I work at a movie theater and patrons mess up movie titles all the time. Here are some of the…
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.
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…
Quería escribir una reseña ácida y graciosa de una oración, pero no sirve ni para eso. Te odio Water For Elephants.
Film Number 12 of Aditya's Scavenger Hunt Challenge No. 3
Day 9, Task No. 14 - A film about a circus
Water for Elephants
A story of a forbidden love in the backdrop of a circus! While on the page it might have been a lovely, swooning romance, on film it's a completely dry relationship, with forced passion. It's quite sad, because Robert Pattinson (outside of Twilight) is a pretty competent actor, and Reese Witherspoon has delivered many great performances. This, unfortunately, is a big miss.
At least Christoph Waltz was there to imbue the film with his trademark charisma and droll menace. And Hal Holbrook was also quite affecting. Rosie the Elephant was adorable! I think apart from the…
The film isn't quite able to capture the magic of a circus. Waltz falls in his usual pattern as the villain. The love story seems to come out of nowhere, even though the story revolves around it. The narrative moves slowly yet fast at the same time, making little sense. Apart from the pacing problems and general lack of character development, it is a aesthetically a beautiful film.
Basically the exact same review I wrote for The Green Hornet, except for 'Seth Rogen' substitute 'Robert Pattinson' and for 'charmless' substitute... inept? Useless? I don't know whether to blame him or the script; there's so many scenes where he has nothing to do except smile inanely at things, or maybe even LAUGH if emotions are really running high. There's also no chemistry between anyone in this film; none between Marlena and Jacob, but none between Marlena and August either (and I know you're meant to root against that relationship, but surely there should be something to make it vaguely believable that they're together in the first place?) and no sense of the ~bond~ between Jacob and the elephant, which…
Vaata lähiajal uuesti
Was gonna give it 2.5 but the elephant bumped it up.
This movie was actually really good despite casting flaws. Kristof Waltz is genius, and saved the movie. He was perfect for that role. The screenplay was great, and really stayed true to the book. The unfortunate casting of Reese Witherspoon mucked up the romance side. not only made the love story seem odd, given she's clearly 20 years too old to play that character, but she also clearly didn't like Pattinson, which explains the complete lack of chemistry which was really a bummer. Stick to comedies Reese, you have zero emotional credibility.
This kind of films rely greatly on its romantic leads and their chemistry together, something that is lacking immensely here. Witherspoon and Pattinson (a charisma vacuum and poor actor) must be the boringest romantic couple I've seen. It doesn't help that the story beats are super generic and Pattinson character is cringeworthy.
It looks great, though.
A good watch. But I can't help but just think of vampires and sparkling skin when I see R-Pattz. The Twilight Saga was a bad decision, despite making him millions.
"You must learn my dear boy, that the rules of the United States of suckers do not apply to us."
I read the book. Definitely not my usual type of book, but my friend gave me it after hearing it was good. So I read it and was surprised by how much I liked it. Only a few months later, we saw the first trailer for this film and eventually saw the film itself. I remember when I first saw it I was disappointed by some of the changes from the book to movie (as I almost always am). Now, watching it for the second time several years later, the specific nuances of the book have faded and I'm able…
Whatcha doin RPat!?
A comprehensive, alphabetical list of films released in the United States that have been condemned by the Catholic Church since…
Hot, naughty, dirty, sensual movies.