Water for Elephants (2011) User Reviews (304)

A Beautiful Romance

[claudio_carvalho · 8/10 · 15 February 2013]

When an old man is found wandering in the parking area of the Circus Vargas, his owner invites him to come to his office to call the Green Haven nursing home to take him back home. The old man tells his name, Jacob Jankowski, and explains that he worked in the Benzini Bros. Circus in 1931. The owner is curious about it since in 1931 there was the most famous disaster in history of circuses in the Benzini Circus and asks Jacob to tell what happened.

In 1931, during the Great Depression, the Polish American Jacob (Robert Pattinson) lives with his beloved parents in a small ranch and studies veterinary in the Cornell University. During his final exams, his parents die in a car accident. Jacob learns that he is homeless and without any money since his parents used their house to get a loan for his studies.

Jacob leaves his town and jumps in a train in movement without destination to seek a job. Soon he finds that this is the Benzini Brothers Circus train and he finds a job cleaning the animals' excrement from the wagons. When the unstable and violent owner of the traveling circus, August (Christoph Waltz), learns that Jacob is a veterinary, he hires him to train his attraction, the elephant Rosie. August and his bodyguard Blackie (Scott MacDonald), throw workers that complain off the train in movement to get rid of them. Meanwhile Jacob meets August's wife and lead attraction Marlena (Reese Witherspoon), he immediately falls in love with her. Jacob gets closer to Marlena and soon he discovers that she is also in love with him, but she fears August.

"Water for Elephants" is a beautiful romance developed in the Great Depression with the story of a youngster that loses his beloved parents and joins a circus by chance. He finds love, but also the illusion of the circus and the violence of an unstable man. The lead cast is composed by the excellent Christoph Waltz, Reese Witherspoon and a surprisingly good Robert Pattinson besides the lovely elephant Rosie. The art direction is also very beautiful in the recreation of 1931 costumes and sets. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "Água Para Elefantes" ("Water for Elephants")

A beautiful film, less depressing than the book I believe

[kalel41 · 8/10 · 22 April 2011]

Having read a few reviews of this depression era set novel by Sara Gruen, I was apprehensive to see the film. The readers and critics had said it was too depressing and didn't end well. I'm happy to say the film is not bad at all. It captures the mood of the 1930s, and we the audience really get a sense of what it must have been like to live in that time in history. (Yes we went through our own depression but it was quite different and much more difficult back then.) The film centers around Jacob (Robert Pattinson) a student of veterinary science at Cornell, who gives up his education and runs away after his parents die in a car accident. He stumbles upon a traveling circus, where he is taken in by riff raffs and other stowaways. They have all become a part of the circus ensemble in order to make ends meet. Jacob eventually meets their ringleader August, played by Christolph Waltz (Inglorious Basterds) and his beautiful wife Marlena (Reese Witherspoon). August takes Jacob under his wing initially, but later Jacob learns his true colors. I do not wish to give away too much of the storyline but something tells me people will like this movie as much as the book if not more. I think the film makers have managed to make a film about the depression era without it being depressing. The film has an epic feel to it. It's, emotional, inspiring, romantic, and overall it makes for a very good drama. Even the ending is uplifting. The cast is wonderful as well. Robert Pattinson holds his own against two Oscar winners. It's great to see Reese Witherspoon back in action and in top form. There aren't enough great things I can say about Christoph Waltz. He balances the line between being dangerous and comedic with razor sharp precision, and is very intimidating…his performance is brilliant. It's great to see a film with real sets, and gritty and flawed characters, rather than imaginative CG rendered places and creatures. Even the train, (where a large part of the film takes place) feels alive with all its moving parts…it has a personality of its own. It's a surprising film from director Francis Lawrence whose previous films include "Constantine" and "I am Legend." It's clear that the team he works with has a great sense of capturing a story's mood, time, and place. "Water for Elephants" is a beautiful, moving, and entertaining film. Go see it! http://tickingticket.blogspot.com/

The book was better.

[newguy85 · 6/10 · 6 May 2011]

As a standalone feature the movie may have been successful, but as most movies these days go, the screenplay was adapted from the source material, and inevitably left out some key elements.

The largest of these omissions was combining Uncle Al and August into one character. I didn't understand the reasoning behind it, and a lot of drama is lost. Christoph Waltz is a capable actor, but's it's hard to convincingly play the man who's greed and desperation runs the circus into the ground, and the tortured, schizophrenic man who's rage and cruelty drives his wife and friends away.

Also I think that the entire theme of living during the late depression is largely glamorized and you never really sense how desperate the men are, and thus have a hard time believing the finale.

I was also saddened by what happened to Walter and Camel in the book, but unmoved in the movie... the friendship had no build-up... they disliked one another then they were BFF's.

