The Drowning (2016) Online

Either this movie sucks, or I didn't understand one bit of it.

I kept waiting for something to happen... Some event that would clear things up... but it never came.

The characters weren't particularly likable and their true motivations were never revealed.

somehow i'm still thinking I might have missed something. they couldn't just have pasted together a story with random people doing insignificant things, right?

wrong?

Why on earth would the main character keep the real identity of the kid from his wife when he keeps saying he isn't his therapist? Why on earth did the Parole Officer think the kid was so special? Why on earth would he sleep with a random college student? Why on earth did they mention the teacher possibly molesting him but then nothing ever came from it? Nothing was ever delved into or explained. The therapist knew what Danny did (he admitted it to him), knew he was stalking him and his wife, yet still didn't call the police and kept trying to "help" him. And the ending...what the heck was that??

You have seen this cookie cutter paint by numbers 'mystery/thriller'a million times. Manipulative genius sociopath who has everyone conned, who gaslights everyone because they are too stupid to know any better. A creepy stalker who breaks into people's homes threatens them and gets them to apologize to him and/or gets the people he threatens arrested. This is a tired worn out boring story. It was tired and worn out 50 years ago. Every single stereotypic angle from every single movie remotely like this was thrown in. It is the stupidest most frustrating rich white people doing the dumbest things imaginable movie you will ever watch. It's so aggressively dull it's a new art form.

It's not a good movie. The dialog makes very little sense. Same for plenty of scenes. The doctor's encounter with Rowena added nothing to story whatsoever. You think when he runs into her again several months later something relevant will happen. Nope. There's a scene where Ian,the "bad" guy is in the doctor's home with his wife. Doc frantically drives home,all the while on the phone telling his wife bad guy needs to get out NOW!.Guess what happened. Nothing. Doc got home,told Ian to leave, so he left. The ending was stupid,too.

The best part of "The Drowning" is the stunning photography of New England and the outstanding selection of locations of picturesque natural environments and beautifully preserved buildings from the early twentieth century. But the characters who inhabit this world were a truly nasty lot. The result was an extremely unpleasant film viewing experience.

In the bonus track of the DVD, the film artists were earnest as they described their intention of exploring the dark side of human personality. The screenwriter discussed how his goal was to explore "the difference between guilt and conscience" from the perspective of a psychologist whose professional opinion resulted in institutionalizing an eleven-year-old boy.

After the boy is released as a young adult, the psychologist saves the young man from drowning in a suicide attempt. The film's major thrust is on what is depicted as a highly unethical relationship of the psychologist, Tom Seymour, and the young man, Danny Miller. The relationship transcends all bounds of professional propriety between a doctor and a patient.

While the filmmakers wanted to dramatize "characters on the edge," it was never entirely credible that, as a successful therapist and bestselling author, Tom Seymour would have spent a single minute as Danny's therapist, given the role that he played at a major crossroads in the patient's past. It was also not believable that Tom would not provide at least a basic background about the troubled youth to his wife, Lauren, at a time when Danny was essentially stalking her.

The film's director, Bette Gordon, likens the character developments of The Drowning" to the classic novel "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde." Unfortunately, the film viewer only saw the "Mr. Hyde" persona of these characters. As a result, "The Drowning" failed to offer insights into the existential issues that the filmmakers wanted to raise. In the final analysis, there really wasn't much depth to the characters.

This film presented a disturbingly negative view of psychologists, who are invested with the power of making life-changing decisions on people's lives through the legal system, drink their lives away in bars, become enmeshed with their patients in an unhealthy way, and capitalize on their interactions with fragile, damaged patients in bestselling books of case studies of psychological trauma.

This is clinically depressing stuff indeed!

There is only one good thing about this movie and that is Avan Jogia, he is stunning to look at and a superb actor. He owns the screen. Unfortunately the story complete garbage. I'm not really sure why or how it actually got produced!

I wouldn't recommend it.

This movie is all about wannabe and turns out not to be about much of anything. I'm a big fan of both Josh Charles and Julia Stiles, and can't believe what ended up on film is what they signed up,for. Stiles is completely wasted in this part. The plot is as nonsensical as the ending. Do not waste your time.

The premise sounded interesting. A boy that went to jail for committing a murder as a child, Danny, shows up years later in the life of the therapist who gave testimony. He insist he never did it.

However none of the characters act the way they should given their profession. They act all worried and obsessed about this person they view as a charming kid.

There are hints from conversations between Tom, the prosecutor, and the parole officer that some kind of cover-up or rail-road might have occurred. More conversations seem to indicate a secret. But nope. That never happened. That part of the story kind of just went away.

Tom seems to wonder if maybe the kid is really guilty. Later it's revealed to the audience, that it's stupid for him to wonder since he has a video recording from his therapy sessions with Danny when he was a child. On it, Danny says exactly what happened. So why the hell was Tom wondering anything? Or why did the prosecutor wonder later if he was innocent. He must have seen the video at the time. Man, so stupid.

The actor that played Tom, gave a lot of constipated expressions. Danny the killer was manipulative. How anyone could trust this creep or think he was charming is beyond me. The ending makes no sense.

