• Water for Elephants
    35 replies, posted
So I decided to finally go see a movie since it's been a good 5 or 6 months since I saw a movie in the theater where I live, went to get my ticket for Brides Maids, and it was so bad that I had to go ask if I could switch to another movie. The only thing that was starting soon was Water for Elephants, and I had heard some pretty good things about it so I decided to just go with it. I had absolutely NO idea what this was about aside from that Reese Witherspoon dances with an elephant, and that Robert Pattinson was in it. The plot is pretty simple, the guy was studying to be a Vet in Cornell in the 1930s when his parents die in a car accident, the house is taken away because of a loan, so he runs away and jumps onto a train that turns out to be a traveling circus. He becomes the vet, falls in love with the ring leaders wife who is also the star attraction, and the rest plays out from there. I thought it was really well done honestly, Reese Witherspoon was great, and from what I heard she did most of her own stunts as far as dancing with the elephant. Robert Pattinson played his role pretty well, honestly I like him as an actor regardless of Twilight, he's shown that he can play a pretty wide spectrum of roles aside from an emotionless hunk of muscle that sparkles, and Christoph Waltz played the part of the ringleader perfectly. In short, if you want a movie that has action, you probably won't like this. If you can appreciate a period film that has pretty damn good writing combined with a damn good cast, you should give this a try.
christoph waltz is p. much instant winner right there
I can see a hate wagon coming because the movie has Pattinson in it
I don't see why people don't like Pattinson, he's said himself he doesn't care about the stupid twilight shit. In some interview lately he said Betty White was the sexiest woman in the world. Which is a lot more of a thoughtful answer than what you'd expect. I'd watch the movie for Waltz and be cautiously optimistic about the rest.
[QUOTE=Dirty_Ape;29842433]I don't see why people don't like Pattinson, he's said himself he doesn't care about the stupid twilight shit. In some interview lately he said Betty White was the sexiest woman in the world. Which is a lot more of a thoughtful answer than what you'd expect. I'd watch the movie for Waltz and be cautiously optimistic about the rest.[/QUOTE] Not only did he say he's only in Twilight for the money, he also called the fanbase insane and said that he actually feared for himself when he was going outside because girls would actually want to bite\be bitten by him.
I was very impressed with the movie as well, it just had a good chemistry of all the plot elements, the cast was phenemonal and the story was just awesome in general especially the foreshadowing of the stake =D
[QUOTE=CorporalRoss;29846546]I was very impressed with the movie as well, it just had a good chemistry of all the plot elements, the cast was phenemonal and the story was just awesome in general especially the foreshadowing of the stake =D[/QUOTE] Yeah, as soon as I saw [sp]the elephant in the same room, the first thought that came into my head was "that elephant is gonna turn Waltz into Frankenstein." Sadly, it didn't actually show the stake skewering him by the temples, but I'd like to think it happened[/sp]
Has anyone read the book? I've wanted to for ages, but I'm wondering if it's worth it.
[QUOTE=Dirty_Ape;29842433]I don't see why people don't like Pattinson, he's said himself he doesn't care about the stupid twilight shit. In some interview lately he said Betty White was the sexiest woman in the world. Which is a lot more of a thoughtful answer than what you'd expect. I'd watch the movie for Waltz and be cautiously optimistic about the rest.[/QUOTE] It reminds me of Zac Efron. He's actually a pretty good actor.
It's not a good perioid piece at all, there's no chemistry between the main characters and it's bad enough to walk out on
[QUOTE=Rusty100;29858816]It's not a good perioid piece at all, there's no chemistry between the main characters and it's bad enough to walk out on[/QUOTE] Are you kidding me? The chemistry was perfect.
not many people agree with you
[QUOTE=Rusty100;29859147]not many people agree with you[/QUOTE] You're the first person I've talked to or heard from that said it wasn't good.
really? because everyone i've talked to says it's atrocious too, i'm hearing of a lot of people walking out on it
[QUOTE=Rusty100;29859222]really? because everyone i've talked to says it's atrocious too, i'm hearing of a lot of people walking out on it[/QUOTE] Even RT gave it 60% which is pretty good by their standards.
"It's a tale tastefully told and beautifully filmed, but Water for Elephants suffers from a pronounced lack of chemistry between its leads." I don't know. May see this sometime when I've got nothing on my plate.
[QUOTE=Bigby Wolf;29859119]Are you kidding me? The chemistry was perfect.[/QUOTE] You must not have seen a lot of movies. It was seriously bland. I don't think Robert Pattinson is even capable of forming chemistry with another actor.
I know my chemistry too, there are a lot of movie greats with astonishing lead actor chemistry. I just saw Aliens at the cinema since they were showing and the relationship Ripley builds with newt is almost tangible. Water For Elephants is so far off this to say it had good chemistry baffles me
So because a romance movie doesn't stand up to arguably the best sci-fi ever made, its bad? That's like saying you don't like The Lonely Island because the Beatles are better. Not only are they two entirely different films with two entirely different target audiences, Alien comes from a totally different time in filmmaking.
[QUOTE=Bigby Wolf;29865283]So because a romance movie doesn't stand up to arguably the best sci-fi ever made, its bad? That's like saying you don't like The Lonely Island because the Beatles are better. Not only are they two entirely different films with two entirely different target audiences, Alien comes from a totally different time in filmmaking.[/QUOTE] But romances are supposed to have good chemistry. It's more like saying that the Beatles are funnier than The Lonely Island.
[QUOTE=shatteredwindow;29873018]But romances are supposed to have good chemistry. It's more like saying that the Beatles are funnier than The Lonely Island.[/QUOTE] Who said they can't be?
[QUOTE=Bigby Wolf;29865283]So because a romance movie doesn't stand up to arguably the best sci-fi ever made, its bad? That's like saying you don't like The Lonely Island because the Beatles are better. Not only are they two entirely different films with two entirely different target audiences, Alien comes from a totally different time in filmmaking.[/QUOTE] you're missing the entire point
[QUOTE=Rusty100;29874565]you're missing the entire point[/QUOTE] No, you are. Alien came out in a much different time for movies.
[QUOTE=Bigby Wolf;29876725]No, you are. Alien came out in a much different time for movies.[/QUOTE] Aliens! :eng101:
Argument applies to both
What I hate about this movie is that most of ignorant fucking teenage bitches would just watch it because of the sake Robert Pattinson is in there. Fucking Twilight. I rather read the book.
Pattinson forgot how to be an emotionally complex character. Shame. Might I also state that I hate his ugly mug because it looks like one.
[QUOTE=henrietta;29909730]What I hate about this movie is that most of ignorant fucking teenage bitches would just watch it because of the sake Robert Pattinson is in there. Fucking Twilight. I rather read the book.[/QUOTE] There's also the factor that the movie tells the story in under 2 hours, most people don't read a full book in 2 hours.
[QUOTE=Bigby Wolf;29876725]No, you are. Alien came out in a much different time for movies.[/QUOTE] what's that got to do with anything? a movies era has anything to do with the ability to act and form on screen bonds?
[QUOTE=Rusty100;29911920]what's that got to do with anything? a movies era has anything to do with the ability to act and form on screen bonds?[/QUOTE] Actors, directors, everybody really had much higher standards back then
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.