User reviews

Jeremy Irons,in another in a long line of outstanding performances, plays a high school history teacher who becomes as disillusioned as his students with dry facts and figures and takes them on a field trip though his mind as he relates his own personal family history to them.This is a fascinating,thought provoking film.At one point,fellow teacher John Heard asks him what to tell parents who want to know why their kids should be learning history if it isn't going to help them get a good job when they graduate.The answer to this question is the main reason why parents should stick to parenting and teachers to teaching.Great music score and excellent cinematography,this film is a rewarding experience.

And this movie excels in bringing this to life in a believable way. Jeremy and his wife Sinead excel as the older couple in this as do their younger selves portrayed by different actors. There is a wonderful love story threading through the whole movie and you are not too sure where it is heading. Jeremy plays a history teacher in the US, I understand that the book had him teaching in England where the first half of the movie takes place. Waterland refers to land that has been reclaimed from the ocean and is extremely flat with streams and water running through it. He is married to his childhood sweetheart and they have both been traumatized by an event that took place while they were in their teens. There is an aura of sadness around them 20 years later as they arrive at the doorway to middle age and the long held pain within the wife starts to manifest itself in strange ways. I see the waterland of their youth as allegorical in this, the reclaiming of their lives from their childhood tragedy. Some of the history lessons were a little awkwardly done, I found them forced and a key plot twist I could see from a mile away, but on the whole this movie captured my attention and I gave it an 8 out of 10. It would not be to everybody's taste.

On second viewing, "Waterland" is even darker than when we watched it when it was first released. The tragedy of Tom and Mary suffered during their youth comes back to haunt them in later years, as it's always the case in matters such as these. Of course, we don't know the mystery until it's revealed at the end, but there are indications that point out what looms ahead for these lovers.

Stephen Gyllenhaal, the director, has worked out the difficulty posed by a narrative that expands many years into blending history, as it happened, with today's reality as Tom, who is an older man now, recounts his youth to the history class he teaches in Pittsburgh.

The film has some lovely flashbacks shot in that part of England that doesn't seem to change. The early part of the story is marked by two tragedies, first the drowning of Dick, and by what fate has in store for Mary. We also learn about the secret story of Tom's unhappy family, as it enfolds when he tells it to the students. It all comes about because of Matthew Price challenges Mr. Crick when he asks the teacher about the practicality of learning history.

Jeremy Irons is perfect as the man who carries a burden he cannot get rid of. Sinead Cusack has a small but pivotal part in the story, as the grown Mary. Actually, the ones that fare best in the film are Grant Warnock and Lena Headey, who portray the younger Tom and Mary and give good performances. A young Ethan Hawke plays the inquisitive Matthew Price. David Morrissey, who is seen as Dick Crick, has some good moments. Pete Postlethwaite is wasted. There is a glimpse of Maggie Gyllenhaal at the beginning of the film, but alas, that is all one sees of her.

The haunting musical score by Carter Burwell and the dark cinematography of Robert Elswit contribute to give the film the right look that Mr. Gillenhaal wanted for the finished product, no doubt. "Waterland" should have been seen by more people.

A wondrous journey into a dark and troubled mind. Jeremy Irons is in his prime acting form here, as a teacher. Here he tries to enlighten his students with brooding flashbacks of his troubled teen life. The director also allows the students to interact with the flashbacks creating a dreamy, wondrous gloss over some very disturbing imagery. If you loved the Cell and Seven than this may have been one you missed. A must see.

Tom Crick (Jeremy Irons)'s wife Mary is obsessed with having a baby even thought she's well past her time. He's a history teacher struggling with know-it-all student Matthew Price (Ethan Hawke) and a restless class. He recounts his youth in the Fens in England to his class enticing them with a tale of murder. The younger versions are played by Grant Warnock and Lena Headey.

The modern day story is highlighted by the push and pull of Jeremy Irons and Ethan Hawke with Cara Buono as the teacher's pet. Director Stephen Gyllenhaal uses locations as a way of bringing the class into his story. The modern class interacts with the old stories like they are actually inside the stories.

The big discovery is Lena Headey. It's her first big film and she crushes it. She and Grant Warnock have good chemistry as young lovers. The movie is generally dreary. It's tone dark. The old story has a sense of foreboding. Mary's madness is foreshadowing something sinister in their past.

