Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Water for Elephants – Movie Review
Jacob Jankowski never thought that his life would turn out to be so unpredictable. At the same time, viewers will probably be surprised to see that, in an era when bombastic – and otherwise empty of any concrete meaning – special effects and insane action scenes set the tone, “Water for Elephants” is a pleasure for the eyes.
For the mind and soul, not so much, since the film is not really as compelling as it tries to appear.
Directed by Francis Lawrence (who offered no indication of his inclination for period pieces with his previous work, “I Am Legend,” “Constantine” and music videos for Britney Spears, JLo and Madonna), the film is set in the 1930s Depression and Prohibition era, in a world to which viewers no longer have any access: the circus world.
For the mind and soul, not so much, since the film is not really as compelling as it tries to appear.
Directed by Francis Lawrence (who offered no indication of his inclination for period pieces with his previous work, “I Am Legend,” “Constantine” and music videos for Britney Spears, JLo and Madonna), the film is set in the 1930s Depression and Prohibition era, in a world to which viewers no longer have any access: the circus world.
Just like the original novel on which it’s based, Sara Gruen’s “Water for Elephants,” the film opens with a “Titanic”-style, modern-day prologue of an old Jacob (Hal Holbrook, wonderful as always), trying to talk his way back into the circus world with his story of how he was there when the Benzini Bros. Circus came tumbling down.
As the main frame is set, viewers are taken back to 1931, where a young, handsome and, we learn, very smart and dedicated Jacob (Robert Pattinson) is preparing for his finals at Cornell University.
He wants to be a veterinary just like his father, take over his practice, and become the provider for this tight and loving Polish-American family. And then life happens, which prevents events from going down this very predictable path.
The death of his parents in a car accident sends Jacob out into the world, with no specific destination in mind. He hops on a freight in the middle of the night – and instantly finds himself on the train that takes “the most extravagant extravaganza, the greatest show on earth,” the Benzini Bros. Circus, all across America.
In almost the next second, the bewildered (but still just as handsome) Jacob is introduced to the rigorous caste system that rules this world he’s never heard of: he meets the workers, the freaks and, last but not least, the owner and his gorgeous wife.
August (Oscar-winning Christoph Waltz) is part gentleman, part brute, and by far the most complex and fascinating character in the film.
Endowed with a charming smile that guarantees he always comes out the winner and cursed with a fiery temper that he does little to control, he’s so menacing yet attractive that it’s almost hard to pry one’s eyes off the screen whenever he’s on it.
Because he believes people and animals are disposable and respond only to violence, he rules the circus with an iron fist – “no one dies until August says so,” viewers hear.
He’s also fiercely protective and jealous of anyone even looking at his wife – and, it would seem, he has every reason to be so.
Marlena (Reese Witherspoon) is the star attraction of the show: her horse and, later on, elephant number is the sole reason why the circus is still standing, and August would rather kill her than face the idea of losing her.
She was saved, plucked from poverty by this cruel man whom she obeys blindly because he’s given her so much, and, we assume, it’s her sense of gratefulness that keeps her by his side long after it becomes clear that he’s not good to her.
Gratefulness though goes out the window when young, kind-hearted and passionate Jacob comes in the picture. Because of his experience with animals, he’s in a privileged position with ringmaster August, who takes turns in tormenting and mentoring him, and is as if pushing him towards Marlena.
As such, it’s almost no wonder the two fall in love – especially after they get to bond over Rosie, a 9000-pound elephant who only understands Polish and who’s meant to become the act that will save the circus from going belly up.
Though the circus world was, at the time, one of the harshest and cruelest places on earth, just as it was one of the most fascinating, awe-inspiring places, there’s little of either in “Water for Elephants.”
August and Rosie are the only two characters in the film that allow for this duality to be showed (or, even better, implied) on the screen. (Pattinson is definitely the weak link, while Witherspoon is contained and shallow in her characterization of Marlena).
Otherwise, director Lawrence seems to be spending most of his time trying to make the film into a glossy, glammed-up story about two people who fall in love when they shouldn’t, and an elephant that makes viewers giddy with amazement the moment she comes on.
Still, critics point out, a love story is irremediably flawed when the viewer doesn’t get the feeling that the protagonists are deeply, madly, passionately in love – and this is the case here, with Pattinson and Reese barely able to get a spark going between them.
Moreover, when the climactic moment comes, after so much building up of tension and plodding through the narrative, it’s gone so fast that viewers feel cheated out of the cathartic experience they’d been promised.
Which, of course, is not to say that “Water for Elephants” is an entirely bad movie. In fact, it’s the perfect, tasty, smooth hors d’oeuvre before the main course of the summer blockbuster season – and just as not filling.
“Water for Elephants” is rated PG-13 and runs 122 minutes. It opened in the US on April 22, will arrive in France and the UK on May 4, and reaches Spain two days later, on May 6.
