
Having very low expectations is often a movie's best friend. Certainly I expected very little from Water for Elephants and instead merely saw it because it was the one starting closest to when it was convenient for me to go. I was actually surprised to find that while I didn't love it, I didn't hate it either. In fact, with just a few minor alterations, it could have been really good.
Robert Pattinson, while getting second billed to Reese Witherspoon, stars as Jacob, a veterinary student at Cornell University in 1931. Just before he is due to graduate, his parents are both killed in a car accident, which is when he learns they were in huge debts because they'd mortgaged the family home to pay for his education. Distraught, he takes to the road, and winds up working at a circus, first as a general laborer, but eventually as the resident Vet, even though he never passed his final exam.
At first Jacob butts heads with the domineering circus owner, August (Waltz), who runs the troupe with an iron hand. His method of dealing with problem workers is to throw them off the train while it's moving at high speed. Eventually though the two form a rough rapport, despite Jacob's misgivings about August's behavior.
The real draw that keeps Jacob with the circus is August's wife played by Witherspoon. They fall in love and Jacob spends most of the film mooning after her with longing looks and almost kisses. Their love is movie love where apart from finding each other physically attractive, we're never really given a good reason as to why they're in love.
Although the story builds very, very slowly to a climax that is foreshadowed in an opening prologue that features Hal Holbrook as an aged Jacob, it takes way too long to reach that finale and after all the buildup, seems like a bit of a letdown. The length is definitely one of the movie's problems. It's based on a bestselling book and I have the feeling they wanted to include as much as possible from it into the script so that fans of the novel wouldn't be disappointed, but it could have definitely benefited from a tighter edit. The middle third of the movie feels repetitive and drags quite badly.
As a fan of Witherspoon, but not normally of Pattinson, I would have guessed before the film that I would have liked her better, but while he actually does a great job, Reese seems miscast. She comes across too much like a lady or the girl next door, when clearly the part calls for someone a little lower class. To put it another way, she plays the part like Grace Kelly, when she should have been played like Jean Harlow. Through Jacob's eyes she might seem like an angel, but her back story shows that she's far from it.
Once again Waltz proves that he has a real flair for playing villains with his turn here. Granted it's a bit of a cartoony villain, painted in broad strokes of black and white. He doesn't quite twirl his mustache, but comes pretty close. Still, he definitely gives one of those performances where he is quite fun to hate. His hammier acting actually works well for the tone of the story and Witherspoon would have done well to emulate it.
With a different female lead (or at least a bigger performance from Witherspoon) and a much, much tighter editing job, Water for Elephants could really have been great. As it is, I found it actually not so horrible and worth watching, if not in theater, at least when it becomes available for home viewing.


















