Skip to main content

Movie Review -Water For Elephants

Yes, I did see it. I wasn't planning to, but when it came down to it, it was either this or some kiddie movies. Plus, I figured, I read the book, so I might as well watch the movie. It actually turned out to be a good pick because, and I did not know this, my dad has something against animated movies.

So, back to the movie. I think we all know that it didn't get the greatest reviews. When it comes to critics, and even audience reviews, I take them into consideration, but I rely on my own opinion. After all, just because Roger Ebert says it's good, that doesn't make it good, and just because that dude over there didn't like it, doesn't mean it's bad.

So what is it to me?

Let's start with the book. If you haven't read the book, you'll probably like this more than someone who has, like me. Because if you've read the book, you'll see all the places that they got it wrong. This movie could have been a lot better for more than one reason. For one, Uncle Al should have been in it. They could have stayed more faithful to the book in other ways. There were some plot points that they arrived at by different means than they originally did. And while they were doing that, they lost the spirit of the book. I realize that this is a two-hour film, and you can't have everything in it. Changes must be made to accommodate a film adaptation. But it would have been much better if they hadn't cut so many corners and altered events.

That isn't the only issue. Let's talk about the cast.

I was surprised by Reese Witherspoon. In a good way. I like her a lot as an actress, but I thought she was miscast as Marlena. And, in a sense, she is. Marlena is supposed to be twenty-one with light brown hair, and instead we got Reese Witherspoon, thirty-five years old with a platinum blonde wig stuck on her head. While I still think they could have hired a younger actress for the part, I was actually happy with Reese. I felt she filled the role well.

Christoph Waltz was, of course, the best out of everyone. Isn't it terrible when the villain is your favorite character? I mean I wasn't rooting for him, but he's the one you watch, the one who has you glued, the one who makes you want to marry a short dude as long as he has enough personality.

Um...right. It's not a crush, I swear.

On to Robert Pattinson. Unfortunately, he didn't impress me. In fact, he was the weak link. I know, I know, you hate me for saying it. But I can't lie and say I thought he did a good job when I don't. He spent a good part of the film either smiling like a dumbass or staring like a dumbass. When he's not doing that, he's still not showing much in the way of acting chops. There's also something about his American accent that I find wrong. Having said all this, if you're a big Robert Pattinson fan and think he's the shit and can do no wrong, then you'll love him in this.

There's also the lack of chemistry between him and Reese. It's not either of their faults, it just is. That doesn't mean they're a complete disaster as an onscreen couple, but they're not burning up the room with their sizzling sexual chemistry, either. The thing is, I thought the critics might be wrong about the whole chemistry thing. They weren't. Too bad.

Hal Holbrook plays old Jacob, and he's barely in it. They should have at least made him the lead narrator instead of Robert Pattinson, who really is not compelling as a voice.

I don't mean to make this sound like a terrible movie, because it's not. Certain scenes, like the ending with the disaster, were quite good. The scenery and the animals are beautiful. Some of the shots, especially when Marlena is doing her bit, gave me a glimpse of what this could have been. It's a nice setting, a nice story, and at times it's moving and effective.

As a whole, Water For Elephants is an okay movie, but not great. I would have loved to see it reach its full potential. As it is, the book is better.

My grade: C+


Popular posts from this blog

Movie Review: The Secret Life of Arrietty


As someone who grew up watching "The Borrowers", that lovely British gem from the early 90s starring Ian Holm and Penelope Wilton, I had to see this anime take on the children's novels by Mary Norton.

And boy was I disappointed!

I'm surprised that I'm even admitting this. This is a movie I genuinely believed would be above average for me. Perhaps is has to do with the ratings it has received, and I think anime generally gets praise. It's a thing. But more importantly, (and do take note of this before criticizing me for criticizing this) since I did grow up with that other lovely series, I've been spoiled, and nothing can outdo it. My standards were raised a long time ago.

So allow me to rundown the reasons why I am so disappointed with this adaptation:

(1) The Japanese stamp is certainly visible. While I wouldn't normally view that as a flaw, "The Borrowers" is a purely British tale. The characters, the setting, everything. The s…

Movie Review: Rosemary's Baby

It took me a long time to get to this, but I finally watched it. This isn't the first movie I've seen featuring satanists and creepy conspiring old people. I gotta say, I liked it, although this isn't one that I'll watch often, or maybe ever again. It also ran a little long at over two hours.

The painful part about watching this was how obvious the characters are in their intentions. In fact it could be downright infuriating. As a viewer, I know that the neighbors are rather evil and that they put a great deal of time and effort into controlling Rosemary. It's also a glaring fact that there is a big plot that has yet to be revealed, but according to the movie description I was supposed to "wonder" if it was real or just in Rosemary's imagination. Hmm.

I also know that I could just murder her husband, who is obviously a part of the plot (what a great guy!). And Rosemary comes off as both naive and aware, letting them tell her what to do, which doctor …

Inspector Lewis: Wild Justice

You know, I was excited last night. Why? Because, after weeks of no Inspector Lewis, they were finally airing two new episodes back to back! Yay! PBS has been a bit backed up, what with all of their pledge programming and favorites. There are four new episodes in total, and two, I believe, were supposed to air in September. Only one did. Naturally, I was looking forward to the 9-midnight Lewis-athon.

And you know what ticked me off? They didn't play two new episodes back to back. They repeated the first one and then played a new one. So I had to wait until 10:30 to get my fix. Because of course everyone wants to re-watch the first one, right? Wrong! Mamma not happy!

But we did get one new episode, so I'll be content with that. They should be playing the other two next week, since a new series is supposed to start soon.

This one is called "Wild Justice". Lewis and Hathaway are investigating the death of a female Bishop. She flew across the pond from the USA for a ga…