The Good
With “Water for Elephants,” Christoph Waltz proves there’s no better actor than him at doing bad guys. His August is so demented and compelling, he makes everyone and everything pale by comparison. Lovers of a good and touching animal story, as well as fans of Pattinson will also duly enjoy “Water for Elephants.”
The Bad
“Water for Elephants” had all the right ingredients to become the next big thing: a bestseller, a wonderful story, A-list stars. Perhaps fearing that he’d lose a segment of the audience, Lawrence compromised and made it into a glossy, rather shallow and soulless narrative, from which viewers will probably take very little when they leave the theater.
The Truth
“Water for Elephants” will be a hit with fans of the original book and, of course, a chunk of the huge “Twilight” fanbase. It’s not an extraordinary film, but it does have moments of pure brilliance. It’s a relief to see that Hollywood is still perfectly able to make a movie that, at the very least, aims to be different.
As the main frame is set, viewers are taken back to 1931, where a young, handsome and, we learn, very smart and dedicated Jacob (Robert Pattinson) is preparing for his finals at Cornell University.
He wants to be a veterinary just like his father, take over his practice, and become the provider for this tight and loving Polish-American family. And then life happens, which prevents events from going down this very predictable path.
The death of his parents in a car accident sends Jacob out into the world, with no specific destination in mind. He hops on a freight in the middle of the night – and instantly finds himself on the train that takes “the most extravagant extravaganza, the greatest show on earth,” the Benzini Bros. Circus, all across America.
In almost the next second, the bewildered (but still just as handsome) Jacob is introduced to the rigorous caste system that rules this world he’s never heard of: he meets the workers, the freaks and, last but not least, the owner and his gorgeous wife.
 |
Endowed with a charming smile that guarantees he always comes out the winner and cursed with a fiery temper that he does little to control, he’s so menacing yet attractive that it’s almost hard to pry one’s eyes off the screen whenever he’s on it.
Because he believes people and animals are disposable and respond only to violence, he rules the circus with an iron fist – “no one dies until August says so,” viewers hear.
He’s also fiercely protective and jealous of anyone even looking at his wife – and, it would seem, he has every reason to be so.
Marlena (Reese Witherspoon) is the star attraction of the show: her horse and, later on, elephant number is the sole reason why the circus is still standing, and August would rather kill her than face the idea of losing her.
She was saved, plucked from poverty by this cruel man whom she obeys blindly because he’s given her so much, and, we assume, it’s her sense of gratefulness that keeps her by his side long after it becomes clear that he’s not good to her.
Gratefulness though goes out the window when young, kind-hearted and passionate Jacob comes in the picture. Because of his experience with animals, he’s in a privileged position with ringmaster August, who takes turns in tormenting and mentoring him, and is as if pushing him towards Marlena.
As such, it’s almost no wonder the two fall in love – especially after they get to bond over Rosie, a 9000-pound elephant who only understands Polish and who’s meant to become the act that will save the circus from going belly up.
Though the circus world was, at the time, one of the harshest and cruelest places on earth, just as it was one of the most fascinating, awe-inspiring places, there’s little of either in “Water for Elephants.”
August and Rosie are the only two characters in the film that allow for this duality to be showed (or, even better, implied) on the screen. (Pattinson is definitely the weak link, while Witherspoon is contained and shallow in her characterization of Marlena).
Still, critics point out, a love story is irremediably flawed when the viewer doesn’t get the feeling that the protagonists are deeply, madly, passionately in love – and this is the case here, with Pattinson and Reese barely able to get a spark going between them.
Moreover, when the climactic moment comes, after so much building up of tension and plodding through the narrative, it’s gone so fast that viewers feel cheated out of the cathartic experience they’d been promised.
Which, of course, is not to say that “Water for Elephants” is an entirely bad movie. In fact, it’s the perfect, tasty, smooth hors d’oeuvre before the main course of the summer blockbuster season – and just as not filling.
“Water for Elephants” is rated PG-13 and runs 122 minutes. It opened in the US on April 22, will arrive in France and the UK on May 4, and reaches Spain two days later, on May 6.
The Good
With “Water for Elephants,” Christoph Waltz proves there’s no better actor than him at doing bad guys. His August is so demented and compelling, he makes everyone and everything pale by comparison. Lovers of a good and touching animal story, as well as fans of Pattinson will also duly enjoy “Water for Elephants.”
The Bad
“Water for Elephants” had all the right ingredients to become the next big thing: a bestseller, a wonderful story, A-list stars. Perhaps fearing that he’d lose a segment of the audience, Lawrence compromised and made it into a glossy, rather shallow and soulless narrative, from which viewers will probably take very little when they leave the theater.
The Truth
“Water for Elephants” will be a hit with fans of the original book and, of course, a chunk of the huge “Twilight” fanbase. It’s not an extraordinary film, but it does have moments of pure brilliance. It’s a relief to see that Hollywood is still perfectly able to make a movie that, at the very least, aims to be different.
0 comments:
Post a Comment