A refreshingly old-fashioned romance that is gorgeously filmed and very faithful to the source material for the most part. Performances are strong across the board, with Christoph Waltz in particular standing out and stealing every scene he is in. B+/A-

An outright stinker.

Outside of it's colorful sepia-toned setting, Water For Elephants offers nothing to the rubes hustled through the turnstiles.

The usually ebullient Reese Witherspoon is on full autopilot here, perhaps she's just fulfilling some childhood wish to be in the circus, but she shows little interest in the proceedings.

Edward in the role of Jacob? Huh! What?! But seriously, I have nothing against Robert Pattinson, he was probably the best thing about this sorry mess, though he has zip all to work with.

...and apparently they were writing Christoph Waltz's part on the fly as they filmed, because little forethought appeared to be given to his character arc.

Yep, this cheese is rancid.


1 out of 5.

Maybe it's because of this week and a half long head and chest cold I've had, but I liked this a lot more than I ever thought I would. Pattinson and Witherspoon are never quite sold together as a could-be couple as their "chemistry" is almost non-existent (nor does the film give them enough "bonding" scenes), but their individual performances made it work just enough for me to have liked it. Christoph Waltz too delivers despite not being given enough. I think the story could've benefited if he had a firm psychological grasp over Pattinson and Witherspoon. There's one good scene towards the end of the film where he engages them in psychological warfare after he basically figures out they're in love. I think it would've been better if he had found out sooner and we could've had more scenes with him messing with the two, thus in return making him even more evil. Animal abuser? Sure that's fine, but it was too easy a route in making his character evil.

But despite the complaints I have, I was pleasantly surprised. It's old-fashioned, it works, and it's nice to know that Robert Pattinson can actually act. It makes my hate for the success those Twilight films have had just a little less.

*** (B)

Did you not see Remember Me? He was great in that.

I agree - - an underrated performance and an underrated movie.

I loved this. Lush, grand and romantic in all the right places, and a faithful adaptation of the novel. Robert Pattinson and Reese Witherspoon don't have red-hot chemistry but it's believable enough to add to the film. Pattinson finally displays some recognizable, non-brooding talent, while Witherspoon sparkles a more than she has in recent films. The scene stealer is, of course, the terrific Christoph Waltz. A-

QFT

I want to still laugh at this review unedited in 20 years.



___________________________________________


Stay classy, Libs.

You really are an asshole.

I enjoyed this film a lot. It's not a masterpiece, but it's a well-made and entertaining old-fashioned romance. Robert Pattinson and Reese Witherspoon were very good. It has been said by some that together they don't have the best of chemistry, and while they didn't quite make me swoon I did find them to work fairly well. Both give solid performances in their own right, especially the ever-charismatic Robert Pattinson. I can't say it enough. He has a solid acting career ahead of him. He gets a lot of crap for the "Twilight" films but he certainly has that something that will take him farther when those films are done, and it's not just his dreamy good looks. Those certainly won't hurt though.

This is a really nice, romantic film.

B+/A-

It was a very enjoyable movie but unspectacular. Acting was fine across the board, as was the direction. It was a nice flick to look at. I really don't have anything to say about it other than it was a nice movie.

7/10

A decent, old-fashioned romantic melodrama. It's definitely beautiful to behold. Jack Fisk, Terrence Malick's longtime production designer, and twice Oscar nominated costume designer Jacqueline West (The Curious Case of Benjamin Button) deliver per usual. The period cities, the crowded circus trains, etc. Wall-to-wall visual splendor. Reese Witherspoon and Robert Pattinson don't have much chemistry, which is unfortunate, but they are both fine by themselves. Pattinson is a born movie star (the smolder!), and he is quickly growing as an actor. Better than both, however, is Christoph Waltz. It could be argued he's repeating his iconic villainous turn in Inglourious Basterds, but even so, the returns are hardly diminished. He's compelling throughout, expertly transitioning between larger-than-life charisma and primal fury.

The major misstep here is how streamlined the entire enterprise is. The inherent grittiness and sexuality of the '30s circus life, and the sense of community between the misfits and rebels, is hinted at, but director Francis Lawrence keeps it in the corner of the frame, out of mind and nearly out of sight. By focusing so intently on only the Titanic-esque love triangle and its predictable, though still poignant, trajectory, Lawrence has missed a great opportunity to create a grander, more memorable experience.

B

Water for Elephants shows that, once again, Robert Pattinson can handle a film on his own, outside of Twilight, and play quite a good role. Reese Witherspoon does a good job beside Pattinson but I don’t believe she got as much of a time to shine here as she could of. Christoph Waltz is ok though I think part of his weakness came from how his character was written. The film goes by pretty simply and looks beautiful in the process. **1/2

Hans Landa was very good in this.