Le poids de l'eau

'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.

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.

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.

"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)

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.