Water for Elephants (2011, U.S.)

I have been looking forward to this film for ages. On one hand, I was very nervous about them ruining one of the best books of all time. (It's definitely in my top 3, if not my favorite book, period.) On the other hand, such a powerful story with the fascinating, detailed description of Water for Elephants has a lot of potential for greatness. (And with a knockout tagline like "Life is the most spectacular show on earth," it better live up to that potential!) I was also one of the few people who cheered for the casting of Rob Pattinson. (Twilight aside, he is a brilliant, brilliant actor. See: Little Ashes, Remember Me, The Bad Mother's Handbook, The Haunted Airman, and even Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire.) I was actually more hesitant about Reese Witherspoon, although I do love her too.

So what's the verdict? It was a beautiful film. It wasn't the book, but it was a fairly strong adaptation. (It was one of the best since Gone with the Wind, I'm tempted to say—and about a thousand times better than the adaptation of The Time Traveler's Wife.) Mostly what was lost were the details of riding the rails, life in a circus, and relationships between characters. It wasn't enough to take away from the story, just enough that it didn't have the same sense of total immersion I felt while reading the book. (One detail that really bothered me was the number of liberty horses in Marlena's act. The description in the book really stuck with me, and my memory tells me she had 12. In the film, she only had 4. It's not that her act wasn't good, it's just that it was supposed to be the main attraction and didn't have the same grandeur I expected. Even 6 would have been okay, but 4 was too few! Yes, I am picky.) The only other thing really missing was on-screen time for Old Jacob. His thoughts on aging were real gems, and I wish Hal Holbrook had more of an opportunity to make the old man shine as much as the young one.

On the subject of actors, wow. Perhaps I'm biased, but I thought Pattinson was stellar. He captured the innocence, uncertainty, and compassion that are so definitive of Jacob's character. Reese Witherspoon was also wonderful and quite lovely. I've read that many people think they lacked chemistry, but I thought they had a sort of quiet chemistry, and their love for each other was built through their mutual love of animals. On that front, three cheers for Tai, the elephant who played Rosie. The Jacob/Marlena relationship would have been lost without her. The real unexpected talent came from Christoph Waltz, who I vaguely remember from Inglorious Basterds. (I was too busy trying to work out the plot of that movie to appreciate the acting, I suppose.) He was phenomenal as August. From his abusive rages to broken tears, from suave charmer to ruthless businessman, he didn't overact anything but truly conveyed that August was subtly but undeniably insane. Unfortunately for him, the script focused more on Jacob and Marlena, underwriting his part, which also served to cloud his motivation a bit as the climax approaches. Waltz did a lot with a little, in my opinion. I feel safe in going ahead to predict another Best Supporting Actor Oscar for this performance.

I don't even know where to begin on the costumes and sets. They were breathtaking. From the Cornell classroom to the home of Polish immigrants to the hospital to the forest to the train to the bigtop to the Chicago speakeasy to the office of the modern day circus, everything was perfect. The train, especially, seemed to almost be its own character. The costumes ranged from beautiful to grungy, simple to elaborate. Marlena's performance ensemble was an especially strange one, but kind of fun. And Reese Witherspoon was absolutely stunning in every costume, from simple clothes with a brightly polka-dotted scarf in her hair to form-fitting silk evening gown. August's ringmaster's get-up was probably the most circus-y element of the entire film, and I loved it.

The one thing I was surprised to be disappointed by was the score. James Newton Howard is one of my all-time favorite composers. While he's had some average scores with average movies, he's also given some wonderful films the extra push to make them truly great. (Two examples are Defiance, which had the most hauntingly beautiful score that makes my heart break when I listen to it, and the 2003 Peter Pan, which has such a magical score I can almost believe in fairies.) It's not that this was a bad score; in fact, it was quite good, and much stronger than countless other composers could have provided. I guess I was expecting this score to do for the circus the same thing that his Peter Pan score did for Neverland—bring it alive, transport me to the world of the film even when I'm not watching it. It just didn't quite cross that threshold, though it has some very nice themes (see especially "Did I Miss It?" and "Circus Fantasy"). I hate criticizing him, because I would have praised the efforts of any other composer on this score. I just expect something more from him, I guess.

In short, this was a beautiful, gritty, romantic, heartbreaking, powerful film, and I loved it. I may have even given it 5 stars if it wasn't based on a novel. I can't wait to see it again (especially because I don't always appreciate/enjoy a film as much if I've been anticipating it for so long—that anticipation can make it awfully difficult to focus). I also can't wait to read the book for a third time; the sooner the better.

