In Water for Elephants, Jacob Jankowski (Pattinson) is a 22-year-old veterinary school student at Cornell whose world is turned upside down when his Polish immigrant parents die in a car crash just before his final exams. With no options left, he joins a traveling circus and is given a job as its veterinarian.
The film is framed very much like Titanic. It begins with an elderly Jankowski stumbling upon a circus, seeing an old photograph, and then reminiscing about his time spent with the Benzini Brothers Circus in 1931.
The love story involves a dead broke young man and a beautiful young woman succumbing to fate and falling in love. The beautiful young woman has a brutal and abusive sociopath husband who is not thrilled with their budding romance.
Aside from its issues with originality, the film did have a lot of strengths. The cast was excellent. Witherspoon plays Marlena, the circus star, and perfectly captures “the starlet” persona from that time, from her bleach blond hair to her glittering leotards. Witherspoon really brings her Oscar “chops” to the screen in this film.
Pattinson finally seems to be outgrowing his Edward Cullen role. After last year’s rather disappointing Remember Me, Pattinson might have finally found a role that will break him out of his typecast.
Despite these excellent performances, side man Christoph Waltz, who plays August the twisted animal trainer and husband of Marlena, steals the show. Waltz, who was brilliant in Inglourious Basterds, continues to dominate his American roles.
The flaw of Water for Elephants, and what keeps it from being a truly great film, is not, however, its lack of originality, but its plot devices. While Titanic is held in such high regard for its character development, historical elements and epic storyline, Elephants seems to back out of its corners with convenient “luck.”
Instead of having Jankowski overcome his obstacles with talent or bravery, he is granted a character trait that helps him escape: when Jankowski struggles to train an elephant, the film’s titular symbol and the circus’ only chance at being spectacular, his Polish vocabulary soothes the beast.
The film’s romantic elements seems to suffer from the plot as well. While Pattinson and Witherspoon’s on-screen chemistry is okay, there is none of Jack Dawson’s artistic skill or bravado in winning over Rose. In what is supposed to be an epic romance, this lack of a spark really keeps Water for Elephants from being what it could be.
But Water for Elephants is a visual beauty, and its focus on the sideshows keeps the viewer from being too disappointed with the lackluster love story.
Director Francis Lawrence (I Am Legend) captures the fantasy of a Great Depression menagerie with a detailed eye, and its characters embody the era.
The world finally gets to see what Pattinson is really made of when he is not gracing the screen as a member of the undead. This film could be the jump-off point for an outstanding career.
Water for Elephants is a romance that will satisfy most moviegoers. Its magnificent cinematography and excellent acting more than make up for its flaws. Just don’t expect to leave the theater crying about the loss of love the way you did when you walked out of Titanic in 1997.
Grade: B