ViewGuide

Created Apr 23, 2011 10:32AM PST • Edited Apr 25, 2011 07:21AM PST

1. Quality

2. Summary

   OK 2.5

   Lush cinematic imagery, and a decent performance by veteran actor Christoph Waltz can’t overcome a generalized feeling of confusion in the movie Water for Elephants.

   Set in 1931, the films tells the take of Jacob (Robert Pattinson), a handsome lad on the verge of finishing veterinary school, who suddenly leaves to join the circus. Filled with a colorful menagerie of animals and circus workers, the train he boards becomes his home, and he must quickly adhere to the odd traditions and exhausting workload set by the boss, Ringmaster August (Waltz).

   Subjected to long hours, brutal punishments, and half-sold shows, the circus is always teetering on the verge of bankruptcy. Along the way, Jacob meets Marlena (Reese Witherspoon), the bosses wife, and star of the show.

   Neither Witherspoon or Pattinson create enough onscreen chemistry to carry the film, and we are left with an awkward, fish-out-of-water piece that seems to lack a definitive focal point at times.

   Waltz is good as the narcissistic boss, always watching over his shoulder, but we’ve seen him in similar roles before. The circus characters are mildly entertaining, but we don’t get to know them well, with the exception of a few roadies.

   All in all, this film was mildly entertaining at best.

4. Acting

   OK 2.5

5. Male Stars OK 2.5

   Pattinson fails to convince me that he has the hard work needed to care for the animals. His inability to generate any onscreen excitement was somewhat disappointing.

6. Female Stars OK 2.5

   Witherspoon, while somewhat better than Pattinson, also fails to generate any excitement for this project and appears at times to be just going through the motions.

7. Female Costars OK 2.5

8. Male Costars OK 2.5

   Hal Holbrook make a great appearance in the film. Good to see him again.

10. Film

    OK 2.5

11. Direction OK 2.5

    Methodical and at times predictable.

12. Play OK 2.5

13. Music Good 3.0

14. Visuals Good 3.0

    Beautifully filmed, with lush colors and an authentic feel, the visuals were one of the highlights of this film for me.

15. Content

16. Edge

    Risqué 2.0

17. Sex Titillating 1.8

    no nudity

18. Violence Brutal 2.6

    Some fighting is shown, as are several disturbing scenes of animal abuse. Suffice it to say, it does not paint a glamorous picture of circus handlers.

19. Rudeness Salty 1.7

    mild profanity

21. Reality

    Natural 1.0

22. Circumstantial Natural 1.0

23. Biological Natural 1.0

24. Physical Natural 1.0