Water for Elephants (Review)

Water for Elephants is a handsome, harmless little film about a traveling circus in the ’30s. The problem is that it should have aimed a whole lot higher. The material suggests a potentially dark, intriguing story beneath the glossy surface, but the filmmakers have no real interest in exploring the unique environment in which the film exists. Instead, they focus on the three relatively uninteresting characters at the center. What makes one of them compelling is a fantastic performance from Christoph Waltz, but the other two-thirds of the film’s love triangle never come close to entering a third dimension. As a result, the film never breaks free from the chains of mediocrity.

Twilight dreamboat Robert Pattinson plays Jacob, a veterinary student at Cornell who is just one exam away from graduation. However, as he’s just about to begin said exam he is informed that his parents have just died in a car accident. Without a home or dollar to his name, Jacob becomes something of a transient. When he hops onto a train owned by the kinda-famous Benzini Brothers Circus, he is recruited to become the show’s resident veterinarian. In the process he falls in love with Marlena (Reese Witherspoon), the “star attraction” and wife of animal trainer August (Waltz). The rest of the film chronicles life in the circus, as well as their developing love triangle.

The environment here looks great, to be sure. The problem is that nothing lies beneath the attractive exterior. Water for Elephants has no surprises in store, which might have been acceptable if the film didn’t outright ignore the most interesting aspects of its story. How many people can honestly say they know a great deal about life in a Depression-era traveling circus? I certainly don’t. The film does a decent job of creating this world, but it never truly draws the audience in. Most enjoyment occurs on a purely superficial level.

The one aspect of the film that’s truly great is the performance of Waltz as the villainous August. He’s able to single-handedly elevate every scene he’s in with his bare hands. Every character around him only projects a handful of emotions, while Waltz creates a character more complex than the rest of the film combined. His work here is notably similar to his Oscar-winning turn in Inglourious Basterds, but that doesn’t mean it’s any less joyous to watch. Waltz provides quite a bit of unpredictability in an aggressively bland package. If nothing else, this film convinced me that he is the real deal, and not a one-film wonder.

Water for Elephants was directed by Francis Lawrence, who is well-known for making the Keanu Reeves film Constantine as well as the underrated I Am Legend. The best thing you can say about his work here is that it’s quite good on a visual level—though that may just be cinematographer Rodrigo Prieto talking. What he’s not so successful at is giving Richard LaGravenese’s script any illusion of depth. He makes the film adequate, but he’s unable to do much more than that. As much as I enjoy I Am Legend, it’s mostly for Will Smith’s performance. I’ll fully admit that a different director might have made it even better. The same can be said here.

If you were to buy a ticket to Water for Elephants, I certainly wouldn’t throw myself in front of the door to stop you. In fact, I’m quite sure the film’s intended audience will find quite a bit to enjoy here—even if their only goal is to stare at Robert Pattinson. Those expecting something more substantial will be unfulfilled. The film’s look—as well as Waltz’s performance—make it worthwhile enough, but is it being selfish to ask for a little bit more? I don’t think so. Water for Elephants is frustrating because it’s only as good as it feels like being. It never tries to reach its considerable potential.

Rating:  (out of 4)