Skip to main content

Water for Elephants Review

water-for-elephants-reviewWho can resist a nice elderly gentleman reminiscing about the good old days? Some of the sappiest, most memorable films are kick started by an old person with a story. The Notebook, Titanic, Atonement, The Green Mile, The Shawshank Redemption… love them or hate them, there’s something fascinating about the good old days. In Water for Elephants, that old man is Jacob, played by the Hal Holbrook. We meet 90-year-old Jacob in the rain outside of a circus. He looks lost until he sees an old picture of a beautiful woman on an elephant. As tears begin to well up in his eyes, we know we’re in for a good story.

Simple premise, complex characters

Jacob’s tale goes all the way back to the Great Depression. On the eve of his graduation from Cornell, tragedy strikes, causing him to leave town. Jacob’s young self is played by Twilight heartthrob Robert Pattinson, who tries his damnedest to smile a little and not look like a vampire. As luck may have it, he ends up hopping a train owned by the Benzini Brothers circus.  Back in the 1930s, we learn, circuses would travel all across the country. They’d set up in a field, try to attract a crowd, then move along, hopefully with enough cash to pay all of the animal trainers and bearded ladies they employ. When times got tough, larger circuses began absorbing the stray lions and clowns from the shows that didn’t make the cut and had to shut down.

August Rosenbluth (Christoph Waltz) runs the Benzini Brothers circus, and to him it is a moving sovereign nation of its own. On his train, he makes the rules and breaks the rules. He’s also married to that girl, Marlena, who we saw in the elephant picture. So, from the get go we have a good idea where the plot is heading: Jacob will fall in love with the girl and she’ll fall in love with him, but they’ll both have to deal with the crazy husband and circus owner. Broadly speaking, Water for Elephants fulfills this premise. However, it does so with more heart and character than you’d expect.

water-for-elephants-christoph-waltz-august
Image used with permission by copyright holder

The goal for a movie like this is to make the love brewing between Jacob and Marlena seem legitimate and not forced. We need to feel their connection. Pattinson and Witherspoon have good enough chemistry, though we never quite get inside their heads. Still, their love is almost encouraged by August, who is more than a little self destructive. Why does August continually invite Jacob over to his train cart alone? He’s kind of a third wheel. Does August see the stolen glances between his wife and this new gentleman? At times we think he does, but there is always doubt. Like his character in Inglourious Basterds, it is very difficult to read the true intentions of Christoph Waltz. At times, his actions seem heartfelt, but he is also capable of immense cruelty. The pressure of running a circus is not good for August’s temper.

Water for Elephants has a  predictable plot, but Director Francis Lawrence refuses to paint the characters in two dimensions. August included, all three major characters do good things and bad things throughout the film. Jacob may be a good guy, but he also takes it upon himself to get involved in business (and a woman) that isn’t his. And while Jacob may not like it that animals are prodded, August is not the first circus owner to poke an animal to get it to behave. Get over it, buddy. Then there’s Marlena. What is her deal, anyway? Should she really be flirting with a young man 10 years her junior? She’s married, after all. Ah well…

Conclusion

Water for Elephants does not redefine cinema, but it does use its genre to good effect. All of the elements of a great film are here, and if you’ve never seen a romantic drama like this, you’re in for a treat. And thankfully, for the majority of us who have seen Titanic, and some of the thousands of other love dramas floating through the movie archives, Water for Elephants is filled with strong performances and moral depth that you don’t often see. It is a good genre film that prods a little deeper than it has to, given its audience. For that, it deserves some recognition. Oh, and don’t forget about the giant elephant, midgets, and generally funny looking folk. Even if you end up disliking the movie, it’s damn hard to hate the circus.

Image used with permission by copyright holder

Editors' Recommendations

Jeffrey Van Camp
Former Digital Trends Contributor
As DT's Deputy Editor, Jeff helps oversee editorial operations at Digital Trends. Previously, he ran the site's…
Operation Seawolf review: nice Nazis? No thanks!
Dolph Lundgren holds onto a pipe inside a U-Boat in a scene from Operation Seawolf.

At a time when anti-Semitic extremists are storming the U.S Capitol, running for office, and declaring war on Jewish people via social media, it might not be the best time for a movie that expects you to sympathize with Nazis. And yet, that hasn't stopped Operation Seawolf from sailing into theaters and on-demand streaming services this month.

The film, which follows the crew of a German U-boat during the waning days of World War II, casts Dolph Lundgren (Rocky IV) as German war hero Capt. Hans Kessler, who's ordered to lead the Nazis' remaining U-boats on a desperate (and likely fatal) mission to attack the U.S. on its own soil. As he and his crew make their way toward New York City in one final bid to turn the tide of war, Kessler finds himself struggling with both the internal politics of the ship and his own sense of duty as the Third Reich crumbles around him.

Read more
Conversations with A Killer: The Jeffrey Dahmer Tapes review: killer’s words yield little insight
A superimposed image of Jeffrey Dahmer in Conversations with a Killer.

It’s spooky season this month, and that means the atrocity mine is currently being plundered by content creators across America. The three-episode docuseries Conversations with a Killer: The Jeffrey Dahmer Tapes, directed by noted documentarian Joe Berlinger (Brother's Keeper, Paradise Lost), is Netflix’s second project tackling the infamous cannibal/necrophiliac/serial killer to debut in a matter of weeks. It follows Ryan Murphy’s 10-hour miniseries drama, Dahmer-Monster: The Jeffrey Dahmer Story. This Dahmer double dose mirrors the barrage of Ted Bundy content that Netflix put out in early 2019, following up the Zac Efron-led drama Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil and Vile with the docuseries Conversations with a Killer: The Ted Bundy Tapes (also directed by Berlinger). 

As was the case with Bundy, Netflix is convinced that a multipronged examination of Dahmer could lead to a better understanding of his psychology and motivations, teaching viewers warning signs or expanding our capacity for empathy. Or maybe they recognize that people are addicted to unspeakable tragedies and will do anything they can to maximize viewers’ compulsion for true crime? Attempting to satisfy on all accounts, The Dahmer Tapes oscillates uneasily between character study, social commentary, and pure shock value, landing somewhere in between all three.
In Dahmer's own words

Read more
Amsterdam review: An exhausting, overlong conspiracy thriller
Christian Bale, Margot Robbie, and John David Washington walk through a lobby together in Amsterdam.

Amsterdam could have been forgiven for being a lot of things, but dull is not one of them. The new film from writer-director David O. Russell boasts one of the most impressive ensemble casts of the year and is photographed by Emmanuel Lubezki, one of Hollywood’s premier cinematographers. Beyond that, its kooky premise and even wackier cast of characters open the door for Amsterdam to be the kind of screwball murder mystery that O. Russell, at the very least, seems uniquely well-equipped to make.

Instead, Amsterdam is a disaster of the highest order. It’s a film made up of so many disparate, incongruent parts that it becomes clear very early on in its 134-minute runtime that no one involved — O. Russell most of all — really knew what it is they were making. It is a misfire of epic proportions, a comedic conspiracy thriller that is written like a haphazard screwball comedy but paced like a meandering detective drama. Every element seems to be at odds with another, resulting in a film that is rarely funny but consistently irritating.

Read more