The last omission was an understandable deviation from the book, but in it was so critical to the theme of the story that I missed it in the movie. I'm talking about the scenes in the nursing home where we see the shell of a man that Jacob became, and we're left feeling almost as helpless and depressed as him until he finally makes it to the circus in the end.

No chemistry with Witherspoon and Pattinson

[SnoopyStyle · 7/10 · 5 October 2013]

An old Jacob Jankowski (Robert Pattinson) recounts his life in the Benzini Circus and remembers the infamous disaster in 1931. Jacob was studying veterinary medicine when his parents die in a car accident and he loses everything. He literally runs away to the circus, and becomes entangled in a love triangle with the volatile owner August (Christoph Waltz) and his wife/lead attraction Marlena (Reese Witherspoon).

The circus storyline is fascinating. It can get deeply disturbing. Waltz has the intimidating persona locked down. The only missing element is the chemistry between Witherspoon and Pattinson. The love triangle is a melodrama to begin with. With such limited chemistry, it really degrades the movie at its center. At least the movie around the center is great.

Melodrama: Waltz Rages Through The Magic

[jonnyhavey · 6/10 · 27 April 2011]

Critically acclaimed novel "Water for Elephants" written by Sara Gruen was a New York Times #1 Best Seller in 2007 and now has taken a turn towards cinema with the help of Director Francis Lawrence ("I Am Legend"). The film's biggest draw comes from Robert Pattinson ("Twilight") after his tween vampire film following success, however, the real star of the show is Academy Award Winner Christoph Waltz (Inglourious Bastards"). Reese Witherspoon ("Walk the Line") stars as the film's leading lady hitting her stride late in the film. Hal Holbrook ("All The President's Men") opens up the film with the portrayal of present day Jacob Janowski found in a parking lot outside of the circus who begins telling the story of his early years connecting to one of the biggest circus disasters in history. Pattinson plays the younger Jacob, a veterinary student at Cornell whose his life is turned upside down. He drops out of school deciding to go jump a train. He realizes that he has joined the ranks of the Benzini Brothers Circus changing his life forever. He is thrown into the harsh reality of the Big Top meeting a man named August (Waltz) who reluctantly gives him a job working with the animals. Jacob becomes infatuated with August's wife Marlena (Witherspoon) who is a part of the lead act in the show that develops into a friendship between man, woman and a majestic elephant. However, life is a battle and the story is extremely dramatic leaving everyone's life at risk with August's alcoholic greedy rage on their doorstep.

Cristoph Waltz does what he does best with his most recent interpretation of a complicated ill-willed bad guy that audiences grow to hate, however, the depth of his performances make him memorable. He is able to give life to the cold soul of August making the viewer root for his demise along with his change of heart. Pattinson shows that he is more than just a tween king vampire, however, his full potential is not unleashed. The real star of the show is the majestic elephant herself (Rosie) and the character's journey to protect her hitting the right notes in the second half.

The magic and magnificence of the film is lost within the overly dramatic, lengthy exposition. The melodramatic backdrop of the film is omnipresent leaving little room for comic relief and the growth of the beautiful creatures to coexist. The most disappointing part of the film is Witherspoon's odd character development making her very plain until halfway through the film. At the same time it seems like an eternity once the elephant finally enters the film showing an inkling of hope, while the love triangle becomes childish, cliché and eventually annoying.

Overall, the film has an average script that is aided by the performances of its actors. It is hard to overlook the melodrama as Waltz controls the show, which is actually more about life and relationships than the circus.

Subtly enchanting

[Gordon-11 · 27 June 2011]

This film is about a young man who has to drop out of vet school after his parents' sudden death. He joins a circus by chance, and his life is never the same again.

Circuses have become increasingly ignored and irrelevant in modern day lives, as the number of options for entertainment exponentially increases. A romance set in a circus setting may not exactly appeal to the public, and hence I had doubts about "Water for Elephants". It turns out to be a good film, it is quiet and subtle, and yet enchanting throughout. I particularly like the ending black and white shots, they remind me so much of the feel in "The Notebook". These every day snapshot scenes are simple, and yet effective and touching. The only one complaint I have is that the plot is predictable. Robert and Reese are hugging on the poster, which already gives the whole plot away.

Good visuals, acting; familiar story

[WaterYouDoing · 6/10 · 29 April 2011]

Apparently 'Water for Elephants' was a very popular book when it was published. It is also apparent that the more popular a book is, the quicker its screen adaptation gets produced. All we as viewers and fans can hope for is a script, production, and acting body that gives the book the attention it deserves. Now I haven't read the book but for what it's worth, I think Francis Lawrence and company gave it their best shot.

Since I didn't read the book, I can't attest to its congruency with the film. However, the screenplay seemed well-written though quite straightforward. If the book was nuanced with symbolism, such nuances were lost on me during the film. The love triangle mixed with animal rights/humanitarianism makes for a fine story but it is one with a vast and well-trodden history and wears thin on a cinemaphile such as myself.

