Water for Elephants

Despite what the title might suggest “Water for Elephants” is ultimately filled with a dry plot and performances, but some sprinkles of moisture appear throughout the film.

Jacob Jankowski (Robert Pattinson) is about to graduate from Cornell to get his veterinary license when he is told that his parents have died in a car crash. The bank then takes his home and he is left with nothing.

Trying to figure out what to do next he hops on a train and finds himself with a circus and a job. He becomes the circus vet, then elephant trainer for a new act; all the while falling for Marlena (Reese Witherspoon), the star performer and wife of the circus leader, August (Christopher Waltz). August also happens to be the ultimate control freak, see the problem?

The story itself is predictable and as the plot continues on nothing comes as a surprise, which makes “Water for Elephants” boring at times. However, since it is the story of a circus, scenes of circus acts and performances brighten up the otherwise dull story and make it slightly more tolerable.

The supporting cast of circus characters also spices up the boring plot by giving the audience interesting characters to connect with. The supporting cast includes a man named Camel (Jim Norton) who always breaks prohibition laws by consuming alcohol and giving some to the elephant; along with a midget, Walter (Mark Povinelli) and his trained dog. These characters once again make the movie more interesting than it otherwise would be if the characters were no there.

Pattinson’s performance in “Water for Elephants” is not the greatest. He fails to give his character much emotion and his voice remains monotone like a… vampire throughout the whole movie. There are times where life seems to have entered his performance and therefore his character but then it dies again and all goes back to sullen.

Witherspoon is better since she gives her character more emotion, but still not enough to create a believable character. The character itself is confusing on whether or not she is a “good” girl or a “bad” girl and whether or not she’s always been a strong women under the control of a manic or if she has to find the strength to stand up to him. Perhaps Witherspoon portrays Marlena unconvincingly because the character isn’t convinced of who she is either.

Marlena isn’t the only one who has trouble convincing the audience, the “love” between Jacob and Marlena is displayed without conviction as well. Sure the characters tell each other “I love you,” however, it fails to convince the audience. Since the characters lack the emotional connection with each other, they lose the connection with the audience.

“Water for Elephants” does contain at least one solid performance and that from Waltz playing the villain. Waltz portrays August’s rage and controlling personality realistically from the way he sounds and acts it makes the audience believe. That also makes the audience absolutely despise him, which as bad as it sounds, is good.

Other positives from “Water for Elephants” include the cinematography (Rodrigo Prieto) which gives a breath-taking insight into the circus. From the train, to setting up the tents and the circus acts themselves the audience sweeps through beautifully. The music (James Newton Howard) fits the time period perfectly and also the setting giving a circus sound or a jazzy sound. It also fits the mood of the scene as well, the music is faster during intense moment and slower and softer during the quieter moments.

“Water for Elephants” is a movie that could’ve worked and it does try, but due to ineffective characters and the love they supposedly share, the movie falls apart. It did manage to get some things right, but not enough to completely redeem “Water for Elephants.”