User Reviews

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.

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')

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.

"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)

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.

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.

Five 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.

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.

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.

'The Weight of Water' tells two stories simultaneously. It is only Maren's story that keeps the viewer engaged while Jean's story is halfbaked. In spite of having a stellar cast, the latter story required further development. For example, one doesn't understand why Jean feels so connected to the murders that happened more than a hundred year ago. She's so drawn to it that she prefers to give that more focus than her failing marriage. With the exception of Jean, none of the other characters seem defined enough for us to care about. Maren's story ends up dominating the other. It starts off as rather boring but as events unfold, we're further drawn into it. Yet, more importantly, what is the connection between the two stories? That's one crucial point 'The Weight of Water' fails to make. Catherine McCormack does a fine job with a difficult role. However the screenplay, does not allow her to portray the complex feelings her character is experiencing. Sarah Polley too impresses with a complex role. Sean Penn disappoints. He seems rather uninterested most of the time. Elizabeth Hurley is quite alright as a shameless seductress. She does look sizzling but the screenplay doesn't give her much scope to perform. 'The Weight of Water' tries to be an impactive film but it just doesn't work. Only half the film is worth watching.

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.

Two men and two women visit a lonely island where an unsolved murder case happened more than a century ago. Tension in their relationships leads them into a conflict situation as well. Both stories are intricately woven together. I really liked the parallel narration, because it enhances the emotional effect and it's so much more elegant than the traditional flashback (brown filter, `Attention please, here comes a flashback'). When the movie was over, I didn't just say to myself: so, that was it! Instead, I wandered around for a quarter of an hour, thinking it over again, because it doesn't offer simple explanations. A challenge for the audience!

I didn't see Sean Penn in any movie for about 10 years and never was a fan, but here he delivers a really good performance as the poet. Liz Hurley is very, very sexy. Catherine McCormack gets the best line of dialogue: `When a woman kills, it's usually her spouse.' Take heed of the warning, guys. But the surprise of the movie is Sarah Polley as the immigrant's wife. She is taught to be silent and obedient, thus there is so much to read in her eyes only – until she explodes. Must go now and get a copy of her next movie `The Claim'. "The Weight of Water" gets 9 out 10 from me, I daresay.

Does everything have to be spelled out in "black and white" for american film audiences here? I am amazed that this film would "bomb" given it's incredible mesh of past and present, in the drama of "love and war" ("love and rage").

There are so many things happening here on all levels; my only complaint is that the film wasn't longer in order to tell the "whole story." There are so many things to see here; gorgeous filming and incredible soundtrack; haunting that has stayed with me for days... enough for me to rent the film again and watch it again and search for the soundtrack (which doesn't seem to be available) and to buy the best-selling novel this film was based on, to "find out more."

How this young girl, who was a "product of her times" and punished for her times, could be misunderstood by all critics and many movie-goers, and people miss the point of how the past meets the present in the human heart, it beyond me.

This film deserves a better review than I am giving it right now, and I intend to write one at a later date, after seeing it again.

Thank you to all concerned, and to all the actors who gave incredible performances (including Hurley, who, like all the others) - especially our two "heroines," past and present - gave excellent performances, perfect for our times.

I have not seen such a perfect film in a long, long time. The only problem was that it was not long enough to tell the whole story; but leaves much to the imagination and to comparison between "then" and "now."

Perhaps two hours is simply not enough time; the best films I have seen run three hours. That may have made all the difference. Such filmmaking, such gorgeous music... wind and waves, floating slowly down and down and down

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.

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!

When a movie gets itself over certain hurdles, establishing believability, mainly, and creating audience sympathy with/for one or more characters-- I am willing to silence my nagging inner critic, who is perhaps a thwarted pleasure principle raising its head to be fed.

Sarah Polley makes this film. Her acting was excellent, but I found myself, at first, most delighted by her "Norweigan" accent. As the movie went on, I got addicted to that accent, which for me had become integral to her performance. She, not Hurley, not Penn, was the centerpiece of this movie. But everyone was good, and the two story lines came together at the end satisfyingly.

Until I looked Sarah Polley up on IMDb I didn't realize how "busy" she's been (and will be). Also a writer and director ...

"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-)

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.

Two 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 the part of Karen 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)

Magazine photographer Jean Janes (Catherine McCormack) is working an infamous 19th century murder case. She, her writer husband Thomas Janes (Sean Penn), his brother Rich Janes (Josh Lucas), his girlfriend Adaline Gunne (Elizabeth Hurley) go sailing. Jean had found the purported diary of murderer Maren Hontvedt (Sarah Polley) who committed the 1873 murders. It's a tale of lust and uncontrolled passions.

Kathryn Bigelow is not known for directing this type of drama. All I remember from my original watching is the sailboat. I couldn't tell you the actual story. After watching it again, I find the two time periods lack enough connections. It becomes going back and forth between the two time periods and not really connecting together. There is tension but I'm not keeping up with these stories. There must be a more compelling drive to tie these two sides together.

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.