The Weight of Water
|
List Price: Our Price: $3.41 You Save: $11.57 (77%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $0.01 (click here) Category: DVD See more DVD releases |
|---|
Canada
Movie Reviews of The Weight of Water
Movie Review: Talk about films that tick you off
Summary: 3 Stars
This movie really upset me. The Weight of Water is a film within a film. One storyline takes place somewhere on the East Coast in the 1800's. The other story takes place in modern times. The story that took place in the 1800's is much better than the modern story. Why you may ask? Storyline development. The modern day story is about Sean Penn and his journalist wife and his brother and the brothers hot girlfriend, Elizabeth Hurley.The film never explains why Sean Penn's wife has a British accent and Liz Hurley also has a British accent in this film. So at one point, I was wondering, what is the deal, I mean what was the purpose of casting two British actresses? Was this integral to the storyline? Were the two women linked?
Another thing about the modern storyline, many "could it be?" scenarios are introduced but never resolved. When the film ends, you really don't know what happened to the people in modern times, whereas the 1800's storyline is clealy resolved.
It's not a bad film, but not well resolved.
Movie Review: Beautiful Film, Achingly Lacking
Summary: 3 Stars
I enjoyed the film for any number of reasons: Liz Hurley is beautiful, Sean Penn and Sarah Polley are fun to watch, the scenery is keen, the sense of place is strong. And Liz Hurley is beautiful. Have I mentioned that? Anyway, this film has several good things going for it, and I would recommend it based on these things. The flaws of the film pertain to it's rigid desire to maintain a parallel structure in it's two separate (yet connected) stories. The one story feels very original and fresh (though come to find out it is roughly based on a tragedy some 100 years before). But the other feels forced into an attachment with the primary narrative. Evidence --and reason-- as to why these separate stories deserve to be entwined appears lacking. Separately the narratives are strong, it's just the mating of them that creates rough edges. Thank you.
R.P. Petalver
Movie Review: The Weight of Water
Summary: 3 Stars
I am sorry, but this film is too distracting with the way it is being portrayed. I do not think it was in the best interest of the film to keep switching back and forth from the present to the past. It is too confusing to the viewers and it distracts from the plot of the film. I lost interest very quickly, and if it weren't for the fact that I am originally from Portsmouth,NH, I probably would not have purchased this film at all!Movie Review: half a good film
Summary: 2 Stars
**1/2 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.
Movie Review: Water-logged
Summary: 2 Stars
Whew! After reading other reviewer's remarks, I'm glad to see I was not the only one who thought this movie was crap. The cinematography is great, and the look (art direction) is authentic. I too had trouble following the double-storyline. Just when I started to get interested in the modern-day story, the action cut back to the past. I don't know if it was poor choices during the editing processes or what. I have seen many other movies that use flashback and dual-timeline stories. None of those were this boring. By the time you get to discover the real truth behind the century-old murders, you really don't care anymore. And I don't see how the climactic storm at sea resolves the modern-day storyline.
In terms of casting, I have to agree with the other reviewers: why cast two British actress as the modern-day leads. To me, the character of Jean should've been played with either an American actress (or at least a British or Australian actress with an American accent)instead of Catherine McCormick. I also couldn't begin to identify with the character. She seems so obsessed over this murder but completely inarticulate when discussing it (unless that's the point). Sean Penn sits around and broods as her husband, a has-been poet. Josh Lucas and Elizabeth Hurley (as Sean Penn's brother and the brother's girlfriend) really don't have much to do except add some eye candy (Josh for the ladies, and Elizabeth for the guys, and believe me, I kept wanting to see more of her in the bathing suit -- with and without the top). Some say Josh Lucas's acting is a bit wooden and stiff in this role; I say he has nothing to work with: the character is just there to steer the boat and give Hurley backrubs. He has no real personality quirks and Lucas works best when he plays someone who's a bit flawed (he is a rare case of a character actor who has leading-man good looks but bland roles don't suit him). Sean Penn, on the other hand, looks like he's sleepwalking through half the movie. His alcoholic poet seems more like he's stoned on Prozac; there's no passion, even when he quotes Dylan Thomas. I think this was a miscasting; he's not sympathetic either. (SPOILER ALERT: His character's fate during the storm is almost deserved; one cannot feel sympathy for him.)
The story set in the last century is much more interesting but because of the cut-up flashbacks, one doesn't hold interest. Sarah Polley is a good actress, but her moping around -- "Oh, I'm stuck in a loveless marriage, and I really want to sleep with my brother again," attitude gets old. Yes, dear viewers, I gave away another spoiler: incest. The other actors that play in the murder mystery story (aside from Polley and the great Ciaran Hinds as the wrongly accused murderer) are all Scandinavian and I've never heard of any of them before. They do a good job with the material they're given, but it's hard to connect with them as well.
Perhaps this is one of those movies that you grow to like after repeated viewings. Once was enough for me. Perhaps you also need to read the original Anita Shreve novel before you watch it. If so, I understand the movie is quite the literal adaptation. This may be its biggest flaw: novels can be cinematic in their themes, imagery and their dialogue; they become water-logged when one tries to adapt the same style in telling two contrasting stories. It also helps that when reading a novel with two story lines, it's much easier to go back and re-read parts of it, when the action gets confusing.