*Special note: I have to say that for anyone who lives in NoVA or Texas and is lucky enough to be near an Alamo Drafthouse theater, you must see it there. The circus-themed preshow included a flea circus cartoon, a Droopy cartoon, an excerpt from Dumbo, Charlie Chaplin, Groucho Marx, and two songs from the Elvis flick Roustabout, among a few other things. It was awesome!*

Rating: 4.5

Source Code (2011, U.S.)

I have very mixed feelings about this one. It definitely had a very interesting concept for a science fiction thriller. And it had the one-of-a-kind, sweet, sexy, boy-next-door, unlikely-hero Jake Gyllenhaal. Some good special effects (exploding trains and the like). A hint of romance. A dash of (misplaced?) patriotism. Lots of promise, but it just didn't come together well.

It's not that it was confusing. At first it was a bit confusing, as I got the hang of the plot. In fact, it was a bit confusing for Coulter (Gyllenhaal), and the viewer figures out what's going on as he does, which was pretty good for the plot. As far as sci-fi action flicks go, this seemed pretty strong for the most part, especially considering it took place over and over again in the same 8 minutes with the same handful of characters on the same train.

I was mostly frustrated because the developing romance didn't make much sense, and the ending made no sense at all. It felt like they were going somewhere else with the story, but the original ending was too depressing so they rewrote it to be conveniently-ever-ever. (This is just a theory, but that's how it felt to me.) Both of these things made the whole thing feel forced and ruined the effect. I barely convinced myself to go up to 3.0 instead of 2.5.

I would recommend this to anyone who's desperate for a good sci-fi thriller (a somewhat under-used genre in today's market, it seems to me). Yes, even though I didn't rate it higher, the kernel of the story was very good; just the execution was lacking. I also recommend it to diehard Jake Gyllenhaal fans (like myself). He really carried this movie. He has a very quiet, underrated talent and plays the tough yet tender hero very well.

Rating: 3.0

The Tourist (2010, U.S.)

I mostly avoided all descriptions, reviews, and previews of this movie, except for the very first teaser trailer. Basically, I didn't care what it was about and I didn't want to have my opinion influenced beforehand. I love Johnny Depp and Angelina Jolie, and I couldn't wait to see them in action together.

This was a cute movie. Not exactly the adjective one would expect for a spy film, but there you have it. It's also quite slowly paced for the genre, so if you don't go in expecting a nail-biter, you shouldn't be disappointed. Basically anything can happen when you mix romantic comedy with espionage. Mr. and Mrs. Smith, this is not. (Then again, Depp and Jolie don't have the chemistry Jolie and Pitt had—but who could?)

The story? Elise sits next to Frank, an American tourist, on a train going to Venice. Her intent is to trick the police into believing Frank is her elusive lover, who is a mysterious fugitive. Frank (who is a nerdy, socially awkward math teacher) finds himself pursued by both the police and the mobster who Elise's lover owes money to. Elise finds herself falling for Frank (which is helped along by the fact that her lover has continually let her down) and vice versa (though it causes him nothing but trouble). There are several plot twists that should probably feel sudden but instead feel almost like a mild surprise. Somehow, it works well.

The cast is fantastic. Depp and Jolie are great actors, especially in the roles of nerd and seductress, respectively. Paul Bettany plays the lead inspector, and I wish he had a more prominent role. There's just something about him. Toss in Rufus Sewell as the stranger, and it was a solid cast.

I also thought the score was fabulous. Even if the film was a bit slow for the genre, the music said, "This is a spy flick!" I do love James Newton Howard.

I'm looking forward to re-watching this, knowing where all the twists and turns go.

Rating: 4.0

Anna Karenina (1948, UK)

I've heard that this is perhaps the worst version of Anna Karenina ever filmed, and I can perhaps see why. A lot of the dialogue was rather stilted and badly written. Karenin didn't really seem concerned with his wife's affair. The chemistry between Anna and Count Vronsky was so nonexistent that you couldn't understand what they even saw in each other.

I don't think it will surprise anyone to know what I thought was the key redeeming element in this film—Vivien Leigh. I loved her since the first time I saw her in Gone with the Wind. It is still one of my favorites, as is Waterloo Bridge (a very under-recognized film). Even though her chemistry with Moore was terrible, she acted brilliantly and dragged the film along on the hem of her elegant wardrobe. (She did, of course, look stunning.) While you never see why she loves Vronsky, her acting lets you see how torn up she becomes because of their relationship. You also see her deep and abiding love for her son, which is an especial feat of acting, in my opinion, considering that Leigh was not the best mother by all accounts.

It is really unfortunate that we can't go back in time and refilm this, keeping the leading lady and giving her the costars and direction she deserved.

Rating: 3.0