Spectre (6/10): Doesn't live up to the standards set by Skyfall

“You are a kite dancing in a hurricane, Mr Bond.”

Sam Mendes did a fantastic job sitting in the director’s chair for Bond’s previous movie, Skyfall, so expectations were really high for what he could deliver in his follow up: Spectre. If there is something that Daniel Craig has brought to the franchise is that he has turned Bond into a serious character from the start. Casino Royale is still my favorite Bond film, but I’ve enjoyed all of his films, which wasn’t the case when Pierce Brosnan was playing the titular role. After the success of Skyfall it would be impossible to live up to the expectations Mendes had built with his now demanding crowd, so it is only normal that Spectre feels like an average spy thriller. The film still continues to look gorgeous, but the story did lack some originality and for that it feels predictable and familiar. Spectre also has pacing issues, but I’d say the main problem is that we’ve seen better spy films released this year. Mission Impossible raised the bar in its action sequences, while Spy was a comedy action film that barely missed a beat. If Spectre would’ve come out any other year it might have been a bit more interesting, but after the fresh success of both those films I felt like this was a letdown. As much as I love Craig as Bond, he didn’t have much to work with here and the villains didn’t present much of a threat either. Spectre has the look and feel of the rest of Bond films, but it fails to entertain or bring anything new to the table. Out of the four films Craig has played Bond this is probably the most formulaic one.  

Spectre opens with a rather impressive sequence in Mexico during the Day of the Dead celebration, which was a perfect opportunity for the marketing campaign to include the cool looking skeletons in the posters and the trailers. Bond (Daniel Craig) follows a gorgeous women through the crowded streets of Mexico during the parade to her hotel room, kisses her and walks out to the balcony saying he’ll be right back. That is when we realize he’s actually on a mission and a series of gunshots, explosions, and chases ensue. It was a great opening sequence but the film failed to build up the momentum from then on.  What we get next is what we’ve seen before, Bond arrives in London and is suspended by M (now played by Ralph Fiennes) for causing so much caos without being authorized to actually be in Mexico. Bond is working on his own because he doesn’t know who he can trust after the previous M left him a secret message before being murdered. Her message is what led him to Mexico in the first place and then to Rome where he discovers a secret organization responsible for several terrorist attacks that is led by a man named Blofeld (Christoph Waltz). Blofeld discovers Bond and sends his assistant, Mr. Hinx (Dave Bautista) to try to stop him. In order to uncover what this secret organization is all about, Bond enlists the help of the daughter of one of its former members, Madeleine Swann (Lea Seydoux). Naomi Harris and Ben Whishaw are also back playing the roles of Moneypenny and Q respectively. 

Spectre is a little over two hours long and the pacing really doesn’t help the film either. You can feel it take its toll because the action sequences are far from being impressive and the plot is predictable. As cool as Craig is playing Bond, we’ve seen him do it so many times that we need more now. Waltz is a talented actor, but he seems to excel only when working with Tarantino. Here he doesn’t get much to do really and at times his character seems a bit cartoonish. Bautista is menacing, but he says one word in the entire film. Lea Seydoux is the Bond girl and she looks great, but there isn’t much more she can do to add to the story. Spectre isn’t a bad film, but the success of Skyfall raised the bar and left us a much more demanding audience. I think the major issue here was the screenplay which felt rather weak and bland. There is some fun to be had with the movie, but it ends up being forgettable in the end with a rather unsatisfying climax. Spectre has its moments but it is just too dull when compared to the other Bond films.  

Big Eyes (5/10): A change of pace from Tim Burton.

“Would you rather sell a $500 painting, or a million cheaply reproduced posters?”

