[Disclaimer: Kate Spencer is not a professional movie critic. She is a comedian and blogger whose favorite movie is Sixteen Candles and who cries every time she watches 10 Things I Hate About You. Now that that's out of the way...]
Let’s just start with this, because we know it’s what most of you are wondering: Yes, Robert Pattinson is good in this movie. The actor hasn’t had many opportunities to show off what he can do on the big screen, as he’s basically been limited to playing a needy vampire for the past three years. Sure, there was Remember Me, but that was an over-dramatic mess that is best left off of Rob’s resume. Finally, in Water for Elephants, we see a different side of what Rob can do; his portrayal of the young Jacob Jankowski is sensitive, emotional and tender. He is most at ease in the scenes with Rosie the elephant, and their chemistry is the best of the film. Rob’s biggest hurdle as an actor may just be that the camera LOVES him. Like, “I wanna make love in this club,” loves him. His face was made to be plastered on a gigantic screen (well done, Dick and Clare), which can be both a blessing and a curse for actors. This could be why the poor guy seems to be held to an almost impossible standard by many critics. And while his work in WFE is certainly not Oscar-caliber, it does prove that Rob deserves to be taken seriously as an actor and not just as Edward Cullen – a skin he should be allowed to shed.
Sara Gruen‘s novel Water for Elephants is love story about the circus, and director Francis Lawrence captures Jacob’s awe and affection for the big top with shot after beautiful shot. It’s colorful, alive, pulsating and utterly addictive. But the story itself never quite catches up. Hal Holbrook is underused as the sentimental, elder Jacob, and the connections and relationships between the characters are hurried along for the sake of time, which does a disservice to this magical story. We barely get to know Walter and Camel – two major players in Gruen’s novel – and thus it hardly registers when August (masterfully portrayed by Christoph Waltz) has them tossed off the train. Similarly the chemistry between Jacob and Marlena never quite gets off the ground; and scenes in the book that gave the stories and characters depth – like that night Jacob gets hammered and is deflowered by the circus coochies – are glossed over quickly, like footnotes.
At the end of the film we felt like a kid who was offered the world’s most delicious ice cream sundae but was only allowed to eat half of it. We wanted more, please! The movie clocks in at just under two hours, but we’d be more than willing to sit around for another fifteen minutes to watch Lawrence dig deeper into Gruen’s tale (and give us more shots of Rob’s angular angel face). The cast is insanely talented but they’re not given enough time to really show what they can do, and so the story that exploded on the page comes across as a bit tepid on film. But even with these shortcomings, Water for Elephants is definitely worth watching. Hollywood is short on old-fashioned, romantic period pieces – everything these days is either dude humor or snoozy remakes – and we loved getting swept up in the intrigue, lust and and danger of the Benzini Brothers Circus. We just wish we’d been allowed to stay a bit longer.
Wanna predict how many millions Water for Elephants will bring in at the box office this weekend? Place your bet over at Best Week Ever!
[Photo: Fox]
