janes, she's very strong and believable as a photographer. Elizabeth Hurley plays a woman who at first might have been just a bimbo looking for a hunk to give her a good dosage of sensational sex. However, she's more three-dimensional in that she does seem to want to be apart of the stimulating conversations Jean James brings up. Well, actually, the Elizabeth Hurley character does seem to be seductive, looking at Sean Penn's character in such a way, turning a dinner scene where he looks at her legs and she stares back at him looking very interested in him. By the way, Hurley is half-naked in one scene, so if you're excited in seeing her getting to be close to nude, it does happen in this film. Anyway, the actor who played Jean Janes' brother and Hurley's boyfriend, I forgot his name, but he was very well drawn out. I would say I was more interested in the characters of the present day, than the ones in the backstory.

As far as the flashbacks go, I think "The Weight of Water" is one of those better films that actually knows how to use this device well. Normally flashbacks in films are very distracting, but in this one, they actually help a lot and blend in well, helping us understand what Jean Janes is thinking when she comes to terms in solving this mystery of whether or not this convicted man was innocent or not and if what she believes is true, that a woman did commit the murdering of two women. In a sense, this film is not about the murders but rather Jean Janes herself and how she tries to figure out this mystery and how this expedition of her's is affecting her life, dramatically. For those who don't appreciate flashbacks, PERIOD, well, this isn't the film for you then.

There are those of you that will feel negatively about this film and those of you who won't, but I happen to think this is Kathryn Bigelow's best movie so far, until she proves worthy of the new K-19 movie with Harrison Ford and Liam Neeson. I think it's a very well made film and beautiful at times. It's not the greatest one out there, but at least it's not a pile of crap such as a movie like Inspector Gadget (yes, it is and you all know it is).

PLEASE GET THIS MOVIE A RELEASE!

Two stories that didn't suit each other.

[allyatherton · 7/10 · 20 January 2016]

A photographer investigates the brutal murder of two women in 1873

Starring Sean Penn, Sarah Polley, Catherine McCormack, Elizabeth Hurley,

Ciaran Hinds and Josh Lucas.

Written by Alice Arlen ( Screenplay ) , Christopher Kyle ( Screenplay ) and Anita Shreve (Novel).

Directed by Kathryn Bigelow.

I have no problem with any of the acting performances and this isn't a bad movie by any length of rope and it just about kept my interest all the way.

The problem lies in the two so called parallel stories. On the one hand you have a fascinating story set in 1837 based around the controversial murders of two young women. And on the other hand you have a rather bland story of a group of family friends on a boat trip. The former could have well done without the latter.

I don't think the latter story was interesting or strong enough to be used in this way. I'm sure this would have been a much better movie if we had just had the story about the murders on it's own. That story was gripping and wonderfully acted by everyone concerned.

I haven't read the actual novel but I'm guessing it's probably better than the movie.

A generous 7/10.

Should have sticked to the historical tale

[basrutten · 3/10 · 16 December 2002]

This movie sets a new definition of the terms "boring". Somehow, I guess this movie was meant to be clever and refreshing, but the implementation leaves so much to be desired that this movie ends up being a two-hour sleep-inducing affair.

Basically, it consists of two parts, a modern-day part and a historical part, set in the 19th century. The 19th century part shows promise and actually gives a pretty interesting view of how a mysterious double murder took place, but ultimately it's underdeveloped and a bit boring.

However, compared to the modern-day part, the 19th century part is Oscar material. The modern-day part seems to rely on one thing only: Liz Hurley's breasts. Now you won't hear me complain about that, but if that's all there is, then you just don't have much of a movie. Seriously, the modern-day part is filled with endlessly drawn out unnecessary shots and quasi-philosophical nonsense conversations. What's missing is an actual storyline, and it hurts.

All in all, this movie is more boring than anything. Any parallels or deeper meaning get hopelessly lost under a sluggish pace and overly dramatic dialogue. Definitely not recommended.

*1/2 out of **** stars