Despite enjoying some of his films, I don’t consider myself much of a Tim Burton fan. Big  Eyes however, doesn’t feel like one of his films considering it is a conventional biopic about a cult painter in the 50’s. The story is rather interesting because it centers on this perverse relationship between Walter (Christoph Waltz) and Margaret Keane (Amy Adams) who lie to everyone about the Big eyed paintings they sell. Walter convinces Margaret to let him claim he is the artist because he believes he can sell more paintings this way. This leads to a bizarre relationship where Margaret has to lie to her own daughter (Madeleine Arthur) and work secretly behind locked doors. Thanks to Walter’s personality he is able to turn the paintings into a popular craze and the couple make tons of money off of Margaret’s work. This may be difficult to understand now, but in the 50’s females were more repressed and despite not wanting to lie Margaret ended up allowing her husband to take the credit for her work. The screenplay was written by Scott Alexander and Larry Karaszewski who had already worked with Burton a couple of decades ago in his other biopic  Ed Wood. Despite the rather shocking subject matter, they decided to turn this into a comedy of sorts and that aspect of the film didn’t work too well for me.

The cinematography in this film is very colorful. From the opening scene you are seduced by this striking blue and green scenery as Margaret drives through the coast of San Francisco. The film looks great, but the tone is what I had some issues with. Christoph Waltz portrays his character in a somewhat cartoonish way (especially during the court scenes near the final act), while Amy Adams is presented as a meek and weak character. In order for this story to work, I felt as if Waltz’s character should’ve been portrayed as less of a clown because it was hard to identify with Margaret since that made her look much weaker. It didn’t seem like it was fear that motivated her to lie about the paintings, but mostly because she allowed her husband to tell her what to do. This was probably true, but somehow it doesn’t translate well in our present situation. It should’ve been treated a bit more seriously, but that’s just my personal opinion. I also think that the ending was a bit rushed when it should’ve focused more on the later empowering aspects of Margaret’s life. Out of respect for the real Margaret Keane, at least they should’ve focused on the later years of her life when she found the courage to step up and confront everyone with the truth. But that was actually the moment where Waltz upped the comedy and went over the top. Waltz and Adams are great actors, but it is Adams who seems to take her role more seriously here. Terrence Stamp, Danny Huston, Jason Schwartzman, and Krysten Ritter have rather forgettable supporting roles. I could’ve appreciated some more of Schwartzman, but Stamp was at that same cartoonish level as Waltz was here. 

Horrible Bosses 2 (5/10): Some laughs, but you can't help but feel it's a waste of a strong cast

“I hate to break it to you, but the American dream is in China.”

I was a huge fan of the first film so I had some expectations for this sequel considering Christoph Waltz and Chris Pine were the new additions to an already impressive cast. What could go wrong with a comedy I had already enjoyed starring three Oscar winners? A lot when you bring in a new director whose most popular film up to now was That’s My Boy. The sequel tries to bank off the success from the strong chemistry between the three lead actors (Jason Bateman, Jason Sudeikis, and Charlie Day), but unfortunately the formula felt repetitive and excessive at times. As much as I enjoyed their chemistry there were some moments that felt forced this time around. I am glad they didn’t repeat the same scenario from the first film and tried to change the structure of the comedy by centering on a kidnap attempt, but despite some funny scenes the sequel still falls flat by repeating some of the jokes from the first movie. Chris Pine was an excellent addition and once again the cameos from Jamie Foxx, Jennifer Aniston, and Kevin Spacey are the highlight of the film, but I was expecting a lot more from Christoph Waltz, who’s an actor I highly admire. I think he could be great in this sort of comical villainous role, but he was underused here. All in all, Horrible Bosses 2 fails to deliver the same amount of laughs as the original but it still remains as a watchable and entertaining comedy. 2014 has yet to deliver a satisfying comedy, but if you’re bored this is a sequel that will keep you entertained for a while. 

I actually found the first half of this film a bit stronger than the second half. It begins with a lot of promise introducing some of the new characters while centering on the relationship between the three amigos. Chris Pine is hilarious as well and he plays off the leads very well. There are several funny moments including the cameos with Jamie Foxx, Kevin Spacey, and Jennifer Aniston who you can tell is very uncomfortable with the dialogue she has to say but pulls it off nonetheless. The weakest part of the film is the resolution which in my opinion was a bit exaggerated, and many people might find the jokes offensive. It doesn’t come close to matching the potential of the original film, but I didn’t hate it either. The film is silly, but the cast makes it a worthwhile experience elevating the dull material and making it a little more fun than it had the right to be.