This movie is about nothing. Skip it.

Watching the trailer I thought this was going to be a great movie, good cast and acting was pretty good, but was really let down on what happened for the first 20/30 minutes I was enjoying it and thought it was going to get better as it went on but it just seemed to drag on and nothing really happened some parts of the movie were pointless and things didn't plan out as I was expecting. Tbh it was awful and very boring. if I had of paid money to watch this at a cinema, there is no doubt I would of walked out and demanded my money back, absolutely ridiculous!!!

I would have hoped the therapy would have gone more like Robin Williams and Matt Damon in "Good Will Hunting," especially the more realistic directness Williams displayed, even to the point of saying, "If you disrespect (me) ever again, I will end you."

Instead we get a wishy-washy, I-don't-know-how-to-judge this situation liberal who knows not how to judge good from evil and twists their definitions in his mind endlessly. Of course, this leads to the very predictable character flaws and vices at work, away from work, and at home.

They never connected, the patient and therapist, yet the viewer is led to think it might take place. With the complete absence of obedience in the patient, why should everything be judged by the patient's non-stop family dysfunction. Either a person really wants help or he doesn't.

It's empty therapy. The "help" is ever learning, yet never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Omg what a complete pile of sh this movie was. If you are considering watching this film please do not waste the hour and a half that it will steal from your life. I think it is especially frustrating considering the premise of this film had potential and there was obviously some interesting themes which COULD HAVE been explored here although it seems as if the director basically decided he didn't give enough of a f to string any of it together in any type of compelling way whatsoever. I mean honestly I feel like there was just no effort here at all, all of the terrible acting included (even the cast seemed bored). I really don't remember ever feeling this scolded after watching a film in my entire life. Me and my girlfriend searched for a thought provoking thriller for a while before we came across this joke of a movie. We waited for something to bring it together in a realistic or compelling way, and unfortunately implemented enough patience to wait until the entire piece of Sh had ran its course. It was literally so bad that I now have trouble committing to watching any other "suspenseful" movies for the fear of being this disappointed once again. I could get into deeper detail explaining this movies flaws but honestly where do I even start. This movie has literally ruined movies for me, at least for the time being. I didn't even know that a movie could make me feel so frustrated and disappointed. Great, its pizzed me off so much that its managed to push me to creating an IMDb account specifically to write this review, thus wasting even more of my time than the initial 1.5 hours of spew that I sat through. oh well, at least by writing this I may be able to prevent the same from happening to you.

Possibly the worst film ever made. Poor plot, poor script and unrealistic characters and behaviours. Avoid. The fact that I have to write five lines about this drivel offends me, but if it means that someone else doesn't waste 90 minutes of their life watching it then I guess it is worth it.

Psychologist Tom Seymour (Josh Charles) saves Danny Miller (Avan Jogia) from drowning and later realizes Danny was the 11-yr old that his psycho analysis helped put Danny in prison for killing an elderly woman. Danny got an early release and blames Tom for ruining his life. The problem now is that Danny keeps showing up everywhere Tom and his wife Lauren (Julia Stiles) happen to be.

We keep thinking that Tom will re-look at the case to see if he missed something 10 Years ago because Danny keeps saying he never killed anyone. Tom checks with the lawyer who helped prosecute Danny. Danny is now known as Ian. Lauren is smitten with Ian and this disturbs Tom and he isn't sure what to do, but doesn't tell Lauren his concerns about Ian um….. Danny. We sometimes think that Lauren isn't too supportive of Tom, but she doesn't know what he is going through.

Notables: John C. McGinley as Teddy the lawyer who prosecuted Danny 10-Years ago; Robert Clohessy as Danny's father.

Production-wise and the acting all around are very good and we become like Tom……. wary of everything.

The twist in here isn't really a twist, but more a solution to Tom's problem. Wait for it, but this is slow going because the script sends Tom (and us) in many directions. Be patient and you will be rewarded as we were. So wait for it. Ha! (7/10)

Violence; Yes. Sex: No. Nudity: No. Language: Yes.

Awesome thriller, though you'll have to pay attention to the story and you'll have to draw your conclusion about the story and the motivation for the actions of the characters as everything is not explained.

Avan Jogia who plays the ex convict aka Danny Miller nailed the part and at times he was sinister, vulnerable and cunning in order to achieve what he wanted to and Josh Charles who played the psychiatrist did an excellent job too but Julia Stiles was barely in the movie.

The opening was tedious and predictable.................then the movie got worse. I suspect most viewers could have written this story in their sleep as we have all seen a version of this movie over and over again. The characters are ALL unlikable and frankly I wonder why? Shouldn't we care a little if the main characters are in danger? Really bad script, direction, story.

Although a lot of people have expressed negative opinions of this movie I found it immersing (no pun intended). I can think of at least a dozen or more movies I have watched over the last 6 months that were losers with big name stars. I can only surmise that those that disliked this movie are of the action movie genre. Nothing less than an explosion, gun fire, careening cars every ten seconds will hold their attention. If you like suspense, unpredictability and an unexpected ending this movie is for you.

