Robert Pattinson Australia

Few More Reviews for WFE

I’m not going to post every review, but I am going to post the ones that I’ve been eagerly awaiting.  There seems to be a mixture of responses, not that we weren’t expecting that because there will always be the narrowminded that will inevitably always think of Rob as Edward.  I didn’t agree with their reviews of Remember Me and I clearly won’t agree with their reviews of WFE, but in fairness I suppose they should be heard LOL.  In any event, I’ve extracted the relevant parts below, but you can read the full reviews by clicking on the hyperlinks:

Variety

“In an extravagant gamble worthy of the fictional Benzini Brothers Circus itself, Fox gives Sara Gruen’s grassroots bestseller “Water for Elephants” the glossy, big-budget treatment fans crave, counting on adult women — plus a younger female contingent keen on seeing “Twilight” heartthrob Robert Pattinson paired with sweet-as-pie Reese Witherspoon — to prop up a production with a cost apparently on par with a small tentpole. Unlike the story’s colorful gang of roustabouts, who dismiss ticket buyers as “rubes,” the filmmakers clearly value their public, crafting a splendid period swooner that delivers classic romance and an indelible insider’s view of 1930s circus life.

…

It’s an intoxicating place to be, reminiscent of Ray Bradbury’s breathless dark-carnival tale “Something Wicked This Way Comes.” Considering the unassuming roots of the book on which “Water for Elephants” is based, along with its misfit-focused subject, there’s no small irony that the pic should attract such a first-choice roster of collaborators: From dream-cast headliners Pattinson, Witherspoon and Waltz all the way down the line to d.p. Roberto Prieto, composer James Newton Howard (whose rich orchestral score sadly lacks a clear theme) and production designer Jack Fisk, the show is strictly A-list.

The wild card here is Lawrence, who ably rises to the challenge. Despite his flashy musicvideo origins, the helmer takes an assured classical approach to his widescreen canvas, transitioning smoothly from future-looking sci-fiers “Constantine” and “I Am Legend” to this project’s more nostalgia-driven demands.”

Note:  For those who can’t access full Variety interview I’ve set it out below.

Roger Ebert – 3 Stars

“There’s something endearingly old-fashioned about a love story involving a beautiful bareback rider and a kid who runs off to join the circus. What makes “Water for Elephants” more intriguing is a third character, reminding us why Christoph Waltz deserved his supporting actor Oscar for “Inglourious Basterds” (2009). He plays the circus owner, who is married to the bareback rider and keeps her and everyone else in his iron grip

…

In an age of prefabricated special effects and obviously phony spectacle, it’s sort of old-fashioned (and a pleasure) to see a movie made of real people and plausible sets. The production designer,Jack Fisk, has created a believable one-ring circus here, and even the train itself has a personality. (August and Jacob spend an implausible amount of time walking or running on top of it, but never mind.)

…

“Water for Elephants” was directed by Francis Lawrence, whose “I Am Legend” and “Constantine” were not predictions of this relatively classic film. The screenplay is by Richard LaGravenese, whose “The Horse Whisperer” also showed a sympathy for the personalities of animals. Rosie is not as charismatic as a horse, and as Jacob observes she suffers from dry skin, but you have to concede that her timing is impeccable. This is good sound family entertainment, a safe PG-13 but not a dumb one, and it’s a refreshing interlude before we hurtle into the summer blockbuster season.”

Rotten Tomatoes

“It’s a tale tastefully told and beautifully filmed, but Water for Elephants suffers from a pronounced lack of chemistry between its leads.”  [Maria:  This is the best critique they can come up with?  I’m flabbergasted that they think there is no chemistry between Rob & Reese – clearly they need to visit the optometrist]

LA Times

“Though fans of the “Twilight” series are not going to be pleased to hear this, the weak link in this melodramatic chain is Pattinson’s performance as Jacob. Though his removed affect made him ideal as one of the undead, that quality makes him seem sullen, petulant, even pouty here. In a season that’s seen strong chemistry between Matt Damon and Emily Blunt in “The Adjustment Bureau” as well as Jake Gyllenhaal and Michelle Monaghan in “Source Code,” the absence of that quality here is especially noticeable.” [Maria: LA Times who gives a “F*&%” about what the fans of Twilight think.  Sorry but there are people out there who actually are fans of Robert and not the Saga pfft” – open your eyes and think for yourselves instead of thinking what some teenagers or obsessed fans really care”]

Boston Globe

“Robert Pattinson has the face of a film-noir dupe. It’s a face that is searching and open and kind. It’s a face that a certain type of woman might want to fool because, in its intensely old-fashioned kindness, the face says, “I love you. Fool me.’’ This isn’t what girls and their aunts and their mothers — the so-called, so obsessed “Twi’’-hards — see in that face. What they see, as it glitters, pales, and smolders with 100 years of undead solitude, is a projection that makes them whisper: “Bite me.’’