My Oscars Reactions (17/24)

¨And the Oscar for Best Picture goes to Argo¨

Last night the 85^th Academy Awards were celebrated in a big way. Hollywood´s top actors made their way through the red carpet with a lot of glamour. I´m not a fashion expert so I won´t comment on who was wearing what, but I can say that everyone looked beautiful. The ceremony began with a monologue from first time host Seth MacFarlane who got some laughs out of the audience with his song ¨We saw your boobs¨ and with a sock puppet version of Flight while he was interrupted by Captain Kirk (William Shattner) who came from the future to warn him about his terrible hosting gig. He showed us some glimpses of what went wrong and MacFarlane tried to make amends by following Captain Kirk´s advice. The jokes were funny although not that irreverent as the Family Guy and Ted director has us used to. I still enjoyed his opening and I think he did a decent job hosting the Oscars, which once again ran about three and a half hours long. I know many people complain about the length of the ceremony, but I really enjoy this once a year event and loved every minute of it.

Despite opening with a surprise win for Christoph Waltz for best supporting actor, the Oscar were pretty predictable and the heavy favorites won. I loved Waltz´s performance, and he was my favorite in that category but I didn’t think the Academy would give him his second Oscar in three years. I was wrong, and I was happy about that. I was 17 for 24 in my predictions, but I knew some of the categories were going to be close races between one or two picks. So close in fact, that in one category we had a tie which hadn’t happened since the 1960´s. Zero Dark Thirty and Skyfall shared the Oscar for Sound Editing. The biggest surprise of the night was Ang Lee´s victory over Steven Spielberg in the best director category. Life of Pi was one of my favorite movies of the year so I was very pleased once again with the Academy´s decision. The other categories I didn’t predict were both writing categories which did go to the favorites: Argo (adapted screenplay) and Django Unchained (Quentin Tarantino). I loved Tarantino´s acceptance speech and this was his second win after Pulp Fiction. It was a long awaited win, but he finally got his moment. Brave beat Frankenweenie in the Best Animated category (a film I really didn’t like too much), Lincoln beat Anna Karenina in the Production Design category, and Inocente beat my pick Open Heart as the best short documentary. Those were my only misses; everything else went on as predicted.

Argo finally won for Best Picture and Ben Affleck got his redemption for not being included in the best director category since he was one of the producers of the film along with George Clooney. He gave one of the best speeches of the night and reminded the audience of how young he was when he won his first Oscar for writing Good Will Hunting. He never thought he would be back, but he made it and has proved to be one of the best directors of this last decade. Daniel Day Lewis won the Oscar for his portrayal of Lincoln and also gave a gracious speech. He is the only actor to have won 3 Oscars in a leading role. He made a joke about Meryl Streep who presented the award to him and his acceptance speech felt natural and authentic. Jennifer Lawrence was also a big winner as she won for her role in Silver Linings Playbook. She tripped while climbing up the stairs and also made fun of herself while accepting the award. She was gracious enough to congratulate Emmanuelle Riva on her 86^th birthday and was very classy. Anne Hathaway won for her performance in Les Miserables in the supporting role. Amour received love in the Foreign Language film category, and Searching for Sugar Man won best documentary (one of my favorite moments of the night because I really loved that doc). Adele was also a big winner for her song Skyfall which she got to perform live on the show. There was also a tribute for the 50 years of the James Bond franchise, and a tribute to musicals as well as we saw some of the cast from Chicago, Dreamgirls, and Les Miserables perform.

The awards were pretty much scattered throughout as there wasn’t one movie to take home a lot of awards as it usually happens. This is because there were a lot of strong contenders this year. Life of Pi was the big winner of the night as it took home 4 Oscars (Director, Visual Effects, Cinematography, and Original Score), Argo 3 (Picture, Adapted Screenplay, and Editing), and Les Miserables also took home 3 Oscars (Actress in a Secondary Role, Sound Mixing, and Makeup) and Lincoln only managed to win 2 (Lead Actor and Production Design) out of the 12 nominations it had. Django Unchained won two as well (Original Script and Best Supporting Actor). Zero Dark Thirty and Silver Linings Playbook each took home one Oscar, so the only Best Picture nominee to leave empty handed was Beasts of the Southern Wild, but that small independent film was a winner simply by being nominated.