The good news is, for fans of the book, there was definitely adequate attention paid to the production value and acting. The cinematography was deliciously crisp and the lighting fantastic. Overall, this allowed me to forget the few scenes that seemed oddly cut. As for the acting, I came into the theater expecting to have fuel added to my hate-fire for that pale, glistening vampire from Twilight. To my glorious surprise, Robert Pattinson shows that he has skills when not covered in white powder. I look forward to seeing what he can do in the future. Reese Witherspoon is maturing into a beautiful, seasoned actress and her experience shows. Unfortunately, I haven't enjoyed Christoph Waltz since Inglorious Basterds and this movie is no exception. I don't know whether he fit the physical profile of August to a tee or not, but I think I could have introduced a circus better than his bearded self.

All in all, whether you are a fan of the book or want an interesting perspective on a certain lifestyle of the depression era, Water for Elephants is worth seeing once. Though, you may want to wait for it to come out on video.

Old Hollywood Movie

[laurieO76 · 10/10 · 22 April 2011]

Water For Elephants takes us back in time, not just because it is set in the 30's but also because the movie is filmed with such quality and attention to detail, it is very much like movies used to be made. No reliance on CGI or profanity to make up for lack of imagination either. The dialog is crisp and the film adheres very much to the spirit of the book, even if things were consolidated or omitted for the film.

The cinematography is lush and if the film doesn't win an award for it, it will be a travesty.

And the performances are wonderful. Christoph Waltz is captivating as a complex character and Reese Witherspoon walks a fine line (no pun intended) between the role of a dutiful wife and that of a survivor. But it is Robert Pattinson who delivers a range of emotion not seen from him before. He is understated and again reminds me of actors of old - Gary Cooper specifically. He plays a gentleman and a scholar but also shows passion and intensity. Any doubt viewers might have had on his abilities as an actor are wiped away, as he more than holds his own in scenes with two Oscar winners.

This is a must-see movie for anyone wanting to see more quality films and less action-packed/violence ridden/computer enhanced drivel at the theaters. Bravo!

Elephant/Girl.

[rmax304823 · 6/10 · 6 October 2012]

"Water for Chocolate," an impressive look at how life used to be lived in Mexico, had appeared ten years earlier, so I guess it was time for "Water for Elephants," an evocative look at how life used to be lived in a 1930-era circus in rural America.

I can't imagine any other reason for giving this romantic drama the title it has except for the earlier success -- commercial and critical -- of the Mexican film, can you? Well, you say, there IS an elephant in the movie, and there IS water, and on one or two occasions they're brought together. Still, I can't help thinking that --

Enough of this alter-casting rhetoric. A young, awkward drop out from veterinary school, Robert Pattinson, lands a job with a strapped circus run by Christoph Waltz, who gives the best performance in the movie as the demon-haunted owner and ring master. Waltz has a wife, the petite and nicely assembled Reese Witherspoon, who rides animals. The circus has a miniature zoo with zebras, hyenas, and lions and tigers. The newly acquired elephant is named Rosie. So Waltz needs both the veterinarian manqué and the beautiful wife to maintain the acts.

The young Pattinson and the sexy Witherspoon are attracted to one another -- Pattinson by youthful ardor, Witherspoon by desperation. Man, Christoph Waltz is a tough man to deal with. He's jealous to the point of paranoia. He brutalizes the animals. He throws sick employees off the moving train, sometimes to their deaths, so he doesn't have to pay their fare. He drinks booze like it was going out of style. His charm is all on the surface. And yet Waltz pulls off the amazing feat of making us feel some sympathy for his character because of his torment.

It's leagues away from a Walt Disney animal movie, despite that title, which I can't shake from my preconscious, but there's not much that's truly original about it. Rosie the elephant, thank God, is given no human traits, the pathetic fallacy, until the very end, at which point the entire movie collapses along with the Big Tent.

Nicely photographed in shades of buff and tawn, but it would have been nice if more use had been made of locations. It's supposed to be the Great Depression and prohibition, but if we weren't told it was so, we'd have a bit of trouble finding it out. There's very little in the way of local color, and I've seen Roger Corman movies that paid more attention to period detail.

Yet, it's informative in its own way. There have been a lot of circus movies around over the years so we've come to know that they're pretty cohesive and establish firm social borders between themselves and outsiders. They even have their own lingo -- beyond "Hey, Rube!" -- which we hear little of, alas.

It's all told in flashback by Hal Holbrook as an old man applying for a job with a circus as a ticket taker, now that his love and his elephant are both dead. The musical score is fey and magical. Lifted from Elmer Bernstein's "To Kill A Mockingbird."

very fine drama; old style and that's why it is so appealing

[Nefi · 9/10 · 20 April 2011]

Water For Elephants got released here a full week ahead of the US and first let me indulge in the joy of being able to review such a highly anticipated film before my fellow American film-loving counterparts.

