Water for Elephants

Some thoughts about Water for Elephants:

– Wow, Robert Pattinson CAN smile!

– This movie looks great. It’s no wonder, considering cinematographer Rodrigo Prieto’s (Brokeback Mountain, Babel, Frida) and art director David Crank’s (There Will Be Blood) credits.

– Christoph Waltz has an uncanny ability to dominate the screen. But he really needs to talk to his agent—“Seriously, can I play a nice guy…just ONCE?”

– Loved the setting—circus life in the ‘30s may not have been glamorous or romantic, but it sure makes for great drama.

– I loved Reese Witherspoon in Election and Legally Blonde. She really needs to stick to what she’s good at. And it’s not this.

– They say never act with children or animals. You can see why. The animals steal the show, especially Rosie the elephant, who is so charming she makes you forget Robert Pattinson is on the screen—and that’s saying something.

– It’s great seeing Hal Holbrook knock it out of the park again in a small but effective part. At 86, he still makes it look so easy.

– This movie is billed as a love story, but there is very little romance. Pattinson has more chemistry with the elephant than with Witherspoon—and this is a guy who’s been able to make it work onscreen with Kristen Stewart, the most lifeless actress in Hollywood.

– Loved the colorful supporting characters and wish we had spent more time with them.

– Still, though, despite the screenplay’s lack of potency and a trio of uninteresting characters, there is enough here to make for a decent cinematic diversion, from the animals to the backstage-at-the-circus setting to the high quality production elements. And Robert Pattinson isn’t bad to look at either.