It was pretty much an even race, but Argo won the biggest prize of the night in a ceremony which I really enjoyed. I thought it was one of the best in recent memory. I don’t know why people watch the Oscars if they always complain about how bad and long it is; I watch them because I really enjoy them. My favorite moments were the big acceptance speeches from Ben Affleck, Daniel Day Lewis, Quentin Tarantino, Chris Terrio, Christoph Waltz, Jennifer Lawrence, and Ang Lee. If you missed them then perhaps you might want to look them up in YouTube. I also loved the musical performance from Les Mis cast, from Adele, and from Barbra Streisand who sang during the touching memorium tribute. We can´t leave out the most expected star of the show: Ted who entered with his co-star Mark Wahlberg and made some funny remarks. I thought the was a great show and hopefully next year I will improve my score, but for now satisfied with the overall picks. 

  

http://estebueno10.blogspot.com/

My Review: Django Unchained (9/10)

¨Gentlemen, you had my curiosity, but now you have my attention.¨

I am a huge Quentin Tarantino fan and enjoy his movies very much so I had huge expectations for this film and I wasn’t disappointed. Django Unchained is one of the top five best films of the year and deserves all the awards it has been receiving. Is this Tarantino’s best work? No it isn’t, but that doesn’t mean this isn’t a fun film to watch. It has several flaws; the movie feels messy and a little overlong at times with some editing issues, but the story is just so fun that it’s worth it. Inspired by the Spaghetti westerns that Tarantino grew up watching, he pays homage to those films with Django Unchained. Just like those spaghetti westerns ended up reinventing a genre that was dying, in a way Tarantino has reinvented a genre now that had been long forgotten. We’ve seen very few westerns come out in the last decade (my favorites being 3:10 to Yuma and True Grit), but none as gritty and dark like this one. It is a western mixed with Tarantino’s classic dark and violent trademarks. Tarantino actually defines this film more a southern than a western considering it takes place in the South pre Civil War era, and it truly is worth the watch. Django Unchained has some great performances as well; it was a surprise to see Leonardo DiCaprio playing such a vicious and ruthless role, Samuel Jackson also nails his role as DiCaprio’s adviser, Foxx takes a while to settle in the lead role but he does deliver halfway through the film, and then there was Christoph Waltz who was the highlight of the film for me. Waltz had already surprised film lovers with his Oscar winning performance in Inglorious Basterds, and here he surprises us once again although this time playing the hero instead of the villain. In my opinion his character carries this movie and shouldn’t even be considered as the supporting character, but rather the leading one. He is a delight to watch on screen and is truly magnificent. Who would have thought that he could play such a likeable character after seeing him in the despicable and vicious role in Tarantino’s previous movie?

This is one of Tarantino’s most straightforward films with hardly any flashbacks, and it isn’t divided into chapters either like his other movies. The story opens somewhere in Texas during the pre-civil war era where we see Django (Jamie Foxx) being carried off in chains towards a slave market along with some other folks. They are interrupted by a former dentist, Dr. King Schultz (Christoph Waltz), who has come to free Django. He is very much against slavery and racial segregation, so he buys Django his freedom with the condition that he help him find three brothers who are wanted men, and only Django has seen their faces. Schultz isn’t working as a dentist; he has found a much more profitable living as a bounty hunter so he teams up with Django who is more than willing to help find these men who abused his wife Broomhilda (Kerry Washington) and sold her to a ruthless plantation owner down in Mississippi known as Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio). Django and Schultz become such good friends that they become partners in the bounty business and later the Dr. agrees to help Django on his quest to free his wife from Candie. It won’t be an easy task so they have to come up with a plan first, but Schultz is so inspired by Django’s love for his wife that he agrees to help him. In Candie’s gigantic residence we are introduced to some new characters such as his loyal adviser, Stephen (Samuel L. Jackson) who is in charge of all the slaves and household duties, and several other employees of Candie. One thing is for sure, freeing Broomhilda from all these men won’t be an easy task.  