The film completely fulfilled my expectations. It is a well scripted, meticulously shot and finely acted period drama, the likes of which are increasingly less to come by at the movies these days. A big congratulations to all those involved with the production for having the confidence to delve into this venture. Actually I am very curious about its box-office. Last year was a surprisingly profitable year for adult dramas and if that is any indication, this fine film should continue the same trend.

Water For Elephants really impresses with the production design, atmosphere, costumes and stunts. Most of the time I felt like I was watching a classic film made during the studio era; it looked that authentic and faultless. The three main actors all seem satisfied for having such meaty parts and deliver more than satisfactory performances. Robert Pattinson shines and proves that he is capable as a serious actor. Reese Witherspoon has always been a true professional and here with her stunts demonstrates that again. She also fits surprisingly well to the 1930s platinum blonde beauty type. Christopher Waltz is a wonderful actor and here it becomes very clear that his success in Inglorious Basterds was not a one-off. The story is very emotional and while it touches the heart romantically, it also manages to lay down a heretofore unseen dark aspect of old era circus entertainment in particular and also crowd entertainment as a whole. I almost wished for a three hour epic after it ended; it left me wanting more. The whole thing was really interesting.

All in all a wonderful and deeply satisfying experience at the movies, well worth every dime. Go see it so that adult dramas of this caliber (in terms of star power, production budget and subsequent attention to detail) could continue to be made.

August is at once compelling and repulsive and Waltz captivates in every one of his scenes

[Likes_Ninjas90 · 7/10 · 4 May 2011]

An elderly man named Jacob (Hal Holbrook) stands in the rain, outside a modern day circus. When he's brought inside the office of Charlie (Paul Schneider) he recalls how he was once part of the Benzini Brothers circus company. Charlie urges him to talk about his experiences, remembering the magnitude of the company's disaster. As a younger man (Robert Pattinson), Jacob attends college during The Great Depression. However, just as he is about to take his final exam he is told that both his parents have been killed in a car accident. He loses his house too and with nothing to his name he follows a train line and boards a carriage. The crew belongs to the Benzini Brothers circus. They're initially hostile but they offer him a job shovelling horse manure. Walking into a tent one day, Jacob witnesses the beauty of Marlena (Reese Witherspoon), a horse tamer. He learns that she is also the wife of the head of the circus, August (Christoph Waltz). When he finally meets August his gift for animals is recognised and he's given the task of working with Marlena on a new act involving an elephant.

This handsome adaptation of Sara Gruen's bestselling novel is somewhat of a relic. It has the look and feel of a classic Hollywood studio picture. And that's a compliment because it's lavishly photographed by director Francis Lawrence and his cinematographer Rodrigo Prieto (a regular collaborator of Alejandro González Iñárritu). They've striven not for effects of realism or authenticity but to create beautiful painterly-like images of a forgone era. The set pieces here are constructed and orchestrated with specified, controlled movements, like a moving artwork. The alignment of the men as they haul back the ropes of the tent poles, the night sky on top of the moving train and the grace of Marlena as she gestures for her horse to fall slowly to the ground, are images of a dream-like quality. This is of course in correspondence with August's belief that life is an illusion. We're mesmerised by the visuals but beneath the gloss are intentionally dark undertones, drawn from the film's intriguing context. Setting the film in the 1930s, just prior to the rise of fascism, is significant as it contextualises a number of ominous Darwinian references. August treats his workers and his animals as one: with contempt. Rumours circulate the circus that he's thrown workers off trains so that he won't have to pay them. It forces Jacob to hide a wounded worker so that he won't be murdered. August is equally barbaric to the animals too, jabbing an elephant to make it walk, asserting his master role.

August is at once compelling and repulsive and Waltz captivates in every one of his scenes. He's as charismatic, charming and sinister as he was in Inglourious Basterds. He's so precise in shifting between welcoming and dangerous that he could have invented the phrase 'keep your friends close and your enemies closer'. But the efforts to soften his character are also intriguing and rounding. Moments of impulsive violence and rage are contrasted with regret, as he remembers how conditional his relationship with Marlena is. He's a deeply flawed being but even she admits that he does provide her with a life of some kind. They need each other and thus it adds some needed complexity to their relationship. Witherspoon is just radiant in this film, with the look of a classic Hollywood starlet. The way she smiles when performing reminds us of the facade, the illusion of show business. By contrast, Pattinson brings little to his performance. He seems to have a lot less dialogue than Waltz and as such is given less to emotionally work with. He can't muster the same levels of charisma but its less significant here because there is already such a strong male performance. It's a shame that the film also ends in a more conventional, melodramatic and surprisingly violent fashion than what the rest of the film sets up for. And the bookends veer on corny, merely framing the narrative structure rather than contributing substantially to the plot. A fairly minor complaint though because it's a surprisingly rich film, as much as a spectacle. As with the film's deliberately sinister edges, there's a lot more happening underneath the curtain, thoroughly compensates for any missteps.

