So I did a bad thing and didn't read this Nanowrimo-derived (RIGHT?) book before I went to go see it. oops! well, I have a lot of bad Nanowrimo experiences under my belt, so maybe that would have tainted the surprisingly good film for me.
I can tell you that Water For Elephants is not an amazing film and will not be by any means a classic film. But it's a good film. It's filmed beautifully, bursting with more color than a gay man's fiesta. There's definitely an old timey feel to it, which is missing from a lot of films anymore. It's mostly set in the 1930s, save to a few flashbacks (I guess that's what you would call it, eh?) to the present day. And I think this is a film you could just probably watch on mute and gawk at. It's like a gorgeous person that has semi-interesting things to says sometimes. I am the cosmos and that shit.
Reese Witherspoon delivers another great job, as always. She's got that kind of wounded circus performer/caged wife act down. From the moment our boy Robert Pattinson (who, God help him, will have more of a career than his cardboard girlfriend Kirsten OMGZ DONT U LUK AT ME Stewart) spots her with the black and white horses that at first defined her act, he's smitten. We're all smitten, really. And honestly, Pattinson acts well, but why is he such a cinema idol? He's not that good-looking. I mean he's not horrible-looking and God help me I'd probably hit it after a few drinks, but he's not like Valentino or Dean or even the late (RIP) River Phoenix. Whatever.
Christoph Waltz is also surprisingly good here, too. I totally forgot he was in here until he showed his Germanic head.
most of the time, he looks like a nice, decent guy. right? like, if he was your kid's best friend's dad, you'd be like YOU ARE TOTALLY NOT A WIFE BEATER OR A DRUNK OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. HERE, LET JOHNNY SPEND THE NIGHT. okay I still haven't seen Inglorious Basterds.
well, props to Waltz for not playing the bad guy like an atypical bad guy. you have flashes of sympathy for him, up until the bitter and spectacular end. and boy! does he blow THAT away.
I suppose you could categorize this film as a romance, but there's a sort of pseudo-epic quality to it and more of a fantasy/adventure than I realized. and I might pick up the book, but I might not. I might just watch the film again someday. it ends on an uplifting note, which I find always to be rewarding. For the while, the viewer fears for the worse. and thank god, the worse doesn't really happen.
also, Reese be looking a lot like Gwen here:
yeah? well EXCUSE ME FOR BEING BIASED.
The chemistry between Witherspoon and Pattinson was a bit forced, I thought. they make a pleasing pair, but it doesn't totally convince you. and it's a big fish for R-Patz to score Reese Witherspoon on his first box office bigtime venture outside the Celibate Vampire series.
so like I said before: very decent film. very much worth your time. A-
and also, ELEPHANTS:
I can tell you that Water For Elephants is not an amazing film and will not be by any means a classic film. But it's a good film. It's filmed beautifully, bursting with more color than a gay man's fiesta. There's definitely an old timey feel to it, which is missing from a lot of films anymore. It's mostly set in the 1930s, save to a few flashbacks (I guess that's what you would call it, eh?) to the present day. And I think this is a film you could just probably watch on mute and gawk at. It's like a gorgeous person that has semi-interesting things to says sometimes. I am the cosmos and that shit.
Reese Witherspoon delivers another great job, as always. She's got that kind of wounded circus performer/caged wife act down. From the moment our boy Robert Pattinson (who, God help him, will have more of a career than his cardboard girlfriend Kirsten OMGZ DONT U LUK AT ME Stewart) spots her with the black and white horses that at first defined her act, he's smitten. We're all smitten, really. And honestly, Pattinson acts well, but why is he such a cinema idol? He's not that good-looking. I mean he's not horrible-looking and God help me I'd probably hit it after a few drinks, but he's not like Valentino or Dean or even the late (RIP) River Phoenix. Whatever.
Christoph Waltz is also surprisingly good here, too. I totally forgot he was in here until he showed his Germanic head.
well, props to Waltz for not playing the bad guy like an atypical bad guy. you have flashes of sympathy for him, up until the bitter and spectacular end. and boy! does he blow THAT away.
I suppose you could categorize this film as a romance, but there's a sort of pseudo-epic quality to it and more of a fantasy/adventure than I realized. and I might pick up the book, but I might not. I might just watch the film again someday. it ends on an uplifting note, which I find always to be rewarding. For the while, the viewer fears for the worse. and thank god, the worse doesn't really happen.
also, Reese be looking a lot like Gwen here:
yeah? well EXCUSE ME FOR BEING BIASED.
The chemistry between Witherspoon and Pattinson was a bit forced, I thought. they make a pleasing pair, but it doesn't totally convince you. and it's a big fish for R-Patz to score Reese Witherspoon on his first box office bigtime venture outside the Celibate Vampire series.
so like I said before: very decent film. very much worth your time. A-
and also, ELEPHANTS:
Comments
Post a Comment