My major complain (although it really is a minor one because I did love this film) is that it runs a bit too long. I thought the climax was reaching its highest point at least 30 minutes before the ending, and it did hurt the movie a bit that it extended itself. Tarantino is a master at creating tension and suspense, and he does it once again here, but he could have ended the film there instead of including another act where he has a small role as an Australian that just doesn’t work. The film is very violent, but Tarantino always finds a way to make you laugh (a task that isn’t easy) with a smart and inventive script. Racial abuse is pointed out here in a very strong way similar to when Tarantino showed the Nazi’s abusing the Jews in Inglorious Basterds. The excess in racial abuse is very clear and can be hard to watch for some, but it has a powerful effect, especially thanks to DiCaprio’s portrayal as the vicious and abusive slave owner. The real star of the film however is Christoph Waltz who really makes this film a lot more fun. It was one of my favorite performances of the year. Django Unchained may have just reinvented the western genre altogether with this inventive Tarantino script. The ending might be pretty predictable for a Tarantino fan, but the entire ride was just so exciting and such a fun experience. I agree with what A.O. Scott said about the film: ¨It is digressive, jokey, giddily brutal and ferociously profane. But it is also a troubling and important movie about slavery and racism.¨ This is one of the most entertaining movies of the year, but it could be divisive for some.

http://estebueno10.blogspot.com/

My Review: Carnage (6/10)

¨A new comedy of no manners.¨

Roman Polanski is a great director, there is no denying his trajectory (Rosemary`s Baby, Chinatown, The Pianist), and his latest film, The Ghost Writer, was amongst my favorite movies of last year, but Carnage was a bit of a disappointment for me. Perhaps I was expecting more going into this movie considering Polanski was directing it and knowing it had a spectacular cast: Jodie Foster, Kate Winslet, John C. Reilly, and Christoph Waltz. Carnage was nowhere near as good as I thought it would be, but it still isn`t a bad movie. It has some witty dialogues, several funny scenes, and of course great performances. There is nothing wrong with the cast; they all did a great job with their characters and Jodie Foster should receive an Oscar nomination for her role; the problem I had was mainly with the story. It takes place entirely in an apartment building and the conversations made me feel so awkward and unsteady that I couldn`t wait for the couple to leave the room. They seem to continue going on in circles criticizing one another, while slowly escalating their tones. Of course there are several really funny moments and John C. Reilly steals most laughs, but the film just felt too simplistic. Another problem I had with it was the length; it lasts less than 80 minutes. I suspect Carnage worked much better in the theater since it was based on the play written by Yasmina Reza (The God of Carnage), but it just didn’t translate really well in the big screen. Reza and Polanski both worked in the adaptation of the script. Carnage is a funny, simple movie, but not very memorable.

The premise of the movie is pretty simple. We have two couples that decide to meet at their New York apartment after their kids had a big fight and one of them lost two teeth in the process. On the one hand we have Penelope (Jodie Foster) and Michael (John C. Reilly) Longstreet who`s child (Ethan) was the victim, and on the other we have Nancy (Kate Winslet) and Alan Cowan (Christoph Waltz) who`s child (Zachary) was responsible for beating the other with a stick. At first they decide to meet cordially and try to solve the issue in a friendly matter, but the tone begins to escalate after Penelope asks the Cowan`s if they could bring Zachary over to apologize for the incident. Nancy says she could bring her son over, but Alan has no intention of coming back since he sees the entire issue pointless. All he cares for is getting back to work and that is why he is constantly on the phone. Penelope on the other hand wants to solve the issue peacefully, but she is more of an idealist than a realist. The entire conversation begins to heat up and after a couple of drinks the violent words begin to cross from one point of the room to the other. The entire movie takes place inside this apartment, although in the beginning we get to see the incident between the kids in the park from afar.