The pace is slow and takes a little too much pleasure in withholding its secret. It needs to be more interesting especially in the middle. It meanders as Hawke and Irons walks down memory lane. It isn't the most exciting thing to watch them talk about the past. A more straight forward return to the old story is probably better. Once it goes back to Headey and Warnock, the movie moves along fine. Every time it goes back to Hawke and Irons, the movie slows down because the present storyline isn't the compelling part.

Wanted to see 'Waterland' for a number of reasons. My main reasons were the superb source material by Graham Swift, a haunting and poignant book with a point, and due to being a fan of Jeremy Irons (in a quest to see more of his work other than what has been seen already). Also hold his real life wife Sinead Cusack in very high regard and have always wished she was in more films. Very interesting subject too.

Found 'Waterland' to be a good and interesting film, but could have been even better than it was. It showcased very well Irons, Cusack, Lena Headey and Ethan Hawke in early appearances and composer Carter Burwell. As an adaptation, it is very well intended and doesn't disgrace the source material. But part of me felt like there could have been more depth to the characters and the story, both richer than what is seen in the film. On its own terms and judging it as a standalone, 'Waterland' does have a good deal to recommend.

Starting with what could have been done better in 'Waterland', although it is one of those stories where a deliberate pace is necessary there are times when the story is not as eventful where the pace felt too deliberate. Mentioned above about aspects of 'Waterland' that could have gone into more depth, a prime example would be the ending which did come over as rather vague.

The film is at its least interesting in the classroom scenes, not Tom's dialogue and certainly not how Irons delivers it. It was the dialogue of the students and how they reacted to some of what they were being taught, those moments were very awkwardly written and even unintentionally funny. The waste of the great Pete Postlethwaite, given far too little to do, is criminal.

However, 'Waterland' is held together beautifully by the acting. Irons is understated yet very sincere in the lead role and even little things like how he uses those melancholic eyes tell so much, back when he was in roles that played to his strengths and showed how great an actor he actually is. He shares an intensely touching chemistry with a very heartfelt Cusack, making one feel why they haven't done more projects together and it should be strongly considered in the future. Hawke, Headey and Grant Warnock are particularly good of the rest of the cast, a good thing too as other than Irons and Cusack they have the most to do.

It's filmed in a hauntingly beautiful way too, complementing the picturesque yet sometimes foreboding scenery perfectly. Burwell's score is perfectly hypnotic and Stephen Gyllenhaal directs sensitively enough. The past and present scenes have a good amount of affecting drama, air of mystery and haunting emotions, especially the past scenes and the latter scenes with Cusack. The back and forth between timelines is at least coherent and doesn't come over as jerky or disjointed, dangers with back and forths in films and have been fallen into. The dialogue is generally thoughtful, Irons delivers his final speech with a lot of poignancy and truth.

Overall, had its faults but still a well done film. 7/10

"Waterland" puts Irons at the center as a disturbed history teacher who recounts his personal history to his class. Irons performance is excellent as always. However the story is a plaintive and peculiar reflection on what is a rather drab and uneventful life. Furthermore, the film tells the story of the teacher telling his story with constant flashbacks into which some of his student are magically transported serving more to confuse matters than to entertain. "Waterland" is an excellent shoot with quality in all aspects except the convoluted story which must have been a much better novel than film.

The real reason to see this movie is for its portrayal of the fens, a pert of the world we don't often see. The atmosphere of muck and ooze contributes greatly to the story, and sexual imagery involving eels reminds me of The Tin Drum. The sombre, empty horizons reflect the state of mind the characters are in.

That being said, I still think the story is pure soap opera. I can appreciate a good melodrama, but this didn't offer anything out of the ordinary. That being said, I still think the story is pure soap opera. I can appreciate a good melodrama, but this didn't offer anything out of the ordinary.

So I recommend the movie, but it is far from being a masterpiece.

This film is a complex intricate look at sexuality, history, Freud, and superstition all based in the living metaphor of England's fen land, or marshes. It is no coincidence Swift chose to set this incredible story about navigating the labyrinths of jealousy and history- personal and local, using a landscape riddled with secret channels and muddy hidden waters.

The acting is superb, and like Ian McEwan's Atonement, looks unflinchingly at the depths of personal tragedy, and history, and their long lasting effects on us as humans, all in the context of historical events.

The Fenland is an area deeply steeped in history, going back before the Romans.The film touches literally the taboo of early sexual longing ( male and female)and leaves us to look at the costs of opening Pandora's's box.