A truly spectacular movie!

[GlimmerBunny · 9/10 · 13 April 2011]

OK, I'll try to tell you a bit of what I thought about "Water for Elephants", without spoiling anything. I have not read the novel (even though I plan to do it now) so I'm only offering my views on the movie.

First of all: It's amazingly beautiful. The costumes and sets are gorgeous, the cinematography is exquisite, the animals are cute (especially Rosie the elephant) and the three leads are very easy on the eyes as well.

Robert Pattinson was actually quite good. This was a surprise to me, since I didn't really think he was anything special in any of the Twilight movies or "Remember Me". He looked very appropriate for the time the movie was set in, and even though I love Emile Hirsch (who auditioned for Jacob too) I'm confident that Robert was the best choice there was for this role, it was perfect for him. Hal Holbrook was also very fitting for the role of older Jacob. The two actors really made me believe that they were the same person in different stages of his life.

Reese Witherspoon was okay. She looked beautiful, was charming and cute but it felt like something was missing - however, I can't think of any other actress I would have liked better in the role, so I came to the conclusion that it was probably the character Marlena that was a little bland, not Reese.

But the true star of this movie was Christoph Waltz. I may be a bit biased since I loved him in "Inglorious Basterds", but he was even more perfect in this movie. His portrayal of August was amazing, he made him likable and interesting and I was always compelled by his scenes. The character reminded me a lot of Miles in "King Kong" (played by Jack Black), a character that also wanted fame and success more than anything and used questionable and even cruel methods to get it. He was terrifying in some scenes too, but always believable. Also, in the beginning of the movie i really felt the chemistry between August and Marlena, which made the character even more interesting; however, I did feel like Jacob and Marlena had chemistry too, and in my opinion this way it was more realistic (both men loved her and she also cared about both of them).

I loved the movie, and I really recommend it to everyone. I would sincerely give it 10/10 stars. Of course there was some parts of the movie I didn't like (particularly towards the end of it), but overall it was a magical, spectacular and epic period movie, and I can't wait to see it again!

As usual not even close to the book with the exception of Rosie...

[paiello-44319 · 6/10 · 12 July 2020]

As usual not even close to the book with the exception of Rosie. I don't fault her screenplay for being significantly different than the book or the director for taking certain liberties to fit an entire novel into a 90 minute movie. A good example is making August the owner of the circus and eliminating Or combining Uncle Al. Let's just say the set ups that should have been there for the payoffs were not. The love affair between Jacob and Marlena made perfect sense in the book and made little to no sense in the movie. Supporting characters also were not developed enough. The positives were how Holbrook opening and closing the movie who did a great job but mostly a cameo. And of course Rosie the elephant Who is real and not CGI was the highlight of the movie. It's the usual problem that a motion picture does a great job showing the train in the big top in the menagerie etc. etc. but the story is lacking. Not a disaster but a very average movie that could've been better.

Old Story, Old Fashioned Look, I Did Not Really Like It

[3xHCCH · 5/10 · 18 May 2011]

This was one of the oldest stories in the book -- a new man gets in between the relationship of a husband and a wife. But for "Water for Elephants," this story was transported to the era of the Great Depression in the US where a young vet student joins a traditional big top circus, led by its perfectionist ringleader and his star performer wife.

I guess period set pieces like this would only appeal to certain people. I did not find the time or the setting particularly interesting. The presence of the the titular elephant Rosie was engaging though, as the beast actually seemed to emote. Christoph Waltz does another one of his charming sadist roles as August, the ringleader. Reese Witherspoon impressed me with some of her gymnastic skills as Marlena, but overall her performance was rather bland.

Most of the audience attention was on Robert Pattinson to see if he can step out of Edward's shadow in the Twilight movies. Interestingly, he plays a character named Jacob in this film. He has very distinct facial features which makes it hard for him to disappear into a role. He was able to show more variety here, and he looked right for the time period. It is still very much in the love story genre though, so his acting style is generally the same.

So the final verdict is: If you like love stories, you might like this movie. If you like the circus, you might like this movie. Despite all the rave reviews I have been reading about it, I found this film rather average because of the very familiar and therefore predictable storyline.

"Water for Elephants" certainly isn't unwatchable. However, it lacks any serious emotional power, ...

[JeffersonCody · 6/10 · 17 April 2011]

I saw the film in South Africa on Friday afternoon - The trailer was an attractive, appealing one which made the film look intriguing; promising a sweeping period story and an epic romance. "Water for Elephants" certainly isn't unwatchable. However, it lacks any serious emotional power, Robert Pattinson (so effectively cast in the "Twilight" movies) is a good looking, and interesting looking, guy, but he definitely isn't a great actor. Pattinson fails to create a three dimensional character. One never sees what is going on in Jacob's head, because Pattinson isn't capable of projecting internal emotions. Reese Witherspoon - who can act - is miscast. Christopher Waltz - who was really well cast in "Inglourous Basterds" is certainly entertaining to watch and I would attribute some of the failings of his colorful character to the script rather than his acting ability.

