Watermark

Slow doesn't describe this. Glacial... no, that's still too fast. Continental drift, that's the right speed. If I could have watched this at 4x speed, I might have been able to make it through. At regular speed, 15 minutes was all I could stand. Others have said that the photography makes up for the shortfalls. I do not agree. Some of the sequences are nice, but where a 10 second clip would get across the message, the makers chose to put in a 60 second clip. To sum up, this is a 15 or 20-minute short stretched to movie length.

Watermark's opening minutes is a long drawn out shot of gates opening releasing huge amounts of water. We then cut to what feels like 5 minutes, to nothing. A dried up river. What a memorable way to open a film. This is one of the best looking movies I have seen in a long time and it shows. But, that is the main problem I have with it. It is so beautifully shot, that it is overlooks its message. We are so busy looking at the most amazing scenery that we forget what the movie is really about which the people being interviewed for such a short time remind us. The movie's main message is what one of the people say: Nothing lasts forever. They talk about how we are all water, how every species drinks water, how water is used to help make things, but the thing is we do know about some of this already. But, the things we don't know are at the most amusing. I have nothing else to say about this movie and I am sorry. But all it is, is it's eye candy. Nothing more, nothing less. Overlooking its message. The reason I rated it 7 is because there were so many memorable shots in the movie that I loved. But for the rest, it tries to get its point across, but rarely does. 71/100 B-

This Canadian documentary travels the globe to expose the various ways water is used in different regions and societies and how man-made projects might be harming the water systems. The film's greatest strength is its photography. Some aerial views not only provide gripping images of natural beauty but also stunning images of dam projects and dried rivers. Some commentaries are interesting but, by the end, it feels that there is rather a lack of a cohesive theme or outlook. Although it is best to leave the conclusions to the viewer, the film would have been more effective with a bit more general commentary to reach that conclusion. - dbamateurcritic.

Stunningly beautiful and powerful images highlight this examination of how mankind re-shapes water and how it flows – for good and ill, more often ill - and in turn how the water re-shapes civilization and human behavior. There's no real story, just a series of visits to locations around the world where water powerfully interacts with humanity, like the pilgrimage of 30 million people to bathe in the Ganges river. Without narration and a specific focus the film could be accused of being too diffuse. But for me the raw power of the images – Burtynsky is one of our greatest still photographers who has spent much of his career creating huge images of humans and nature clashing and interacting - give the piece a poetic, if not literal power and solidity. Also, if the film is not enough, there's an almost 40 minute gallery of Burtynsky's amazing still images, which look great blown up on a HD set, as he explains the photographs and how they were taken. That extra alone is reason enough to own the blu-ray. It's like the world's best photography book, with the images at least a little closer in size to Burtynsky's massive prints.

Is it a beautiful movie? Yes, it really is. I was transfixed and enraptured by the magnificent images in the movie. But I must say I really didn't 'get' why they put in the scenes of the Bellagio water show. I'm sure that water is all recycled. So it's not an example of waste. And the surfers? What is up with that. I loved the holy water scenes. And yes they went away from making it a talking head movie but they still had a couple of people talk about water. I just think they missed the mark here. They could have made a real education for people about water but they didn't. But it's worth seeing because it is do damn beautiful.

Watermark is a movie about water. It is film in a very choppy way and the narrative is not really structured in a way that allows the audience to understand what is going on, yet this movie seems to have something kind of special about it. I believe that the thinking process of the film-maker, to be unique to the film world, which is a positive thing. I believe this movie to be a stamp of the film makers consciousness in the sense of the fragmentation of the pictures, combined with the story. This approach forces the audience to individual the film experience and to piece together the essence of the movie. Having lived in British Columbia, Canada and having lived near the Fraser River in Canada, I can understand the beauty that river water has. The natural flow of water is a profoundly spiritual sensation because of the beauty of flowing water combined with the sound of rushing water, on the other hand, river water can be very destructive out of her own nature, as when the mountain snows melt and dams break and houses and human lives get destroyed, there is a feeling of utter helpless and despair that goes hand and hand with the profound beauty of water. One of the main conflicts in human life is man against nature. And to me that is what this is movie is about.

"Watermark" is the newest documentary by Jennifer Baichwal and you could probably take one quote from it to describe it the best way there is: It's about how water shapes us and how we shape water. Basically it shows us the different way in which water is used today in several branches. These include religion, science, economy, industry... There is really not a lot more to say. The film provides decent information, but it is by no means a must-see. Also I felt that something was missing for this to become a quality movie. It is difficult to name it concretely, maybe the lack of narration, maybe something else. Apart from the occasionally stunning photography and impressive recordings of water masses, this film is really only a must-see for people who live in the areas depicted in this documentary.

That tens of thousands of dollars were spent, film crew and equipment dragged across the entire planet, only to produce something as insubstantial as this piece of empty eye-candy is rather amazing. Especially when one considers that it pretends to address some of the most crucial environmental issues facing the world in the near future. Hopping and skipping from one place to the next, cutting off stories and interviews right in the middle while never getting to the bottom of any single issue it raises, "Watermark" informs very little. The viewer is left still thirsty for something truly informative. Worse, it's actually boring after a while. In the end, this is simply a watered-down slideshow. Which is a tragedy, really, considering how truly serious are all the issues involved. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to re-watch Baichwal and Burtynsky's 2006 film "Manufactured Landscapes," to decide if perhaps I was wrong to give it such a high rating.

With the many documentaries that are coming out lately you are used to a high quality. Being because they are funny or because they are very interesting. Unfortunately this ticks neither of those boxes correctly. It seems to wander around like water would once you spill it ... no clear direction. I think there is a very good movie hidden somewhere, but it will be tough for you to find it. It's a shame, because quite a lot of people would interested in more specifics rather just some "nature videos" and a couple of hints here and there, what goes wrong. Just when you think it is heading the right direction, it swerves and goes "wrong" again ... Shame