Swift is a gifted and beautiful writer and I have read this book several times. The film is a credit to the book, which is an unusual statement for films. The film complements the book much in the same way the film of Unbearable Lightness of Being complemented that book.

This is a masterful work.

This is a dark brooding movie that hooked me the first time I saw it. I've enjoyed watching it a number of times ever since.

Jeremy Irons is, as Leonard Matlin indicates in his review, superb in his role. There's a great deal of darkness and certainly some degree of socially deviant behavior in the film. But it's very much the darkness that provides the drama and meaning to the story.

It's a beautifully photographed film. I thought Lena Headey was quite good in addition to being stunning. Sinead Cusack and all of the supporting cast were quite good. It is an eccentric film, but I believe it comes through as a very fine piece of film making.

It strikes me as being very underrated by the users' ratings. This is probably due in the main to the darkness of the film and its most definite lack of Hollywood style optimism. The lower ratings might also be due to what might be interpreted as a conservative message. I am not a political conservative--God forbid! However, the message that there can be unforeseen and terrible consequences from our actions is something that all of us could well profit from. Very fine movie, but certainly not for those that dislike "the bad taste of things"--or the tragedies of life.

Here is one of the best films of the 1990s. I remember the first time I saw it, I wasn't too sure what to think. I've seen it countless times in the last six or so years, since that first viewing. I am completely in awe every time I watch it. In awe of the way Jeremy Irons conveys sadness better than any actor working today. In awe of the hypnotic score, the sense of mysterious longing it evokes. In awe of everything here...

I swear this film breaks my heart every time I see it.

I agree with the other com-mentors. It's a masterpiece of sorts.

I did not fight it, just yielded and enjoyed the haunting performances.

Caught it for the first time yesterday and have not stopped thinking about it. Irons is brilliant and looks awful, but his appearance is the reflection of the mess inside him.

The location of the story is wonderful. I liked the way the present slipped into the past and remained in the present. Wonderful technique to tell this wistful sad tale of the human comedy. Had a Ken Russell feel to the camera work, you have to give up trying to make sense of the scenes, just give in and let it take you over.

A must see. SARGE

Jeremy Irons, everybody's favorite morose Englishman, plays a high school teacher who basically has a nervous breakdown (more like a meltdown) in class; and over the course of several class sessions, tells his pupils his own life story, growing up in rural England in the post-war years. This includes his high school sweetheart, to whom he is married, and his mentally retarded older brother.

The movie consistently takes turns for the weird. The teacher's wife has a habit of snatching unattended babies and bringing them home; we learn that she is unable to have children, but the reason for this is not revealed until a climactic scene that some viewers may find very difficult and painful to watch.

The teacher actually brings his students, physically, into the setting of the story at one point ... there they are, walking around, looking at things... a class field trip into the teacher's past. A very young Ethan Hawke plays a troublesome student who connects with Jereme's character by the end of the story.

Most of the surrealistic elements work well, others are just ... odd. For example, at one point, Jeremy Irons' character pauses in the middle of his narrative, because one of his female students who is sitting at a desk in the classroom is completely naked. Okay ... maybe there was supposed to be some kind of symbolism behind this image, but it seemed a little gratuitous.

Overall, I'd have to give it **** of *****.

I found Waterland to be a great example of how to film an almost unfilmable book. I found it extremely moving in it's storytelling, and the fact that it came and went so quickly (in Toronto anyway) a tragedy...it deserved more.

As a huge fan of Graham Swift's novels, I was pleasantly surprised to see how well this complex and detailed work was compressed into film form. While I think Jeremy Irons, David Morrissey and Sinead Cusack are all outstanding in this film, I really feel that the transplanting of the frame from England to America diminishes the story. Surely Price's nihilism is not merely a standard adolescent world-weariness, but a form of the punk sensibility contemporary with the book's appearance. Still, the film does a good job of capturing the sense of place in its English scenes, and handles the poignancy of the story effectively. The film is good, but the book is immense.

I just happened to catch this movie on cable last evening and it captivated me. Waterland should have received accolades when released but I had never even heard of it. All the acting is quite good but I was disappointed only to catch a glimpse of Maggie G. at the beginning of the movie as I was hoping for more of her. The story intrigues as it twists and turns in and out of the past and present without confusion but a slow and steady revealing of itself. Ethan Hawke is intriguing in what may even be his first film. Jeremy Irons fits a history teacher perfectly. I highly recommend this film for everyone who enjoys a good story, excellent acting, and beautiful filming.

Mr. Jeremy Irons? I don't know exactly but perhaps it is because he has no limitations, his profound dark eyes are so telling and yet so incredibly reserved upon which at his command he can execute any series of human emotions by degrees of his own making; his overall quiet gentle intensity is tempered yet fierce, I don't know what else to say, every film I see him in, I just think to myself it can't get any better, for the most gorgeous scripts must have passed his way, I see him bathed in the afternoon light in England some where as the resplendent sheaves flow through his finger to produce an a wonderful effect upon his soul thereupon transferring the data to his calm brain to let his heart respond by the by with the will of providence for he is a celestial being! A luminary indeed!

This was exactly how one goes about adapting a book to film, the imagery, so visceral, it is as if we the audience is right there with him as he relates the tale to his students, I don't care if the infernal thing leads to a happy or sad ending, whatever or wherever Mr. Irons is, that's where I want to be...

I have not read the novel, but a quick glance at a synopsis of the plot suggests what a mess they've made of it on film. The novel sounds like a serious, intellectual drama. The film is an attempt to simplify the concepts involved, and turn them into a rather straightforward drama. In itself, and no further, this might have succeeded. The failure is caused by other things.

The transferral of the Cricks from Greenwich to Pittsburgh is a disastrous mistake - the only reason for doing it was clearly the American box office. Again, the distributors tend to assume that Americans are too stupid to take in a drama set in England. They are wrong.

The conversations between Irons (Crick) and John Heard, as American school-teachers discussing education in 1974, are embarrassingly wrong somehow, and bang an entirely wrong beat. The time you first realise Irons is addressing his class of teenagers (Ethan Hawke is 22, actually) as 'children' is even more excruciating. The fact that he apologises for this expression in his farewell speech made me think that one of the script editors had only just noticed how dumb it sounded, and shoved it in as an 'apology' (to the film-goer rather than to the student) at the end.

Things get worse. When Irons shows his 'children' a print of the Guillotine and describes, very mildly, some of the mutilated corpses, they all exclaim 'Oh God, no...' and 'Aaargh, how sickening...' They sound more like children from 'Pollyanna', than actual teenagers from Pittsburgh, who'd have grown up under Vietnam, and were just about to see 'The Texas Chainsaw Massacre.' Nearly every 'American' scene is mind-numbingly awful. Irons's farewell speech is hardly Michael Redgrave (or even Albert Finney) in 'The Browning Version.'

Someone had another pointless idea. "When Irons starts talking about his past life, let's have the American teenagers actually transported there on the screen." This makes no sense, and after a while the whole idea seems to have been mercifully abandoned. The scene of them trundling across Norfolk in a truck was risible, and I half-expected Captain Mainwaring and Jones's van to appear at any minute. The assumption behind this 'idea' seems that the film-goer is in reality just as thick as John Heard assumes students are - i.e. no one's interested in history and the past - so our best bet is to actually SHOW Ethan Hawke tramping about in the Fens of WW2.

John Heard and Peter Postlethwaite are completely wasted, and David Morrissey does the valiant best he can as Irons's mentally handicapped elder brother. I have always found Jeremy Irons greatly over-rated, and 'Waterland' shows just how insipid his acting can be at times. I was - even within the constrictions of the wreckage made of the Graham Swift novel by the scriptwriters - longing for a Dirk Bogarde or a Christopher Ecclestone. Irons simply doesn't carry it. In fact, the bar room scene with Irons and Ethan Hawke showed how much better Hawke is. I was reminded of Hawke with Robin Williams in 'Dead Poets Society' three years earlier. Even that has tinges of embarrassment (most filmmakers have no real idea what schools or universities are like - watch Lewis Gilbert's hysterical portrayal of a 1980's British university in 'Educating Rita') but 'Dead Poets Society' is great stuff compared to the wet mess of 'Waterland'. (Like most films of this sort, it has lashings of dull 'mood music' - always appearing at the completely wrong moment in the film.)

PS Ethan Hawke looks 'pretty.'

It was my favorite, but long since, I don't have any, I mainly divide movies into horrible, bad, mediocre, bad, ok, good, excelent. So, this would be excelent. Everything in this movie works extremely well, the acting of Jeremy Irons is, well, as always wonderfull. Reminds me, I don't know why, but, of Stealing Beauty, which Jeremy Irons is also in. To finish, very good, if you haven't seen it, go out and rent it now.