The "chocolate box" cinematography is pleasant, colorful and sometimes atmospheric, rather than brilliant, and the film never really gets into top gear. Like its leading man, it's nice looking, but lacking in real substance. The narrative structure is also lumpy, and the story doesn't flow naturally. The best acting in the picture is done by Hal Holbrook and Paul Schneider in relatively small roles. But, to be honest, Rosie the elephant is easily the most endearing character in the film. While the film was disappointing and is certainly not an out and out flop, the story has been dumbed-down to appeal to a teenage demographic. It's got no real sexual or romantic heat. But, funny enough, I think youngsters will enjoy it. Especially teenage girls. I just hoped for so much more. No wonder 20th Century Fox are keeping it away from the critics for as long as possible, and opening it in a few smaller territories before the States. It ain't going to pick up sparkling reviews.

Don't think I hated it though, I just expected and hoped for so much more. The film's ending is a wee bit anti-climactic, but then the romantic part of the storyline is so predictable that it could hardly have ended any other way. I was, however, touched - little tears even welled up in my eyes - by the scene involving the horse's tragic demise, and a scene involving Rosie being hurt by Waltz's August. The costumes and period details are good, (although things sometimes look a wee bit too glamorous considering the milieu it plays out in), but the dialog and body language of the actors feels too contemporary. I imagine, given the film's target demographic, and the marketing campaign - which is centered around Pattinson, that this was intentional.

The story, while interesting enough (not surprising, since it is based on a popular novel), never really gathers an epic sweep, not is it ever intimate enough to compensate for this. Mostly, it just lacks the genuine romantic heat to succeed fully. There is virtually no erotic chemistry or tension between Pattinson and Witherspoon. So serious, passionate adult cinema-goers looking for intelligent, emotionally resonant fare will be disappointed, but maybe it will work for "Twilight" fans, if you know what I mean. The teenage girls will like it, and their boyfriends won't mind it. I must say, though, as a 51-year-old adult male who works in the DVD industry, writes film reviews for local publications and watches over a 100 films a year on the big screen (plus another 400 or so on DVD), I am hardly the target demographic, so, depending on age, tastes and how seriously they take cinema-going, others might well enjoy it more than me. Those young viewers who are looking for lightweight escapism with a pretty, contemporary star in the male lead will probably forgive the film its lack of genuine dramatic tension, and a compelling narrative structure.

Like I say, I really expected more from this film, but I guess so many of today's films are tailored to a teen aged democratic who lack the ability to concentrate for long periods of time, want fast editing and are not interested in seeing characters breathe or develop in interesting, realistic ways.

Surprisingly Decent

[detto602 · 7/10 · 26 April 2011]

Some people might be wondering whether the events follow the book well.I have not read the book but I am told the movie did a decent job of following it. Some of the events were hard to believe. For example when the animals are released they wouldn't attack the crowd. They've been tamed for years and are used to people. The lion would most likely not stand and prowl menacingly over the crowd. This scene did accomplish its goal of creating a sense of chaos though.

Another concern could be if it is too much of a "chick flick." I went in expecting the movie to be a "chick flick." As soon as I saw Robert Pattinson from the Twilight series I was worried my fears were true. Yet, the movie surprised me and was actually quite good.

The characters were portrayed well. Christoph Waltz plays an excellent greedy, jealous husband. He does an excellent job of making you feel for him at times. You want to help him when he opens his heart to Robert Pattinson. You feel he really can't control his emotions. His rage seems fueled by his love of Marlena. As the story progresses you realize how cruel he is. Robert Pattinson portrays the handsome farm boy superbly. He provides the action for the gentlemen and the flair for the ladies. Water for Elephants pleases all audiences.

Amusing.

[DarkVulcan29 · 7/10 · 30 April 2011]

Jacob(Robert Pattinson) a promising Vet student, on the verge of graduation, is hit with a terrible tragedy, his parents are killed in a car crash. Is quickly left with nothing. Runsaway, and hops on a train, only to find out it's a traveling circus led by August(Chrstoph Waltz), agrees to stay on has the vet, but what happens when Jacob gets feelings Augusts wife(Reese Witherspoon)?

The Look and scenery was nice. And Christoph Waltz performance was captivating, I know he won't be missed by the Oscars. But in some scenes He got upstaged by the elephant. Robert Pattinson(who looks like James Dean and Leonardo Dicaprio mixed together) performance has Jacob, was alright, not good, but not bad, not quite has good as Waltz. Reese Witherspoon I felt was not giving much to do with her character. And she and Pattinson have good chemistry, but they don't connect as much has they should have. All in all an alright film.

