The Weight of Water (2000) from Johnny Web (Uncle Scoopy) and Tuna
It is always difficult to manage parallel stories in the past and present. Looking back on the films which have used that device, not many of them are that memorable. The French Lieutenant's Woman received some good notices when it was released, but I can't remember much about it now. I really like Dead Again, but that one walks a fine line between being one of those films and making fun of those films. Gwyneth Paltrow's Possession was a pleasant enough diversion if one has a taste for a romantic, literary bauble now and then.

In terms of the basic plotline, The Weight of Water probably has the most in common with Possession. (Weight of Water is the earlier movie, although it passed through its theatrical release virtually unnoticed in 2000). In both films, someone from the present is investigating a mystery in the past, and that experience is causing them to reflect on their own lives. The films are not similar in tone, and they relate the parallel stories in very different ways.

Possession is a more straightforward film. Two literary scholars co-operate in the investigation of a secret and theretofore unsuspected relationship between two nineteenth century poets. Each of the modern day scholars specializes in one of the Victorian lovers, paired off by matching sexes. Gwyneth Paltrow, for example, is a specialist in the woman being investigated. She feels she knows the woman, and she identifies with her. When all of her assumptions about the poet are challenged, she begins to re-examine her analysis of the poet and of herself as well. The fact that the poet turned out to be more open to the varieties and richness of love than previously thought caused Gwyneth to open herself up in a similar way. All in all, that was quite a tidy script.

The Weight of Water is far less contrived than that, and more subtle, but just not as interesting. A photographer/journalist is investigating a 19th century double murder among the mostly Norwegian immigrants on the rugged islands off the coast of New Hampshire. She and her husband use this as a combination working trip and vacation, sailing about the island locations. Her husband's brother has a boat, and the two couples make it a pleasure cruise, of sorts.

The journalist wants to understand the case fully, so she gets so far into the psychology of the characters in the past that she is dreaming about them, imagining them. She concludes that the crime was not committed by the person or for the reasons normally imagined. In the present, her marriage to a Pulitzer-winning poet is experiencing difficulties, and that situation is not made any easier by the fact that her husband is flirting with his brother's girlfriend. It is especially troubling since the girlfriend looks a lot like the gorgeous British model/actress, Elizabeth Hurley. In fact, exactly like her. Hurley seems to spend all of her time making eyes at the husband, sunbathing topless, and sucking suggestively on various household objects.

NUDITY REPORT

Elizabeth Hurley showed her breasts when sunbathing on the deck of a sailboat.

Ulrich Thomsen showed his butt and a bit more when he was photographed from behind while removing his pants
The connection between the past and the present is tenuous. I was watching carefully, mindful of that very link, and I saw one very good use of the past story to explain something in the present. There is a brief period in the present day story when the journalist's actions seem inexplicable unless one understands what actually happened in the past, as well as the journalist's perception of it. That moment or two rang through like a powerful bell, but the rest of the film almost seemed like two unrelated stories being cut together randomly. I guess I could live with the sudden merging of the characters' motivations from previously unsuspected connections if the two stories were supremely interesting, but they simply were not. Neither of the two separate stories, if viewed separately, would really hold my attention. How can you make a double axe murder dull? This movie had a formula: too much languorous, meaningful glancing and pregnant pausing, and no surprise in the past story at all. We are led to believe from the outset that the murderer is innocent and we are led to believe who really did it and why. The fully detailed story simply confirms what we had already inferred.

There is a surprise in the present, but I can't say it is one that will provide much of a reward to the viewer for having watched faithfully, and that story is also filled with too many exchanges of meaningful glances for my taste.

DVD info from Amazon

  • Widescreen anamorphic 1.85:1.

I found some things to admire about The Weight of Water, but I didn't find much to like. It's slow and arty, filled with recitations from poetry, and constantly searching for profundity. Perhaps it succeeds in that quest from time to time, but I'm not surprised that such a film was such a complete failure at the box office.

This water was a little too weighty for my taste.

TUNA's THOUGHTS

The Weight of Water (2000) is a major flop from director Katherine Bigelow (Strange Days). It is essentially two parallel stories, and that was its downfall, as the two stories do not fit well together. Katherine McCormack is a photographer for a magazine, who has been assigned to take some pictures for an article on a century old murder. She decides to take her Pulitzer winning poet husband, Sean Penn, and try to revive her failing marriage. They will be taken to the island by Penn's brother, Josh Lucas, who owns a yacht, and who brings along his girlfriend, Elizabeth Hurley. Hurley is clearly trying to seduce Penn.

The second story is the century old murder. Two women were brutally murdered, and a German immigrant was convicted and hanged for the crime. The only survivor, Sarah Polley, is the chief witness, and it was her sister, and her brother's wife that were murdered. McCormack, from the beginning, senses psychically, that there is more to the story than the simple conviction, and finally uncovers evidence which demonstrates who really committed the murders.

Bigelow switches between the two stories in a nearly random manner, and attempts to show parallels between stories that just don't have many. Certainly, both stories tell of an unhappy marriage, but, frankly, each story distracts from the other. Elizabeth Hurley shows her breasts trying to rescue papers blowing away while she was sunbathing topless, and pokes out of most of her outfits. Despite a very talented cast, her performance was the standout in this film.

I will say that I watched the entire film without hitting fast forward, and was involved enough to wonder how it would end, but was not overly impressed. The scenery made for very nice visuals, and the 100 year old part of the story was especially well photographed. I suppose this is a C-. Genre fans will find things to like.

The Critics Vote

  • General  consensus: two stars. Ebert 2/4, Berardinelli 2/4, and most others in the same ballpark, or ever a hair lower.

The People Vote ...

  • The box office was virtually nil. $103,000, making the $16 million investment a virtual write-off. It got a 27 screen trial, and even that proved excessive relative to its appeal.

 
The meaning of the IMDb score: 7.5 usually indicates a level of excellence equivalent to about three and a half stars from the critics. 6.0 usually indicates lukewarm watchability, comparable to approximately two and a half stars from the critics. The fives are generally not worthwhile unless they are really your kind of material, equivalent to about a two star rating from the critics. Films rated below five are generally awful even if you like that kind of film - this score is roughly equivalent to one and a half stars from the critics or even less, depending on just how far below five the rating is.

My own guideline: A means the movie is so good it will appeal to you even if you hate the genre. B means the movie is not good enough to win you over if you hate the genre, but is good enough to do so if you have an open mind about this type of film. C means it will only appeal to genre addicts, and has no crossover appeal. (C+ means it has no crossover appeal, but will be considered excellent by genre fans, while C- indicates that it we found it to be a poor movie although genre addicts find it watchable). D means you'll hate it even if you like the genre. E means that you'll hate it even if you love the genre. F means that the film is not only unappealing across-the-board, but technically inept as well.

Any film rated C- or better is recommended for fans of that type of film. Any film rated B- or better is recommended for just about anyone. We don't score films below C- that often, because we like movies and we think that most of them have at least a solid niche audience. Now that you know that, you should have serious reservations about any movie below C-.

Based on this description, this film is a C- (Both reviewers)

Return to the Movie House home page