 |
| Water For Elephants |
It's a mixed bag. On the positive side:
LA Times critic Kenneth Turan says, "There is quite a bit to enjoy in a film that certainly qualifies as broad-based popular entertainment."
Variety's Peter Debruge writes, "A splendid period swooner that delivers classic romance and an indelible insider's view of 1930s circus life."
Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times says, "In an age of prefabricated special effects and obviously phony spectacle, it's sort of old-fashioned (and a pleasure) to see a movie made of real people and plausible sets."
The Chicago Tribune's Michael Phillips says, "Like 'The Notebook,' but with an elephant, the unexpectedly good film version of "Water for Elephants" elevates pure corn to a completely satisfying realm of romantic melodrama."
Not everyone is in agreement, though. Some of the negative reviews:
David Germain of the AP writes, "Witherspoon and Pattinson are a three-ring snooze-fest together, bringing little passion to a love story supposedly so fiery, it blows the roof off the big top."
The New York Post's Lou Lumenick says, "Usually, you have to wait for the end-of-the-year awards season to see an elaborate period piece that fails as spectacularly as "Water for Elephants."
Stephen Holden of the New York Times says, "Short-circuits the novel's quirky charms and period atmosphere by its squeamish attitude toward gritty circus life and smothers the drama under James Newton Howard's insufferable wall-to-wall musical soup."
MSN's Glenn Kenny says, "If basking in the simulacrum of [Pattinson's] need-filled gaze is your bag, then by all means..."
What do you think, Pop2it readers? Will you be taking in "Water for Elephants" this weekend?
