Review of Water for Elephants (2011) by Ryan M — 02 Feb 2012

**1/2 out of ****.

In those few circus movies both new and old, one thing appears to remain constant; the presence of a train. In my experience, it's the great circus movies that leave out this aspect; while the good, the bad, and the mediocre sub-genre entries treat the inclusion of the railway as a sort of necessity. In the case of "Water for Elephants", the new film from director Richard LaGravenese, there is a train; and it acts not only as a method of transportation for its characters but also as an essential gateway. For the heroes and pseudo-villains of the story; the train controls what comes in and out rather than man.

The tale is told delicately through the eyes of a handsome young man named Jacob (Robert Pattinson); a bright lad who is about to finish college - studying as a veterinarian - when the sudden death of both his parents puts an end to his future dreams. Inheriting nothing thanks to some unwise financial moves by way of his father; Jacob must find a home. That's where the train comes in. He settles down somewhere in the woods when the train's illuminating lights catch his way. He successfully makes his way on from there; and meets some of the fellow train-riders.

When he wakes up the next morning, Jacob discovers that the train belongs to a traveling circus; in preparation for their next big show. It is headed by the head-strong August Rosenbluth (Christoph Waltz), who lives with his gorgeous wife - who, if I may add, also acts as one of his many performers - Marlena (Reese Witherspoon). In no time, Jacob is able to work his way up from the lows of shoveling animal feces to the highs of a respectable position as the circus's main veterinarian.

The main attraction of the most recent show is to be a large, stubborn elephant. Both Marlena and Jacob adore the animal (which the cynical August resents it); although the towering mammal is not present for the sake of appeal alone. The elephant represents a turning point in the story; as the animal itself gives Jacob and Marlene some time to bond (which leads to the development of a full-fledged love triangle) and August something - or someone - to unleash his primal rage onto without consequence.

It's predictable, it's routine, but it all goes down a little better than one might expect. With all due respect, this is a pretty well-made circus flick, with a lot of eye-opening production design and camerawork that properly re-creates the look and feel of the Great Depression Era setting. I just wish the story could have done the same. "Water for Elephants" is told with affection for its characters and respect for its time period; but the fatal flaw is the inclusion of the romantic sub-plots, which are soon to become more than just sub-plots, and herein lays one of the film's biggest problems.

While every last leading performance here is truly excellent; I don't know if one can call the on-screen chemistry that Pattinson and Witherspoon share "effective". "Passable" might be a better - and the best - word. There's a refreshing sweetness and simplicity to the love story at hand, but there's also an inexcusable emptiness to it all as well. I enjoyed most of "Water for Elephants" because it is indeed a very entertaining (and more than likely worthwhile) film; but the problems I have listed are ones that I simply could not get off my mind. It's clear that the filmmakers loved their era, not their characters; with only that of Christoph Waltz inspiring any kind of intrigue whatsoever. Waltz brings that sort of Hans Landa-esque unpredictability that he exercised in "Ingloruious Basterds", his break-out film and role, and lends the film some heart and intelligence, although he can't keep it from faltering just a bit too much than I'd like from time-to-time.

I have no problem with this movie. It's a fine piece of entertainment with some interesting historical touches - albeit less educational merit to go along with it than one might expect from a film of this caliber - and I think a family audience will appreciate it. And just so we can get one thing cleared up; I appreciate the movie enough as it is, I just can't say I particularly liked it. I'd strongly suggest it to those who are looking for easy-going entertainment rather than the deeper, more consistently engaging period romance that I was anticipating. No matter, that's just my opinion; and I have no trouble believing that many others will like "Water for Elephants" more than I did. It's far from a bad - or boring, or dull - movie; but it barely surpasses the quality of a mere "flick". As both a romance movie and just a movie-movie all together, it's rather forgettable; but not regrettable.