Water for Elephants

Read the summary of this. Hold on, captivating? Someone's got a faulty dictionary. The sloppiest big budget production of 2011 so far, narratively all over the place, nothing feels as connected as it should, there are at most three characters and they're not very interesting, there's an elephant that understands Polish for some reason and it really gives you no reason to care at all. Almost memorable for how utterly forgettable it is. Ok acting, good set pieces, but it's skin deep if even that.

Two good things: Christoph Walz and a Polish-speaking elephant

Very common script, Christoph Waltz is still playing the Nazi and the even worse thing is matching Reese with this baby facing, Twilight acting rookie. She played lost of good movies and her career is beyond him. Only remarkable thing is of course elephant. Maybe it's better having a circus ticket rather than this movie...

Good set design and vibrant colors are about all this has going for it. Waltz out-acts the other two leads by a long shot, but he goes so over the top he becomes cartoonish. Tarantino performances only work in Tarantino films. The Twilight dude reminds me of an awkward highschooler in his first play. There is little passion or chemistry in a film that should have loads of both.

A throwback romance film in the mold of The Notebook or the first half of Titanic --I'd like to see a more daring director just go all-out and film it in black-and-white. The story is pretty standard stuff and the most interesting character is the cruel ringmaster played superbly by Christoph Waltz, who would twirl his mustache if he had one. Unfortunately, he's the only one who brings some inspiration to the film.

I was a little disappointed. But I do know a lot of people that absolutely love it so

a man is interrupted before he can even take his test to be told his parents are dead and his family's assets seized by the bank, so he clamors onto a train circus and takes over with his vet knowledge...homie then swoops in to save the main circus bro's wife. Jacob jankowski must be stopped, too much of a savior complex. I love me some rob, and Reese was dope and so was Chris but oof, kind of annoying

I dont need to watch this

Entertaining but fairly conventional storytelling and a mismatch between leads creates a lack of impact.

was dragged to see this in theaters in 2011. bit of a chick flick

It's a sappy romance film. It's hard to hate on the cast, though, who did an admirable job of making me give two entire shits. There are worse things you could be forced to watch if your wife is in this sort of mood.

It's nice to see a movie intended for children (surely this can't be intended for adults?) that doesn't pander to them. Although the sex scene suggests I may have misread the intended audience...

Christoph Waltz. So. Amazing.

It's a delight to see a teen-geared movie comprised of real people and lifelike sets. The production designer has fashioned a convincing one-ring circus, and even the train itself has a persona. What becomes most intriguing about the story is another mammoth spectacle with a much more sympathetic persona, the 53-year-old elephant Rosie. Rosie goes through a kind of hell in order to become a heroic figure in the story, which makes it worthwhile in spite of its trite trappings.

You know something is wrong when you feel more connected to the side cast and assorted animals than you do the main leads.

The summary uses 'captivating', which isn't quite the right word to my mind, but it certainly passes the time in an enjoyable way. Very well-paced.

It's a tale tastefully told and beautifully filmed, but Water for Elephants suffers from a pronounced lack of chemistry between its leads.

http://gorgview.com/water-for-elephants

Too cheesy, and the flashback story-telling method is just unnecessary here. Why have an old man telling a story, when you could have the film set in the 1930s and be a period piece? Anyway the casting is disappointing, as Pattinson and Witherspoon never develop any kind of believable chemistry. Christoph Waltz is excellent as usual, but can't quite carry the film. Very cheesy script, and a rather average romance/drama.

Yes, this is the kind of movie you could imagine seeing with your grandmother at a suburban mall, but does everything have to be edgy and dark and genre-reinventing?

Exquisitely produced and designed romantic period piece feels like an affectionate call-back to the DeMille spectacles of the 40s and 50s. Has a pleasingly organic, 'realistic' feel which is beautifully complemented by all the performances, especially Pattinson and Waltz (taking on a difficult and multi-faceted character). Witherspoon is fine, but isn't given much to chew on; the luscious cinematography almost becomes a character in of itself.

Chronicles the life of a young man who studied veterinary science but ends up working for a circus. He gets his start working for a pernicious circus boss, and his beautiful and irresistible wife. Charged with handling the newly acquired elephant, he must also contend with his bosses cruel mistreatment of the animal. Despite success, they must escape when his murderous attentions become focused upon them. Excellent performances and an engaging story. Decent music also.

Surprised by how much I enjoyed this. Great performances all round, hilarious and entertaining although sentimental in parts.

disappointing book and disappointing movie.

Robert Pattson sure got his ass whipped a lot near the end.

70.000

It is an ok movie, but a very well done one.

Not a very surprising or particularly engaging film but it was worth watching.

