Most Helpful Customer Reviews
31 of 35 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
half a good film, August 1, 2003
**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.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
19 of 21 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
A Phychological Drama that Is Inspired by Actual Murder, August 17, 2002
(Let me say first that my rating is actually about 2.5, but I could not do that, so made it 3.) I had a chance to watch this film based on a novel by Anita Shreve (which I haven't read), and was interested in the names of the cast including Sean Penn, and the director Kathryn Bigelow. I am sorry to say that the entire film, though it has some intriguing premise and fantastic photography, somehow fell short of my expectation. But I don't know how you will receive this film, so I concentrate on writing factual aspects of this one. Let me hear your own opinions from you on Amazon later. Some sources call "The Weight of Water" a thriller, but that is misleading. It is more like a drama with some psycological depth. "The Weight of Water" has two plots side by side, one set in today, the other in the past. The film follows both the mystery of the horrible ax murder in the past, and hidden envy or hatred between the apparently friendly travellers today, with each story interwoven together. The film (or the book, I should say) is based on an actual double murder case that happened on the Isles of Shoals, off the coast of New Hampshire, in 1873. The introductory part of the film reveals us that a couple of female immigrants from Norway were killed, and a man called Lewis is arrested. But as the sole survivor and witness Maren (Sarah Polley, most unlucky girl in "GO") recounts her story to us, complicated things leading up to the fatal night slowly reveals unexpected side to us. Meanwhile, the other story concerns the four members on board, crusing in a yacht off the coast of the Isles: photographer Jean (underrated Catherine McCormack, in "Braveheart" and "Spy Game"), her husband and celebrated poet Thomas (Sean Penn), his brother Rick (Josh Lucas), and Rick's new girlfriend Adeline (Elizabeth Hurley). Jean is assigned to take photos about the murder case in 1873, and she is gradully obcessed with investigating the truth behind the case. But as she gets closer to the facts, the relations between the four members on board stars to falter, opening both the channel for the undercurrent enmity, and the wounds that should have been healed long ago. The double plot concept sounds good, but does not seem to be working well. It depends on your view, but I thought these too many details thrown in the film look so disjointed that the film fails to keep them tight, making the whole work look very confusing. The murder story is developed, generating our interest adequet for watching, thanks to Sarah Polley's convincing acting, but her character, with all credible complexity, suffers from so many flashbacks and story-within-story structure. It is a shame because she is really good, as is McCormack, whose character Jean, with her unconsciously sneaking loneliness, is phychologically (or supernaturally) connected with tormented Maren's life (so it is implied). With more stress on the aspect of the relation between them, the film could be more accessible and involving. Overall, acting is good, but, you know, when did Sean Penn provide us with bad acting? Director Bigelow's trademake photography, making full use of light and darkness, is here again, and her cutting-edge cinematography that raised her past works one notch higher can be seen this time. However, I must say that her known weakness in handling the story also damages the film, as in the past. The last sequence about the storm coming to the yacht off the Isles (this "Perfect Storm"-like climax set in today corresponds with the re-enactment of deadly night 130 years ago) looks very contrived, inspite of the tactful editing. Now, I said what I wanted to say. I also point out that this was produced by Studio Canal (France), and made before the Harrison Ford film "K-19" directed by Bigelow. I give three stars, but I must confess that I was disappointed after seeing this twice.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
16 of 18 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
THE BOOK IS BETTER..., April 6, 2003
This is an adaptation of the exceptionally well-written book of the same name by Anita Shreve. The film, as does the book, tells two stories, each with its own voice, demanding to be heard. The stories run parallel to each other, and the film cuts back and forth between each one, a difficult thing to do successfully. The director, Karen Bigelow, handles the flashbacks with competent ease. One story takes place in the present, and the other takes place over a century ago. The film is not a faithful adaptation of the book, and the revisions somewhat undercut the tension in the present day story, weakening that portion of the film. Moreover, while the casting for the period segment is perfect, the casting of the present day story leaves much to be desired. The film tells the present day story of Jean (Catherine McCormack), a news photographer who sets out on a large sailboat to a remote island off the coast of New Hampshire, accompanied by her Pulitzer prize winning writer/husband, Thomas (Sean Pen), her brother-in-law, Rich (Josh Lucas), and his sexy girl friend of several months, Adaline (Elizabeth Hurley). It turns out that Thomas and Adeline already knew each other, as Thomas had introduced her to his brother, a fact of which Jean had been previously unaware. It appears that relations may be strained on this voyage, as Adeline flirts outrageously with Thomas. Jean's present is haunted by passion, jealousy, and betrayal. She feels great angst, as she senses the attraction that seems to exist between her husband and Adeline. The purpose of the visit to the island is to view the scene of a nineteenth century double murder that saw two Norwegian, immigrant women hacked to death, which murders were much ballyhooed at the time as the crime of the century. A third woman, Maren Hontvedt (Sara Polley), survived the carnage that took the lives of her sister and sister-in-law and lived to tell the tale. It seems that a former boarder returned to their homestead, while the husbands of two of the women were away, and attacked them. He was caught, charged, tried, convicted and, proclaiming his innocence to the end, executed for his crimes. Jean later discovers an uncatalogued statement made by the lone surviving eyewitness, Maren Hontvedt, which recounts Maren's life and the events that led up to the carnage. It reveals what actually happened. The period segment reveals that while Maren's marriage is not a love match, she is, nonetheless, doing everything she can to make a home. When her relatives arrive from Norway, they revive past issues best left dormant. Jean begins to identify with Maren's struggles with love and marriage. Ultimately, It is through Maren's compelling story that Jean finds herself able to come to term with her own personal tragedy. Alternating between Jean's unraveling present and the secrets of the past, the film provides an absorbing and suspenseful narrative, as it tries to tell the two stories. It is in the period piece that the film succeeds, however, painting a wonderful picture of what Maren's life was like over a century a go on that isolated island. Sarah Polley is terrific as the tragic Maren and the cinematography is magnificent. It is the period story, painting the picture of nineteenth century immigrant life, that carries the film, as it is that story that is the most compelling. The two juxtaposed dramas each come together, however, in a primal and tragic climax. The present day story, unfortunately sinks under its own weight. Sean Penn in the role of Thomas gives a performance that makes the viewer want to slap him, so obnoxious and pretentious does he come across. He is all but laughable and so unattractive as to make one wonder what the gorgeous Adeline could ever see in him. Elizabeth Hurley is well cast as the slyly flirtatious Adeline. Josh Lucas is likable as Rich, Jean's good looking brother-in-law. Unfortunately, the anorexic looking Catherine McCormack is also not particularly likable as Jean. One begins to think that she and Thomas deserve each other. Moreover, the viewer cares little about what happens to either one of them, so unlikable are they. The present day story deserves about two stars, while the period segment deserves at least a four, so I am rating this film with three stars. Read the book; then, watch the movie.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
