Water for Elephants
Period romance set in a traveling circus, starring Robert Pattinson and Reese Witherspoon. Based on the bestselling novel.
Veterinary school student Jacob (Pattinson) meets and falls in love with Marlena (Witherspoon), a star performer in a circus of a bygone era. They discover beauty amidst the world of the Big Top, and come together through their compassion for a special elephant. Their relationship faces the wrath of Marlena's dangerous husband, August (Inglourious Basterds' Christoph Waltz).
- Director:
- Francis Lawrence ('I Am Legend', 'Constantine')
- Writer:
- Richard LaGravenese
- Cast:
- Robert PattinsonReese WitherspoonChristoph WaltzHal HolbrookJames FrainPaul Schneider
Reviews & comments
Variety
pressThe filmmakers clearly value their public, crafting a splendid period swooner that delivers classic romance and an indelible insider's view of 1930s circus life.
Total Film
pressA swoony, enjoyable, old-time romance whose best acts are a period-perfect Pattinson and a playful pachyderm. But despite its best endeavours, it can’t quite punch above ’plex-pleasing weight.
The New York Times
pressShort-circuits the novel's quirky charms and period atmosphere by its squeamish attitude toward gritty circus life and smothers the drama under James Newton Howard's insufferable wall-to-wall musical soup.
Roger Ebert
pressIn an age of prefabricated special effects and obviously phony spectacle, it's sort of old-fashioned (and a pleasure) to see a movie made of real people and plausible sets.
Hollywood Reporter
pressWill please fans of Sara Gruen's best seller, but it lacks the vital spark that would have made the drama truly compelling on the screen.
Empire Magazine
pressFamiliar but enjoyable. Not being funny, the elephant (Rosie, played by nine-foot enchantress Tai) is the real star as the most moving and only joyful presence in sight.
Christchurch Press
pressWater For Elephants is your typical love triangle (or quadrangle), but this swoony, dramatic, high-stakes romance has an old-timey twist.
A.V. Club
pressIt's a tastefully managed, passionless melodrama, full of brooding looks and reasonably sweet moments, but typified by a scantly characterized central couple who bring no sense of engagement to their relationship.
The story itself is wildly unrealistic, but Water for Elephants tells it cohesively with fine performances accompanied with rough, heartbreaking scenes of raw emotion.
I didn't think I could imagine Robert Pattison without fangs and red glowing eyes, so thought that this movie would be terrible. I was happy to proved wrong, and thought he pulled off a great performance in this film. I hadn't read the book, so can't compare it to that. But enjoyed the film from start to finish and would definately recommend it.
Maybe it's because these type of movies are not my thing, but found it boring and predictable. Would not recommend.
I don't get the Robert Pattinson thing so nearly didn't go to this movie, but I'm glad I did. A good adaptation from the book, it wasn't how I pictured it as I read the book and that can be a good thing. I ended up enjoying Pattinson in the role and Reese played her character well too. A good mix of characters, casting worked well and the whole premise of...
1931 wasn't a good year. The depression hit America hard. Water for Elephants captures this grim reality but manages to maintain the romanticism of the train-travelling big-top circus era. Pattison handles the leading role with a great deal of competency, though never seeming to transcend that level. This stands out more in comparison to the excellent...
I agree it is kind of old school and much of the charm of the movie was in the costumes and setting representing the bygone era of 1931. As such it was entertaining and I wasn't bored (although at one point in the middle I was almost bored !). Robert was OK and Reese, let's face it, was just being Reese and neither of them were outstanding. However...
Thinks its a bit better than the bad review it gets by the movie credits... perhaps wait till it's on DVD?
Geez, Rebecca Barry. "It's not explained why Jacob can suddenly speak a strange language the elephant understands." REALLY? Because remember at the beginning of the film when Jacob is speaking POLISH to his POLISH parents who very soon after die in a car accident? And then remember how when he is frustrated with the elephant Jacob says something...
Variety
pressThe filmmakers clearly value their public, crafting a splendid period swooner that delivers classic romance and an indelible insider's view of 1930s circus life.
Total Film
pressA swoony, enjoyable, old-time romance whose best acts are a period-perfect Pattinson and a playful pachyderm. But despite its best endeavours, it can’t quite punch above ’plex-pleasing weight.
The New York Times
pressShort-circuits the novel's quirky charms and period atmosphere by its squeamish attitude toward gritty circus life and smothers the drama under James Newton Howard's insufferable wall-to-wall musical soup.
Roger Ebert
pressIn an age of prefabricated special effects and obviously phony spectacle, it's sort of old-fashioned (and a pleasure) to see a movie made of real people and plausible sets.
Hollywood Reporter
pressWill please fans of Sara Gruen's best seller, but it lacks the vital spark that would have made the drama truly compelling on the screen.
Empire Magazine
pressFamiliar but enjoyable. Not being funny, the elephant (Rosie, played by nine-foot enchantress Tai) is the real star as the most moving and only joyful presence in sight.
Christchurch Press
pressWater For Elephants is your typical love triangle (or quadrangle), but this swoony, dramatic, high-stakes romance has an old-timey twist.
A.V. Club
pressIt's a tastefully managed, passionless melodrama, full of brooding looks and reasonably sweet moments, but typified by a scantly characterized central couple who bring no sense of engagement to their relationship.
The story itself is wildly unrealistic, but Water for Elephants tells it cohesively with fine performances accompanied with rough, heartbreaking scenes of raw emotion.
I didn't think I could imagine Robert Pattison without fangs and red glowing eyes, so thought that this movie would be terrible. I was happy to proved wrong, and thought he pulled off a great performance in this film. I hadn't read the book, so can't compare it to that. But enjoyed the film from start to finish and would definately recommend it.
Maybe it's because these type of movies are not my thing, but found it boring and predictable. Would not recommend.
I don't get the Robert Pattinson thing so nearly didn't go to this movie, but I'm glad I did. A good adaptation from the book, it wasn't how I pictured it as I read the book and that can be a good thing. I ended up enjoying Pattinson in the role and Reese played her character well too. A good mix of characters, casting worked well and the whole premise of...
1931 wasn't a good year. The depression hit America hard. Water for Elephants captures this grim reality but manages to maintain the romanticism of the train-travelling big-top circus era. Pattison handles the leading role with a great deal of competency, though never seeming to transcend that level. This stands out more in comparison to the excellent...
I agree it is kind of old school and much of the charm of the movie was in the costumes and setting representing the bygone era of 1931. As such it was entertaining and I wasn't bored (although at one point in the middle I was almost bored !). Robert was OK and Reese, let's face it, was just being Reese and neither of them were outstanding. However...
Thinks its a bit better than the bad review it gets by the movie credits... perhaps wait till it's on DVD?
Geez, Rebecca Barry. "It's not explained why Jacob can suddenly speak a strange language the elephant understands." REALLY? Because remember at the beginning of the film when Jacob is speaking POLISH to his POLISH parents who very soon after die in a car accident? And then remember how when he is frustrated with the elephant Jacob says something...
Share