The colors did strike me as beautiful for some reason. The awful close up reframing kept the cinematography from being great though. And so considering three quarters of its runtime is a typical love triangle plot, there's not much going for it. Hal Holbrook is a god.

Who would have thought that I would actually liked a film with Robert Pattison in it. But nothing we haven't seen before. However, the setting of a travelling circus was entertaining enough for me.

Woefully miscast, Water for Elephants is a film about cruelty that glosses over the cruelty and draws an unfortunate comparison between abused wives and elephants who only take commands in Polish. Any points it gets, it gets for the elephant.

Rather uninspired screenplay, elevated by the cast and some lively set pieces.

Great art direction vividly evokes a slightly threadbare '30's circus and the direction in the first half effectively establishes the story and characters, but the casting is uneven (Waltz and Witherspoon all sharp angles and intelligence and Pattinson a big round-eyed melancholy pudding) and the last third of the film seems slightly incoherent and somewhat rushed. I gotta admit, though . . . the elephant is very cool!

"Beauty comes in all shapes and sizes, and Water for Elephants finds immense pleasure in juxtaposing extreme dimensionality with budding emotion." - Glenn Heath Jr.

Two good things: Christoph Walz and a Polish-speaking elephant

Not badly done, but everything is so cliche that simply does not hold the attention as it should.

Instead of "Titanic" we get "The Circus," with all of the elements remaining the same. Despite a slew of talented actors (yes, Pattinson is included), this gorgeous-looking film gains little traction with the flimsy relationship that goes underdeveloped between Witherspoon and Pattinson. Where's the overwhelming chemistry? I didn't see it. And as for an elephant staking a man through the head... hmmm... And that's all I have to say about that.

A standart drama. Pattison is not a bad actor but he never achieves something admirable which will I remember him with. Waltz is more than a good baddie but I cared more about the animals than the people.

It had heart.

Not a very surprising or particularly engaging film but it was worth watching.

It is an ok movie, but a very well done one.

Rosie (the elephant) not only saved the circus from an early grave, but also this movie from being a very dull b grade movie. There was enough here to captivate, but not amaze. I'd like to nominate this movie for "could have been a classic", it had the right stuff, but the acting and the editing just did not convert. Disappointing.

disappointing book and disappointing movie.

Robert Pattson sure got his ass whipped a lot near the end.

70.000

beautiful story, great art direction, Christoph Waltz is superb, even Robert Pattinson is bearable however lack of chemistry and cliche storyline keep the movie from becoming good... and now we know who should get the Best Elephant in a Supporting Role award: Rosie, the Polish speaking elephant:)

It's a tale tastefully told and beautifully filmed, but Water for Elephants suffers from a pronounced lack of chemistry between its leads.

This film runs its grand theme into the ground with a deplorable lack of tension. Waltz puts forward a lot of effort, but his bouts of insanity are surrounded by monotonous exposition and unnecessary melodrama. There is an unmistakable hubris in the films focus on spectacle, and it is clear that a smaller film, one driven by characters rather than mystique, would be better positioned to make a tangible connection with its audience.

Good set design and vibrant colors are about all this has going for it. Waltz out-acts the other two leads by a long shot, but he goes so over the top he becomes cartoonish. Tarantino performances only work in Tarantino films. The Twilight dude reminds me of an awkward highschooler in his first play. There is little passion or chemistry in a film that should have loads of both.

A sure chick flick; there's nothing new you haven't seen before in this genre films. A black and white and safe story. It was so funny how they portrait so small and skeleton like girl with suck a big and graceful animal.

A must see if you've never seen a movie about a love triangle before. I liked the animals and the cool picture post card night scenes of the train. I'm sorry, Pattinson may have been pretty good but I couldn't dissociate him from Twilight--maybe that's why he just irks me. Q: Why didn't he just go back right away and take the stupid last test? Ans: He never would have joined the circus and had all that fun. If you thought there'd be chemistry, well, there's a sucker born every minute.

A throwback romance film in the mold of The Notebook or the first half of Titanic --I'd like to see a more daring director just go all-out and film it in black-and-white. The story is pretty standard stuff and the most interesting character is the cruel ringmaster played superbly by Christoph Waltz, who would twirl his mustache if he had one. Unfortunately, he's the only one who brings some inspiration to the film.

wonderful movie 10 out of 10

My biggest problem with the film was the lack of chemistry between Robert Pattinson and Reese Witherspoon. I think Robert Pattinson gave a better effort than Reese and the lack of chemistry fell mostly on her part. This was a real treat though, I thought it was overall really good acting and a charming little story with some stunning cinematography. It's such a relief to see a REAL set and with minimal computer help. Most people have been critical of the script, but I rather enjoyed it.

The acting on R. Pattinson's side deserves maybe "20", Reese Witherspoon a solid "50", Christoph Waltz "80", but the interaction between all of the actors is very poor, meaning that the movie suffers greatly from this. I, however, found that the story and the pictures were so overwhelmingly beautiful that this issue was not of such great importance for me. Logically, I should give this movie something between 50-55, but because it touched me and is simply beautiful, I think it deserves a 75.

Not too bad really. Waltz shines as a bad guy (shocker) and Witherspoon is pretty good. The elephant shines and does some pretty amazing looking stunts. Some people seem to think there are a lot of shallow characters in this movie. I didn't really think that was so, but I've also read the book so I know the character's stories already. My mom really enjoyed it.

Paul Schneider has left Parks&Recreation for stuff like this?!

A nice film with a nice enough story. Poor casting with Pattinson (clearly cast to attract little teenage girls) and Reese Witherspoon. neither are suited for a timeless drama and there was 0 chemistry between them. The ending was lackluster and all to familiar and sappy. Christoph Waltz was the best thing about the film playing the ringmaster, pity he never had a twisty mustache though :(

Fails to work on almost every level possible. Ridiculous script. Pattinson is quite awful. You can't help feeling sorry for Witherspoon.

Opowiesc o polskim s%u0142oniu. Boring.

A silly fairy tale with no relationship with reality.