Task: Sentiment Analysis
Input (English): Water-logged . Whew!  After reading other reviewer's remarks, I'm glad to see I was not the only one who thought this movie was crap.  The cinematography is great, and the look (art direction) is authentic.  I too had trouble following the double-storyline.  Just when I started to get interested in the modern-day story, the action cut back to the past.  I don't know if it was poor choices during the editing processes or what.  I have seen many other movies that use flashback and dual-timeline stories.  None of those were this boring.  By the time you get to discover the real truth behind the century-old murders, you really don't care anymore.  And I don't see how the climactic storm at sea resolves the modern-day storyline.    In terms of casting, I have to agree with the other reviewers: why cast two British actress as the modern-day leads.  To me, the character of Jean should've been played with either an American actress (or at least a British or Australian actress with an American accent)instead of Catherine McCormick.  I also couldn't begin to identify with the character.  She seems so obsessed over this murder but completely inarticulate when discussing it (unless that's the point).  Sean Penn sits around and broods as her husband, a has-been poet.  Josh Lucas and Elizabeth Hurley (as Sean Penn's brother and the brother's girlfriend) really don't have much to do except add some eye candy (Josh for the ladies, and Elizabeth for the guys, and believe me, I kept wanting to see more of her in the bathing suit -- with and without the top).  Some say Josh Lucas's acting is a bit wooden and stiff in this role; I say he has nothing to work with: the character is just there to steer the boat and give Hurley backrubs.  He has no real personality quirks and Lucas works best when he plays someone who's a bit flawed (he is a rare case of a character actor who has leading-man good looks but bland roles don't suit him).  Sean Penn, on the other hand, looks like he's sleepwalking through half the movie.  His alcoholic poet seems more like he's stoned on Prozac; there's no passion, even when he quotes Dylan Thomas.  I think this was a miscasting; he's not sympathetic either.  (SPOILER ALERT: His character's fate during the storm is almost deserved; one cannot feel sympathy for him.)      The story set in the last century is much more interesting but because of the cut-up flashbacks, one doesn't hold interest.  Sarah Polley is a good actress, but her moping around -- "Oh, I'm stuck in a loveless marriage, and I really want to sleep with my brother again," attitude gets old.  Yes, dear viewers, I gave away another spoiler: incest. The other actors that play in the murder mystery story (aside from Polley and the great Ciaran Hinds as the wrongly accused murderer) are all Scandinavian and I've never heard of any of them before.  They do a good job with the material they're given, but it's hard to connect with them as well.     Perhaps this is one of those movies that you grow to like after repeated viewings.  Once was enough for me.  Perhaps you also need to read the original Anita Shreve novel before you watch it.  If so, I understand the movie is quite the literal adaptation.  This may be its biggest flaw: novels can be cinematic in their themes, imagery and their dialogue; they become water-logged when one tries to adapt the same style in telling two contrasting stories.  It also helps that when reading a novel with two story lines, it's much easier to go back and re-read parts of it, when the action gets confusing.
Output (English): NEG