Watch Knife in the Water For Free

It was OK. I don't see why everyone loves it so much. It wasn't very smart or deep or well-directed.

Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

The movie is a brilliant psychological thriller. It tells a story of limited space and intense circumstances. The story is simple cause there are only 3 people in the middle of the sea during the whole movie. But emotions and actions of characters are profound. Only three characters, confined on a boat together for most of the run time – come from is felt throughout, most notably in the concept of materially. Upper-class, middle-aged Andrzej clings tightly to his yacht, his pride and joy and central symbol of bourgeois decadence and power, while the hitchhiker, although assembly hailing from a 'lower' social class. The obsession over materially and pride is a major part of what brings the characters to blows later on, and is of course fundamental to their aggressive instincts. This movie was examining the relationship between men and women in the primitive level. When a young hitchhiker joins a couple on a weekend yacht trip, psychological warfare breaks out as the two men compete for the woman's attention. "If two men are on board, one is the skipper." The struggle between the men in the movie, it's based upon this sentence. Both men were trying to prove themselves. It was like woman has to choose one of them in the end. For the reasons knife which is a primitive weapon was turning the power object. The knife not merely as a sign of virility, but also as a metaphor for psychological force in the duel between the two men for the attentions of the woman. Polanski creates a disturbing study of fear, humiliation, sexuality, and aggression with only there people. On the first point, the sexual 'contest' between Andrzej and the Hitchhiker over Christine is clearly the most significant source of aggression in the film. It is also one of the ideas that, as much time as the film spends exploring and depicting it, is hardest to nail down or explain in a reasoned, ordered fashion. Why does Andrzej need to feel so threatened by the Hitchhiker as to become outright aggressive? Of course – the Hitchhiker's youth and virility, Andrzej's materialistic possessive behavior towards his wife, etc. – but none of them completely summarize the issue. There is something highly emotional, and highly animistic, about Andrzej's feeling of sexual threat, and it is something I cannot completely understand One of the things that makes the film thriller film outside of the characters that the whole movie is in the middle of the sea. There is nowhere to escape, disconnected from the world around them. The characters are entirely isolated. It is only in this geographical isolation that Andrzej and the Hitchhiker allow their aggression to come out in full, and it is telling that once Andrzej returns to land, and becomes 'un-isolated,' he comes to his senses and feels moral shame for his aggressive actions. The movie try to understand the sources and contexts of aggression in intellectual, ordered ways, they are ultimately studies of the mysterious emotional state that is aggression itself, of the universal human struggles, senseless forms violence takes when stemming from such dense and complicated emotional issues. Knife which is one of the most important figures in the and which is the symbol of manhood movie drowned in the waters of the sea. And everyone's pride is bruised. The movie ends in an interesting way. At this point the woman has a confession to Andrzej. But Andrzej doesn't believe in it. Whether or not he has lost in both cases. I think the only winner of the film is young man. He continues to survive without considering any result.

I firstly saw Nóz w Wodzie sometime in the sixties. Throughout the years I forgot some details of the plot, while I kept the essential. I remained with the impression of one of the greatest movies ever. I watched many other of Polanski's works, none of them has succeeded to replace this one in my soul. Many of his movies are great, this one is unique. By the purity of his minimalism? Maybe. You see, his other works started from very generous stories, offering full potential to create great movies. This one has practically no story. A couple is driving their car toward a lake for two days of sailing, a hitch-hiker appears as of nowhere, they invite him to join, their stay on the boat is tensioned by obscure conflicting impulses, a fight takes place, the unknown guy leaves toward nowhere. Drowned (as the male believes)? Alive (as the female knows)? Or is it just the woman imagination? After many years I encountered the movies of Kim Ki-Duk. 3-Iron made Nóz w Wodzie come to my mind. It seemed to me that both movies were sailing on the same waters. I related 3-Iron to Nóz w Wodzie, and then I related all Kim Ki-Duk films to 3-Iron. They are exploring two universes: ours, where what matters is a good job, a good car, a good house, a good marriage (to be read a spectacular wife), and the other universe, where everything is just absurd (by our standards). The hitch-hiker in the movie of Polanski, the drifter in the movie of Kim Ki-Duk, are just visitors: our reaction is of open hostility (if we are the subjects in our world), sometimes of obscure attraction (if we are rather the objects, dreaming escapes). Hostile or attracted to them, it happens the same: they remain just visitors, we'll never know anything about them.