What a waste of time. Netflix - why??????? Dreadful storyline, awful acting and it was really pointless and went nowhere.

There is really nothing positive at all I can say about it. Too bad as one of the leads is a Canadian actor - I hope he scrubs this from his resume.

I am baffled by the volume of one star reviews, and such a low score, I could list a number of one star movies, this is no way near being in that group, it's not Oscar winning, but it's a decent enough watch. The premise is really clever, when you save someone's life you don't know what past they have, or what kind of future ahead of them. The movie manages to have you asking questions, was Danny guilty, did Danny consciously jump into the water knowing that Tom was there. It may be a little ambiguous for some viewers, but then life isn't always black and white. Pretty good performances, Josh Charles and Avan Jogia were both watchable, Julia Styles I thought was a little wooden, maybe the part wasn't great. I disagree with those that say the material was old fashioned, I would have said the content was quite relevant in today's age. I'll admit it was a little frustrating to watch at times, and some of it, like Danny's father's involvement, made little sense.

It wasn't that bad. 6/10

Have you ever had that sinking feeling? You know the one. You have had a long day at work. The boss or your colleagues have given you a hard time and you just want to curl up on the sofa and watch a horror film. You arrange the lighting, maybe start some popcorn on the hob or some chocolate treats for the inevitable interval when you have to go to the bathroom. You switch off your phone and settle down to be entertained. And THEN the REAL horror begins! After the establishing shots of 'the two obviously heterosexual materially successful couple' doing their obligatory walk surrounded by each other on the beach someone does the dirty and shatters all their dreams. Then they slurp each others' mouths and just when you thought THAT was the ultimate horror you discover that your remote-control has somehow managed to slip down inside the sofa and you spend frantic minutes attempting to retrieve it before you hear another excruciating line of 'dialogue' from this abysmal excuse for film-making. Oh the HORROR indeed!

This movie was almost unwatchable - Netflix tricked me into watching it. There was no suspense and no action.

RELEASED IN 2016 and directed by Bette Gordon, "The Drowning" focuses on a child psychologist (Josh Charles) whose life is disrupted by the release of a young man from reformatory (Avan Jogia). The doctor's analysis helped confine the kid a dozen years earlier and now the youth seems to show up everywhere and it's irritating; worse, his wife seems smitten with him (Julia Stiles). John C. McGinley plays the lawyer who prosecuted the kid while Robert Clohessy appears as the aloof, irate father.

This is a melancholy psychological drama with crime thriller elements. The focus is on the drama and the remorseful reflections thereof. All aspects of filmmaking are top-notch, including the convincing acting and well-scripted dialogues. The story's unpredictable: Just when you think something's going to happen, it doesn't (and vice versa). Some people refer to the unexpected climax as a "twist," but it's really more of a desperate solution.

The problem viewers have with this movie (besides the lack of thrills and explosions) is that not everything's spelled out; you have to read in between the lines. It's a study on the nature of good and evil within the context of human nature. Can a person be "evil" as a kid? If so, can he be reformed? Can a "good" therapist have elements of evil in his psyche? Did he have to deal with the same evil when he was a kid? What's the secret of overcoming it? The movie even throws in the enigmatic female attraction to "bad boys."

My title blurb reveals that there are similarities to "Good Will Hunting" (1997), but I'd watch this one over that overrated flick any day. Yet the script needed fine-tuned to drive home the movie's points. As it is, they're elusive; and this frustrates some viewers. But post-reflection reveals a lot.

THE FILM RUNS 95 minutes and was shot on the coast of Connecticut (New London, I'm guessing), as well as New York City. WRITER: Stephen Molton & Frank Pugliese wrote the screenplay based on Pat Barker's novel.

GRADE: B-/C+

Just a completely random concept that dragged on for way too long and went nowhere!

Not just anybody ... or maybe anybody is the answer? It's overall a shame, because there are a few nice things/themes in this, but nothing really holds or sticks. Many strands are left open and I guess that ending is supposed to make some sort of sense (?) - though to be honest it is laid out neatly - in a way where you go "yeah let's do it, I know what's coming".

But is that enough? Especially when you have those over the top performances contradicting more layered ones. Or attempts of layered and nuanced performances that is. It's also a waste of some of the talent involved or at least it feels like it. I would not recommend this, but then again tastes are different, so either try the trailer or watch the first 20 minutes and you'll know

I couldn't get 1/2 way thru this trainwreck. As soon as he's getting laid in the back seat by whoever the dude was's daughter, I said this movie is all over the place. Netflix originals tv series are pretty good but these movies, seriously guys you need to find actual writers. Are you just plugging in college majors or people that vlog (let's call them the "hey guys")?

Yes, this film could have been better like any work. The plot was good the acting was good. Some of the characters of course were less than perfect. I think perhaps the best part of this story is the moral of it. I am one of those bleeding hearts who people use and take, take. Sometimes,no, many times I've surprised people when I bite back. Yes, I do mean bite.

In retrospect, the title is brilliant! This film would have been a 10 with better characters and dialogue.

The end is the best part.