Rosie (the elephant) not only saved the circus from an early grave, but also this movie from being a very dull b grade movie. There was enough here to captivate, but not amaze. I'd like to nominate this movie for "could have been a classic", it had the right stuff, but the acting and the editing just did not convert. Disappointing.

beautiful story, great art direction, Christoph Waltz is superb, even Robert Pattinson is bearable however lack of chemistry and cliche storyline keep the movie from becoming good... and now we know who should get the Best Elephant in a Supporting Role award: Rosie, the Polish speaking elephant:)

Rather uninspired screenplay, elevated by the cast and some lively set pieces.

Who would have thought that I would actually liked a film with Robert Pattison in it. But nothing we haven't seen before. However, the setting of a travelling circus was entertaining enough for me.

It had heart.

A standart drama. Pattison is not a bad actor but he never achieves something admirable which will I remember him with. Waltz is more than a good baddie but I cared more about the animals than the people.

Instead of "Titanic" we get "The Circus," with all of the elements remaining the same. Despite a slew of talented actors (yes, Pattinson is included), this gorgeous-looking film gains little traction with the flimsy relationship that goes underdeveloped between Witherspoon and Pattinson. Where's the overwhelming chemistry? I didn't see it. And as for an elephant staking a man through the head... hmmm... And that's all I have to say about that.

"Beauty comes in all shapes and sizes, and Water for Elephants finds immense pleasure in juxtaposing extreme dimensionality with budding emotion." - Glenn Heath Jr.

Great art direction vividly evokes a slightly threadbare '30's circus and the direction in the first half effectively establishes the story and characters, but the casting is uneven (Waltz and Witherspoon all sharp angles and intelligence and Pattinson a big round-eyed melancholy pudding) and the last third of the film seems slightly incoherent and somewhat rushed. I gotta admit, though . . . the elephant is very cool!

Not badly done, but everything is so cliche that simply does not hold the attention as it should.

Yes Waltz was good again... but then again it was almost the same type of act as IB... Edward and the Chin had no chemistry what so ever...

Fails to work on almost every level possible. Ridiculous script. Pattinson is quite awful. You can't help feeling sorry for Witherspoon.

Opowiesc o polskim słoniu. Boring.

A silly fairy tale with no relationship with reality.

Great performances and a huge story I loved. Too cheesy perhaps, but certainly not enough to annoy me.

I really liked Christoph Waltz in this. He's as charismatic as always. Simple story but worth to watch. I also liked thr 30's flair which always reminds me a bit on the hbo production "carnivale". Good movie

A sure chick flick; there's nothing new you haven't seen before in this genre films. A black and white and safe story. It was so funny how they portrait so small and skeleton girl with such a big and graceful animal.

It's a tale tastefully told and beautifully filmed, but Water for Elephants suffers from a pronounced lack of chemistry between its leads.

The acting on R. Pattinson's side deserves maybe "20", Reese Witherspoon a solid "50", Christoph Waltz "80", but the interaction between all of the actors is very poor, meaning that the movie suffers greatly from this. I, however, found that the story and the pictures were so overwhelmingly beautiful that this issue was not of such great importance for me. Logically, I should give this movie something between 50-55, but because it touched me and is simply beautiful, I think it deserves a 75.

Not too bad really. Waltz shines as a bad guy (shocker) and Witherspoon is pretty good. The elephant shines and does some pretty amazing looking stunts. Some people seem to think there are a lot of shallow characters in this movie. I didn't really think that was so, but I've also read the book so I know the character's stories already. My mom really enjoyed it.

A nice film with a nice enough story. Poor casting with Pattinson (clearly cast to attract little teenage girls) and Reese Witherspoon. neither are suited for a timeless drama and there was 0 chemistry between them. The ending was lackluster and all to familiar and sappy. Christoph Waltz was the best thing about the film playing the ringmaster, pity he never had a twisty mustache though :(

Paul Schneider has left Parks&Recreation for stuff like this?!

A must see if you've never seen a movie about a love triangle before. I liked the animals and the cool picture post card night scenes of the train. I'm sorry, Pattinson may have been pretty good but I couldn't dissociate him from Twilight--maybe that's why he just irks me. Q: Why didn't he just go back right away and take the stupid last test? Ans: He never would have joined the circus and had all that fun. If you thought there'd be chemistry, well, there's a sucker born every minute.

wonderful movie 10 out of 10

My biggest problem with the film was the lack of chemistry between Robert Pattinson and Reese Witherspoon. I think Robert Pattinson gave a better effort than Reese and the lack of chemistry fell mostly on her part. This was a real treat though, I thought it was overall really good acting and a charming little story with some stunning cinematography. It's such a relief to see a REAL set and with minimal computer help. Most people have been critical of the script, but I rather enjoyed it.