Knife in the Water is the debut feature film from Polish director Roman Polanski. It is a very minimalist film, shot in black and white, and spoken in Polish. It isn't much by you have to start somewhere. The film is about a rich writer and his young wife. They are going sailing for the day, but on the way to the docks they pick up a hitchhiking student whom we never learn the name of. They allow the student to accompany them on their day tour of the lake, a decision they will forever regret. Tensions start to slowly boil on the boat as relationships grow more and more heated. Almost the entire film takes place on the boat and these three are the only people in the whole movie. It is the definition of minimalist filmmaking in looks, as well as content.Knife in the Water is, for lack of a better word, dull. Not much happens and I never feel like this film is going anywhere. It is a mere 94 minutes, but the first 70 of those minutes seem to be useless and mundane. There are moments when you think it is going to pick up, but it never really does. It is a slow film that chronicles every little moment of this trip to sea and it eventually grows tiresome to just watch these characters rig up ropes, steer the boat, cook food, eat food, play games, etc. The film does start to pick up in about the last twenty minutes as events start shaking up the story so that it can come to a vague resolution. And yet the film still lacks any kind of "aha!" moment and is devoid of any real wow! factor.The film's central focus is on the relationship between the three characters on the book so most of the action is meant to develop the characters. The development is just as slow as everything else, however. We get to know these characters very well, but in the end we sort of regret it. There isn't much to know about these people and their stories lack any sort of intrigue. When I finally started to figure out these people I was hit with a faint breeze of anticlimactic. Then things begin to pick up, slow down again, become mildly interesting, then the film ends. And then as the screen fades to black I sort of just shrugged my shoulders and walked away.You could argue that there is a lot of subtext here with lots of things open to interpretation. The film is vague in location, time, and character background, so there is a certain amount of this film that you could interpret in all sorts of bizarre and far fetched ways. Personally, I don't see it. I realize where a lot of the deeper prying into the film comes from. People want to see a lot more in this film than what I believe is actually there. What I did feel was a certain amount of tension that was underlying the entire film in a very discreet and possibly non existent way. Again, I feel like I was expecting something more to this film than what was actually there, thus the tension and uneasiness was all fabricated in my mind. This is just a weird movie to wrap your head around, and it doesn't seem to amount to much in the end.Knife in the Water left me expecting a lot more. It just isn't an incredibly fascinating film. It isn't a bad film, but it isn't that great and I definitely wouldn't watch it again. I like Roman Polanski a lot and so I was really interested to see his very first feature film so it was pretty disappointing to see what little his first feature amounted to. If I had seen this in 1962 I probably wouldn't have thought much of Polanski, but of course I know how renowned he is in 2011, so Knife in the Water in no way hurts my opinion of the man's work.

A man and his wife go sailing for the afternoon, taking a hitchhiker with them. As a storm approaches, they are forced to stay on the boat overnight. The threat of violence lurks.This film will be of interest to anyone who admires the work of Roman Polanski. Polanski was said to be only the second protégé of the Lodz Film School to achieve international success. The first was Andrzej Wajda, and we can safely assume that Polanski was far more successful and influential.This film in particular earned him an Oscar nomination for best foreign film, and catapulted him to fame by putting him on the cover of Time magazine in 1963. For me, I think the hype is too much: all I really learned from this picture is that Polanski likes wild jazz music and that in Poland people will steal your windshield wipers.Critic Michael Koresky has a much deeper view of the film, saying it expresses class warfare, class envy, eroticism, tension, isolation and carries an "atmosphere of recumbent terror". This is grossly overstating the facts. There is some tension, and being that the film takes place on boat, isolation naturally follows. But the rest is a bit of a stretch.The class envy or warfare aspect you can only see if told to look for it, which leads me to believe it is probably not there. One man is an author and another a hitchhiker, but any struggle they may have does not appear to arise from class. Eroticism is also a stretch, as I kept thinking the film would become erotic, but it borders on it a few times without crossing over. The closest to anything erotic in this film is a young man in tight shorts, and this is hardly sexually appealing. The atmosphere of recumbent terror is a beautiful phrase but would be better used on another film.The film is strong in the area of visuals. Polanski has made a striking film in contrasting black and white, his angles and use of zooms and wide shots is excellent. So, on a technical level, I cannot say anything bad about the film. But the plot is just not there. I spent the film waiting for something to break... the tension would rise and lower, but never reached a crescendo. I cannot call this one of my favorite Polanski films.