Water for Elephants

Did I like it all that much?  Not exactly, but not for the reasons you think.

Water for Elephants is about a man named Jacob (played by Robert Pattinson), living in the 1930s during the great depression, where in the midst of bad times, he chooses to join the circus.  He meets the main attraction (played by Reese Witherspoon) who is married to August (played by Christopher Waltz)- an unpredictable, unsympathetic, and dangerous man who happens to be in charge.  Jacob, finding himself in conflict with the way the place is being run, how he feels about Reese's character, and how the animals are being treated, decides to take matters into his own hands.  

Let me just say- there is a lot about this film that stands out.  It has its good qualities and its bad qualities.  For one, it seemed deeply concerned with lighting and the power of casting shadows.  It reminded me what power lighting truly has on the appearance of a character, of a story, of an environment in a scene.  The silhouette's were something to note and the way a face could change from sensitive to rugged with just a slant of the light was impressive.  But, they were overcompensating.  For what, you might ask?  I have to say, Robert Pattinson's weaknesses as being the male lead.   

Now don't get me wrong, he wasn't all that bad.  At times he even seemed good.  But one major problem that he makes obvious time and time again- he's not comfortable.  He's not comfortable in the skin of the character he's playing.  I know this because his posture, his facial expressions, his muscles are never relaxed.  He always seems tense for attack.  But he tries so hard, you can tell.  And for that you have to give him props.  But jeeze Pattinson, flex your face muscles every now and then and stop pouting!

Okay, so let's move on from the male lead for a moment.  Reese Witherspoon.  I love her, but this film either didn't give her enough to work with or she was just not into it.  I didn't feel it from her.  She was not as strong as I know she's capable of.  I was a little disappointed.

Christopher Waltz was amazing as usual.  For all of you who don't know where he is from, he was in Inglorious Bastards and he was fabulous in that as well.  That is acting!  No one could keep up with him.  When you want to play a good versus evil dynamic and the good is supposed to win, well, you have to make the good stronger than the evil.  That just did not happen in this film.  Waltz was so far beyond the others, he made them look weak and slightly pathetic in comparison.  He put talent into perspective.

So all in all, wonderful cinematography and lighting, extremely weak screenplay, good and bad acting as well as 2 hours that felt like 3.  So what am I supposed to mark this film as?

I give this film 5.5/10 for trying so hard, but just not making memorable.