So, this one is the best I could do for now, on such short notice. Maybe somewhere down the line, I'll review one of my fave movies of hers, Election, or perhaps even Cruel Intentions. Until then, this was the best I could do- sorry Reese! This review was originally published in UAB's Kaleidoscope on April 23rd, 2011.
When an actor makes it big as part of a massive franchise, there comes a time in which the series either ends or goes on temporary hiatus and the actor must prove their mettle. Can they do other types of roles besides the one that made them famous? Or will they forever be associated with the franchise?
The Star Wars movies are a good example. For every Harrison Ford or Natalie Portman, there’s a Mark Hamill or Carrie Fisher that never quite made good on the promises of their early work. Yes, Hamill found steady work as a voice-over artist and Fisher as a novelist, but you get my meaning.
The latest to tackle the daunting task of reinventing himself is Robert Pattinson, best known as vampire Edward in the ongoing Twilight franchise. Granted, Pattinson has taken a stab at other roles in small indie films like Remember Me and How to Be, but his latest, Water for Elephants is far and away his most high profile role outside of the Twilight series. It’s based on a much beloved novel by Sara Gruen and co-stars several Oscar winners, including Reese Witherspoon (Walk the Line) and Christoph Waltz (Inglourious Basterds).
But will audiences buy the broody Brit in another role? While his indie efforts were dead on arrival in theaters, Elephants should fare much better at the box office, if only on the strength of the novel’s fervent following. A bigger plus for Pattinson is that Elephants should appeal to a far wider audience than the tween-happy Twilight franchise, even if the subject matter isn’t the stuff that screams box office blockbuster.
Pattinson plays Jacob, a veterinary student at Cornell that leaves school on the cusp of graduation after both of his parents are killed in a car wreck at the beginning of the film. Jacob hops a ride on a random train and ends up changing his life forever in the process when he discovers he’s hopped aboard a traveling circus.
After the usual hazing process, Jacob carves out a niche for himself as an ad-hoc vet to the circus animals. (Animal lovers should know going in that there is some pretty hardcore animal abuse happening here, particularly in regards to the titular trunk-bearer.)
However, this is no Barnum and Bailey type circus. Rather, it’s a sub-par effort ruled with an iron fist by a harsh, penny-pinching ringmaster named August (Waltz) who is in massive debt and often goes for weeks without paying his workers, sometimes even going so far as to ditch them between gigs.
He’s married to the sweet-natured Marlena (Witherspoon), who starts out as a horse mistress before switching over to an act involving the aforementioned elephant. Naturally, Jacob falls for the lovely Marlena and it’s only a matter of time before trouble ensues with her violent-tempered hubby.
Pattinson is solid if unspectacular in his first big post-Twilight leading man role, but the character is relatively low-key, perhaps too low key for some. Of course, he can’t help but be overshadowed by the tremendously talented Waltz, who is essentially doing a larger scale version of his Basterds character- which is to say, someone who can go from charming to menacing in the blink of an eye. It’s a great, scenery-chewing role, and Waltz tears into it with relish, making the film worth seeing for his performance alone.
Witherspoon, however, barely registers as the eye candy of the piece and not much else. With her Jean Harlow hair-do, skimpy acrobat costumes and sexy evening wear, Witherspoon is more of an archetype than a fully fleshed-out character.
She’s a good actress in the right role, but this one is sorely underwritten, making it hard to see why Jacob would risk everything for her, least of all during the Great Depression era the film is set in, when a steady job was hard to come by.
This fatal flaw may not be enough to sink the film entirely, as the circus and its denizens make it worth your while in terms of holding one’s interest, but it makes it hard to root for Jacob, when the subject of his lust is more of an idea than an actual human being.
Water for Elephants, much like Witherspoon’s character, is all surface and gloss, with little underneath to truly recommend it, as befits a film directed by a former music video director- Francis Lawrence, who also did the so-so I Am Legend adaptation.
It’s watchable, to be sure, but it’s like leaves on the wind: gone before you know it, with little memory of what even transpired. Having not read the book upon which it was based, I cannot comment on its faithfulness to the source material, but as a movie, Water for Elephants is nothing you haven’t seen before, and done way better at that.
Stay home and rent Something Wicked This Way Comes, instead. Now there’s a circus-themed movie that gets the job done. Water for Elephants isn’t bad, it’s just like the poor animals in August’s circus: undernourished.
No comments:
Post a Comment