Very pleasantly surprised by Pattinson!

[kevin_48 · 10/10 · 17 April 2011]

Okay, firstly as I guy I did not think this movie was going to be all that great and interesting for me. I was wrong. The cinematography, costumes, score and acting all added up to an interesting and quite lovely spectacle. I suggest everyone should give it a go. You might be as surprised as I was. I'm going to try to avoid any major spoilers so I'll keep it very vague on the story.

The movie kind of keeps you guessing which was its going to go for the characters. Be it happy ever after or big disaster. I could genuinely feel the admiration and respect between Jacob (Pattinson) and Tai (the elephant) which is essential and central to the story. Which brings me to Pattinson. He was absolutely very good in this movie. He was different to previous characters he has played. He was warm and caring yet a strong character which is a difficult balance. I mentioned the connection with Tai was believable and the same is true with Marlena (Witherspoon). She also did a fine job. Her circus tricks should be commended at the very least. Waltz was very good as the "bad guy". He just delivers that kind of role brilliantly. When Pattinson and Waltz are on screen together you do not feel that one is less impressive than the other. That is why I was pleasantly surprised by Pattinson. He has shown in this movie that he is a fine actor with a lot more potential and I question anyone who says differently's motivations. (Yes, he is Edward Cullen..but its time to let that go people and give the guy some major credit for his acting)

All in all. I thought it was a charming movie.

If they had only cast two more fitting actors together the movie really could have been something!

[Hellmant · 7/10 · 28 April 2011]

'WATER FOR ELEPHANTS': Three and a Half Stars (Out of Five)

'TWILIGHT's Robert Pattinson co-stars with Reese Witherspoon in this adaptation of Sara Gruen's popular novel of the same name. The screenplay was written by Richard LaGravenese (the screenwriter of such films as 'THE FISHER KING', 'THE BRIDGES OF MADISON COUNTY' and 'THE HORSE WHISPERER') and the film was directed by Francis Lawrence (an experienced music video director with only two other feature films under his belt, the sci-fi action films 'I AM LEGEND' and 'CONSTANTINE'). The movie revolves around a forbidden love affair at a traveling circus during the depression era with Pattinson and Witherspoon as the two somewhat oddly matched lovers. The film as a whole is a little hit and miss but it definitely has some good moments and is entertaining for the most part.

Pattinson plays a young ex-veterinary student in the 1930's named Jacob (which is kind of funny if you know anything about 'TWILIGHT') who dropped out of school when his parents were killed, after becoming greatly in debt due to him. He hops on a train and meets up with a traveling circus run by a brilliant but insane ringmaster named August (Christoph Waltz). He impresses him with his former education and knowledge of animals and is given a job as the circus vet. He then meets the beautiful star of the show, Marlena (Witherspoon), who is also August's wife. So when they fall for each other this of course spells trouble.

One of the main problems with Hollywood romance films is you can't force chemistry. So just casting two popular actors together isn't going to work if they don't have it. That's the case with this film, you never truly believe Reese and Robert are in love with each other (which should be the heart of the film), but that's the problem with a lot of films so you can't fault it too much for that (and I don't think it's because of the two leads' ten years age difference, like some have noted, but it is funny that Pattinson played Witherspoon's son in a deleted scene to the 2004 film 'VANITY FAIR'). They're not horrible together and neither is really bad on their own either. Pattinson was a horrible actor in the 'TWILIGHT' films but here he's adequate (not great but OK). Witherspoon is good like always and Waltz is outstanding as the mad villain of the film (but he's really beginning to be typecast as such). The movie looks beautiful and there are some decent action scenes and thrilling moments. It does start out a little slow but it picks up and is mostly amusing from then on out. If they had only cast two more fitting actors together the movie really could have been something.

Watch our review show 'MOVIE TALK' at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7A8qHI10rk

a spectacular film

[waldbeer · 10/10 · 15 April 2011]

When I read Water for Elephants the book, I knew the film would be difficult to make and I was ready to be disappointed. Surprisingly, they managed to capture most of it in picture. Some things were lost on the way, of course, the most unfortunate one being old Jacob's struggles as an old man who refuses to retire from life before his time actually comes. Other details that made the book a masterpiece seemed more suitable for a book so they were not missed, mainly because the core story was there to its finest details.

The reenactment of America in Great Depression was good, and the circus was everything you would expect it to be. Such chaos and life and acts and performers and runes and animals all mashed up in a beautiful lively atmosphere. Scenes flowed one after the other smoothly and nothing seemed out of place. This is a hard thing to accomplish when it comes to adaptations. Most of them end up looking like a slide show of pictures or events taken from the book (see Hardwicke's Twilight for a perfect example). This film was a success.