That antique nature of Pattinson’s face gets an antique setting in “Water for Elephants,’’ a beautiful and boring movie set in a traveling circus during the Great Depression. Pattinson is liberated from the brooding, computer-generated action and noise of the “Twilight’’ movies and put beside Reese Witherspoon, the “Inglourious Basterds’’ Oscar-winner Christoph Waltz, scores of extras, and an elephant the size of a two-bedroom apartment. It remains unclear whether Pattinson is any kind of actor, but it wouldn’t be premature to declare that, at the very least, he’s not the bad kind.  [Maria:  I think what Wesley means to say is that he wasn’t blown away by Rob’s performance, but he thinks it was a good performance – well that’s my interpretation of his last comment.]

…

The movie maintains a manufactured glossiness that seems more 1920s than 1930s. And in Jacob’s striving infatuation for a wispy blond Venus, it’s not a circus performer he sees when he looks at Marlena. It’s F. Scott’s Fitzgerald’s Daisy. All along the “fool me’’ had been saying something else: “I thought this was ‘Gatsby’.’’”

MovieWeb – 5 Stars / Superb

“Thankfully the circuses were not declared illegal before Mr. Lawrence and company could shoot “Water for Elephants.” This is a wonderful film which is not quite “for the whole family” (the sex scene is not particularly graphic but it’s sex, and the violence is bone-chilling), but this tale of romance, sadism, history, and the glories under the circus tent turns out to be one of the better productions that Hollywood has given us so far this year–not that the bar has been exceedingly high given such turkeys as “Your Highness” and “Arthur.”

…

Don’t expect an Oscar-winning performance from Pattinson. He’s a good-looking chap about to celebrate his 25th birthday, a chick magnet who in this movie is kissed by all the young women in the circus troupe, but he is not yet an actor. Reese Witherspoon looks terrific, ten years older in real life than Pattinson but looking close to the young man’s age. Rosie the elephant (Tai), does what’s expected: lifting one leg, lifting both, drinking moonshine, spraying water on the crowd, hugging the kind human beings with her trunk. But Christoph Waltz runs away with the movie, the proverbial guy you can’t take your eyes from; a true actor with a theater background, fluent in German, English and French and able to imitate Italian exquisitely as he did in “Inglourious Basterds.”

Moviehole

“Based on the best selling novel by Sara Gruen, “Water for Elephants” is easily one of the best films I’ve seen this year.

…

But the main attraction here is the performances of the three stars. Witherspoon has been very scarce on screen since winning the Best Actress Oscar in 2005 for “Walk the Line.” In the six years before winning the award she appeared in no fewer than nine films. Since, she has appeared in half that number. Her work here is perfectly nuanced in a role that could have quite easily been cliché’d. Waltz is perfect as August in a role that shows us why that Oscar win was so well deserved. But the surprise here, for me anyway, is Pattinson. Quiet and brooding in the “Twilight” films he seems to jump off the screen here, matching Waltz and Witherspoon scene for scene. Who knew this kid could act?? Well done young man. Applause also to the great Hal Holbrook, whose performance bookends the film. And I would be remiss if I didn’t include praise for Rosie the elephant, Queenie the dog and the other animals that help tell the story. [Maria:  Michael I love your review!]

Coming Soon

“Pattinson brings plenty of personality to Jacob, making him immensely likeable and keeping the viewer invested in all his highs and lows, the role offering lots of opportunities to show a wide range of emotions.

…

The Bottom Line

Few films deliver exactly what’s advertised as well as “Water for Elephants” does with the results being an old school Hollywood romantic epic unlike anything we regularly see anymore. The fact it works as well as it does is a strong testament both to the source material and to those involved with bringing it to the screen.”

NOTE:  For those who can’t read the full Variety interview – I’ve set it out here: