A comprehensive, alphabetical list of films released in the United States that have been condemned by the Catholic Church since…
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…
The book was better
Very predictable, but I guess it doesn't try to be anything else. It's ok if you treat it for what it is, an average romantic drama with some fine actors (and Robert Pattinson) telling the traditional story of impossible love. It's cozy, but nothing more.
It was alright, but not amazing. I was mostly interested in the circus aspect of the movie, but not the story itself.
First of all, I read the book first, which I thought was a good idea. It was, and so I felt a lot more ready to watch the film once I'd done that.
Second, I loved both. The film was obviously shorter and didn't have the depth of the book, but otherwise it hardly felt altered at all. And I loved it - with or without the cuts.
Visually it was gorgeous. The cinematography was lovely, and the film showcased the shine and sweat, the grit and glamour, of the circus life with enchanting ease and realism. I was, quite honestly, swept away in the world of Water for Elephants, and I thoroughly enjoyed absorbing myself in it :)
I fricking love this book so I was excited to see the movie, it was good and stuck to the book well AND well acted, it was just somewhat underwhelming idk how to describe it. The cinematography is beautiful as well.
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.
I have tried to limit this list to proper period dramas (no animated features or alternate histories) and arrange them…