I have tried to limit this list to proper period dramas (no animated features or alternate histories) and arrange them…
Water for Elephants
Life is the most spectacular show on earth.
In this captivating Depression-era melodrama, impetuous veterinary student Jacob Jankowski joins a celebrated circus as an animal caretaker but faces a wrenching dilemma when he's transfixed by angelic married performer Marlena.
It's handsomely made but when an elephant out-acts the cast you know it's no classic.
I was so torn this beautiful afternoon on what grade I should give Water for Elephants. I was thinking either 2.5 or 3 out of 5 stars.
My pros were the performances from Christoph Waltz, the Elephant, the time frame, and the old man who had very little screen time in the beginning and ending of the film.
My main problem was the fact that I was really engaged into the story, but I just wanted more from the main characters played by Rob Pattinson and Reese Witherspoon.
Water for Elephants is a glossy and lavishly produced throwback to the glory days of Hollywood. Yet, the film is a hollow recreation of past glories, one where the two leads get out acted by an elephant.
Whilst it is nice to see the return to this type of filmmaking it is a shame the material and the execution can’t match the intent. The problem is that it is a superficial and shallow experience. Many films of this ilk, back during the height of the studio system, were similarly simplistic but they got by on sheer spectacle and the charisma of the performers. These days it is hard for a film of this kind to wow an audience when the…
Film #13 of Scavenger Hunt #3 Challenge
Item 14. A film about/featuring a circus!
I resisted this movie and book for a long time, expecting a NIcholas Sparks-esque cheesy love story. I broke down and read the book this past fall and actually enjoyed it, so I felt I needed to see the film as well. The plot of "Water for Elephants" is far less about the romantic triangle than the life on the circus, and the film reflects this well. The story is paced well and the setting feels authentic to the 1930s. The performances from Robert Pattinson, Reese Witherspoon, and Christoph Waltz were good, keeping me entertained throughout.
This film is pretty alright in most respects if it doesn't stand out much. Thing is I really don't like Robert Pattinson and as hard as I try to ignore that nagging feeling it still manages to taint the whole movie.
I’ve always had a weird relationship with Water for Elephants. Having loved Waltz’s performance in Inglorious Bastards, I was excited to watch him return on the screen again; however at the same time, I felt a feeble amount of hesitation after learning that the lead was none other than Robert Pattinson; the very same who graced our televisions with Twilight, and truly left a mark in our hearts. And of course Reese Witherspoon, who was drunkenly shouting ‘Do you know who I am!?’ in my head.
When the film first entered Netflix streaming it took a number, and waited patiently; knowing that my interest will always wander onto better things… oh shit did you know Fargo is still available to…
Effective, well made drama film that I honestly didn’t expect much from, Water For Elephants is the type of effort that exceeded my expectations, and I rather enjoyed for what it was. The cast assembled here is quite good, and the story as well is entertaining, well layered that is compelling, engaging and immerses you due to its characters and ;performances from the varied talent involved in the film. Although far from perfect, this film was quite good due to its idea, its setting and of course the direction from Francis Lawrence. I enjoyed the angle that the filmmakers tried to capture on film, and this film is a far better effort than what is given credit for. This is…
I love Christoph Waltz, I mean, I truly love him doing his craft. I loved him through all his German television shows that I used to endure, I loved him through the broken subtitled movies I used to watch in seven-minute increments on YouTube, I loved him through the horrible campy bit parts he used to get; the ones where I'd have to watch a whole movie only to see him for 6 minutes. What I'm getting at, is: I loved him before he made it big in America in Quentin Tarantino's 2009 WWII re-imagination, Inglorious Basterds. That 2009 breakthrough was especially fun for me because I also love Quentin Tarantino, so the powers that be in cinema land really…
good historical/period pic I liked it but it didn't do well at all
An Elephant whacks Christoph Waltz upside the head.
Production (effects, stunt/choreo, set/costume): 3/4
Cinematography (staging, camerawork, colour): 2/4
Acting (technique, chemistry, believability): 3/4
Sound (score, soundtrack, design, mixing): 2/4
Writing (plot/story, screenplay, themes): 2/4
Direction (editing, form, style, finish): 3/4
da rivedere alcuni dialoghi
This film has so many promising elements and a potentially great story, but the performances are just a little flat and doesn't give credit to the story. My favorite character in this film is maybe the elephant but most of the human actors were okay without standing out. In whole the film was good enough to keep me enjoyed for the 1 hour and 45 min. it lasted.
Waltz shows he can steal scenes in virtually every film he is in. By far the best performance in this film. Witherspoon and Pattinson are there because they look good and can act a bit. Pattinson might actually become a decent leading mainstream actor one day, he does show glimpses of having the chops. The story itself is basically someone asking an old guy (Hal Holbrook) about something he witnessed back in the depression. As long as you are willing to be lead through the story, it is quite enjoyable, although it does feel a little too polished and glossy.
I work at a movie theater and patrons mess up movie titles all the time. Here are some of the…
All the way from 'The Land Before Time' to 'The Social Network'.
(Read notes for dates.)
Work in progress, will…