Water for the Elephants

After the two fantasy flicks Constantine and I am Legend, director Francis Lawrence now tries his hand at a great romance with the novel adaptation Water for the Elephants, which may have a few weaknesses, but overall can please with beautiful images, good actors and a moving story.

America in the early 1930s, Jacob Jankowski (Robert Pattinson) is about to complete his studies in veterinary medicine and looks forward to a carefree future. But when his parents are killed in a car accident, Jacob is suddenly faced with nothing and in times of great depression, there is hardly any way to start over without financial means. And so, driven by his grief, the young man sets off for the big city, hoping to find some form of work here. On his arduous journey, he encounters the circus run by the charismatic yet choleric director August Rosenbluth (Christoph Waltz), who hires Jacob as a veterinarian. Jacob is quickly attracted to Rosenbluth's wife, the trick rider Marlena (Reese Witherspoon). When he is asked to take full charge of the circus' newest attraction, Rosie the elephant, and Marlena sees the dedication and care with which the young man approaches his task, the two become dangerously close. For August is an extremely jealous man who would walk over dead bodies for his financial success and for his wife...

In terms of structure, Water for the Elephants is somewhat reminiscent of James Cameron's Titanic: an old man tells of his great love, which is directly connected to a great catastrophe. Instead of Rose and Jack there are Jacob and Marlena, instead of a sinking ship there is a disaster in the circus ring, which of course shall not be revealed here yet. But Water for the Elephants can't really unfold the big emotions that Titanic could trigger in millions of viewers. The characters aren't given enough room to develop and the love between Jacob and Marlena isn't established in a way the viewer can understand. Whether this is due to the time director Lawrence spends on establishing the relationship or the chemistry between Robert Pattinson and Reese Witherspoon, which is nowhere near as sparkling as the one between Kate Winslet and Leonardo DiCaprio, remains to be seen. But the fact is that the film would have had enough potential to become one of the great cinema romances of the year, but unfortunately it just doesn't use this enough in the decisive moments to turn the whole thing from just beautiful to a moving love epic, from which the audience would have benefited as well as the handkerchief industry.

However, even if Water for the Elephants just hasn't become the great cinema romance, the whole thing is definitely worth seeing. Alone the wonderful pictures, which cinematographer Rodrigo Prieto (Brokeback Mountain) has captured, accompanied by the beautiful, pleasantly restrained music of James Newton Howard, provide for several very effective goose bumps moments. And the actors can also convince in most moments. Even if it's starting to seem a little unoriginal to cast Christoph Waltz as the charismatic villain, there's no denying that he does a damn fine job once again. And even if Reese Witherspoon remains a bit pale and Robert Pattinson doesn't quite fulfill the potential he showed in Remember me either, the two make quite a handsome couple. While their performance doesn't sweep anyone off their feet, it's good enough to not completely destroy the romantic flair of the story.

So on balance, Water for the Elephants is a beautiful film for the eye and the heart. A little disappointment does resonate, as it's all too clear that there could have been a lot more potential in the story, and also that the various aspects of the production could have resulted in something even greater. But in the end, the positives just outweigh the negatives, so viewers who appreciate great movie romances with a touch of the noblest kitsch will surely leave the cinema satisfied. Worth seeing

An article by Frankfurt-Tipp