The acting was another noteworthy aspect. People will have to acknowledge Robert Pattinson as a first class actor after watching this; and Waltz will be the go-to person for the upcoming psycho roles. He just digs it, I think and he creates the most intimidating gentleman on screen. Witherspoon looked average to me as Marlena, but I may be biased so I won't go into it much. All in all, it would be bizarre if at least one out of the three did not get an Oscar nod.

Praise for Film-makers.

[MrJRGO · 7 May 2011]

"Water For Elephants" is Hollywood at the top of its game. I haven't read the novel by Sara Gruen, but after watching this two hour long spectacle, I will take time to read it soon.

There is not one fault that I can find with the film. From the opening scenes to the closing credits, it had me hooked with its tale of loss, hardship, camaraderie, greed, hope, tragedy and ultimately love.

The acting by all concerned, particularly the leads, is exceptional with some Oscar worthy performances here. For any doubters, Robert Pattinson proves his worth admirably and Christoph Waltz will have truly established himself as A-list. Reese Witherspoon is very graceful as the centre of the attention of the two men.

The costumes and the sets are appropriate for the period and the cinematography is beautiful, making you feel like you are there amongst the magic and chaos of the circus in 1931.

The array of performers, and the animals too, take centre stage from time to time, bringing light relief in some scenes and stirring more heart rending emotions in others.

The film does not shy away from the problems of the Great Depression and the suffering of the many so that the few can profit.

Overall, "Water For Elephants" harks back to a Golden Age of Hollywood when films stayed in your thoughts and emotions long after you left the cinema. This is a very worthwhile effort indeed.

Chemistry issues between Pattinson and Witherspoon

[mod-rod-66 · 6/10 · 12 June 2022]

Great story that falls flat because there is no chemistry between Pattinson and Witherspoon. Waltz's performance is evershadowed because it's hard to be believe they are in love. His jealousy means nothing.

Pleasantly surprised by it. For a movie set in the 1900s circus world, it does hold and show the magic of circus on screen as it is beautifully shot and told.

[ThisIsAMsg · 9/10 · 22 April 2011]

I was pleasantly surprised by this movie. Without being trite and redundant, it explores timeless and universal themes such as finding one's destiny and freedom, life choices, love, and jealousy, put in an interesting setting, that is the circus world -- the early 1900s when the US prohibition and depression were taking place -- which is nicely recreated on screen (by production designer Jack Fisk who's mostly known for his work with Terence Malick and David Lynch). Based on Sara Gruen's novel, this very original story is beautifully told, uses classical film-making techniques -- its camera moves, staging, lighting, pacing, usage of 'live' animals, stunts and special effects -- and well acted -- Robert Pattison comes across as a decent lead actor and not just a pretty face; Reese Witherspoon, very convincing as the star circus girl, doing some of her own stunts; however Christoph Waltz's performance stands out the most as he maintains the dynamic among all the main characters and fuels the drama. It's nice and refreshing to see a classically-made-and-looking film coming out of Hollywood.

The best circus movie I've ever seen.

[liell · 6/10 · 19 July 2011]

Well, maybe that's because it's the only circus movie I can think of off the top of my head. But nonetheless, a great film. It's the perfect length, the perfect amount of action, the perfect mix of drama and comic relief, and overall, it's got a good story.

Really well put together. For the type of movie it is, it's really quite impressive. I mean, obviously it's not the most exciting story in the world. It's a story of a troubled man who finds work and falls in love at the circus. But even with that limited plot, the filmmakers did an excellent job of bringing the movie to life and making you feel like you're part of the scene.

It's definitely near the top of my list as far as 2011 movies go, but I don't expect it to be much of a classic. I'm thinking it'll turn into one of those movies that time just blows over into obscurity, but if discovered by a new generation, they'd definitely enjoy it.

With love,

Simba Jackson

Do not believe the high rating for this show..

[nicying · 1/10 · 30 May 2011]

It is just that awful. The only reason i watched the whole show was because of the high rating here. There wasn't any chemistry between Reese Witherspoon and Robert Pattison. Although it wasn't Reese Witherspoon's fault. Why some of the reviewers think Robert Pattison gave a marvelous performance is really a wonder. He's not acting, he was just being himself. Just search for his interviews on youtube if you don't believe. The storyline is bland (if there was any), other than Christoph Waltz and Jim Norton, i don't feel any of the other characters believable. Film dragged on for too long. How i hope the animals at the end would just kill them all. And like some others said, the elephant was (or still is) definitely tortured to perform tricks like that. Shame on the stars who performed in this film. If you enjoy being tortured by a slow and pointless story, then this is the film for you. Otherwise, there are better films out there. I wish i could take back that 2 hours of my life or at the very least not trusting the high rating from reviewers here. Oh, another thing, what cinematography were people talking about? Everything were closeups. I didn't see a single spectacular view.