Water For Elephants Review

You'll bathe happily in the gorgeous aesthetics of the film, but be left cold and damp by the lack of chemistry between Pattinson and Witherspoon.

Told in flashbacks through wistful remembrance by the ever fantastic Hal Holbrook, Water for Elephants is a circus-themed love story with set design to die for that overshadows a limp love triangle based on Sara Gruen's best-selling novel.

Freshly orphaned and destitute, Jacob Jankowski (Robert Pattinson) leaves his veterinary education seconds before completing his final exam and in desperation throws himself aboard a moving circus train in the hope of beginning a new life. Jacob swiftly becomes the new vet to the 1931 Benzini Bros Circus unscrupulously run by August (Christoph Waltz), accompanied by his star performer and wife, Marlena (Reese Witherspoon).

Broke and desperate, August buys Rosie, a beautiful but noncompliant elephant, to try to draw in the crowds and rescue the circus. Attempting to prevent August's preferred pastime of throwing members of the circus off the moving train when money is tight, all hangs on Jacob to tame Rosie and save the day. But their fates rest on his quivering loins as Jacob inevitably falls in love with Marlena.

Throughout Water for Elephants it feels like you're watching a classic hollywood film, the period and gorgeous set design allowing you to bathe in a filmic style far too rarely referenced upon these days. For those aware of the admiration for the book, however, there's a disappointing sense that the story in print has far more depth and drama, and leaves you wanting more.

The relationship between Pattinson and Witherspoon is where Water for Elephants really drops the ball. Far from believable, the dynamic between the couple – too distant in age – diverts the love affair from being the intended main crux of the film and leaves you clutching for the far more intriguing side plots.

Pattinson is growing beyond his Twilight fame slowly but surely, and this role is a great improvement on last year's lacklustre Remember Me, yet despite Jacob Jankowski being a character with a greater depth and range, it feels like baby steps with Pattinson keeping one toe firmly in his comfort zone. Still, Witherspoon's absolutely schmalzy and charisma-free performance allows Pattinson to shine through, which is a blessing when next to the force that is Christoph Waltz.

Although gradually building his career, it will be a welcome relief to see Pattinson one day cast in a film not primarily targeted at women, or, indeed, one where he is forlorn and lovesick most of the time.

Waltz unsurprisingly acts everyone off the screen, although the fact that Hollywood seems determined to typecast him is a concern. Ever excellent as the cruel and sadistic villain of the film, this familiarity results in too predictable a performance to really create a hugely powerful character.

Rosie the elephant is the saving grace of the whole debacle, every second that she is on screen grasps back some of the intended magic. Waltz aside, the two other strongest members of the cast, Hal Holbrook and Paul Schneider are wasted on the present day scenes which encompass only several minutes of the two-hour running time.

Water for Elephants is a perfect sleepy Sunday afternoon film that requires little attention or investment. Its many missed opportunities are, however, far too evident and it surely would have benefitted from a director better suited to bringing such a doomed love story to life with a touch more pizazz.