Water for Elephants

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.

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")

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.

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.

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.