Carnage is a movie that points out human behavior. While we`re kids we seem to have no trouble at expressing our feelings and emotions. Kids fight all the time. When we grow up and become adults it seems like we leave those child ways behind; or at least we try to contain our emotions and we put on our masks to act like everything is fine. That is the case with both couples in the movie. They meet in order to solve a conflict that began with their kids, but they blow it way out of proportions after their own masks become falling off. Adults can be violent as well, perhaps they won`t grab a stick and hit someone in the face, but they do curse at each other and begin a verbal war. Carnage is a verbal war that begins cordial and ends with violent outbursts and infantile behavior. We try to act like adults, but when we reach our boiling point we end up acting worse than the kids. Perhaps the only character that never wears a mask in Carnage is Alan who always shows his disinterest in the entire situation. At times I felt the same way he did towards the movie, but I did enjoy the witty dialogue at others. All these characters were really unlikeable people and as the minutes went by they just got worse. The performances were really great despite the fact that we could care less for the characters. Carnage isn’t a bad movie, it`s funny, but it won`t rank among Polanski`s best work. If you’re a fan of him or any of these actors than you might want to check this movie out.

  

http://estebueno10.blogspot.com/

My Review: The Three Musketeers (5/10)

¨All for one and one for all¨

Here comes another adaptation of Alexandre Dumas`s famous novel of the same name, this time directed by Paul W.S. Anderson (the guy responsible for bringing us the Resident Evil franchise game to the big screen). I have to admit I was a fan of the Resident Evil movies, but that is about the only films I enjoy coming from Anderson, and with The Three Musketeers that only makes my position even stronger. This film was totally massacred by Alex Litvak and Andrew Davies, the men responsible for adapting the screenplay. It`s really hard to bring such a famous novel to the big screen and most films have failed in doing so, but I have to admit this is one of the weakest efforts. Anderson really takes his work lightly here and tries to give us a modern version of the Three Musketeers, but despite all the special effects he does nothing to make these characters interesting. They are all entirely one dimensional with no exceptions. There are several talented actors in this film, but not even Christoph Waltz as the infamous Cardinal Richelieu seemed to fit the part. Being a musketeer is what every boy dreams of, but after watching this film my guess is that very few will feel like being Athos, Aramis, Porthos, or D`Artagnan because the film focused on the special effects, flying ships, explosions, rather than on the great characters that Dumas created in his novel. The Three Musketeers should focus on the characters, not on the special effects. Anderson tried to approach this novel in a much lighter way, but it didn`t work at all. The film felt empty, the characters had a huge void, and the best performances actually came from the villains than the heroes.    

Everyone who is familiar with Dumas`s novel or that has seen any of its numerous film adaptations knows the plot. We are first introduced to our main characters: the three musketeers; Athos (Matthew Macfadyen), Aramis (Luke Evans), and Porthos (Ray Stevenson) who serve as King Louis XIII (Freddie Fox) of France`s personal guards. However there seems to be no much more need for the three musketeers since Cardinal Richelieu (Christoph Waltz) has everything under control with his special guards who serve under the leadership of Rochefort (Mads Mikkelsen). The King is too young and naïve to control the country and the Cardinal wants to take advantage of that and take over the kingdom. The three musketeers spend most of their time getting drunk and starting fights with Richelieu`s guards. Their descent began a year ago when Athos was deceived by his lover Milady de Winter (Milla Jovovich) who stole some secret plans from them containing information on a powerful weapon, and gave them to the Duke of Buckingham (Orlando Bloom) so now England can have the advantage over France if a possible war ensues. This is exactly what Richelieu wants: to provoke a war so the people of France rely on a much stronger leader, himself. This is where D`Artagnan (Logan Lerman) enters the scene; the son of a former musketeer himself sets out to Paris in order to become one himself. Despite being hot headed and young, he inspires the rest of the musketeers with the values they have long lost: courage and fidelity to the King.  

A film about the Three Musketeers should focus on the characters, but this movie like most of its predecessors fails to do so. Logan Lerman, known for his work in Percy Jackson & the Olympians doesn’t have the charisma that his character, D`Artagnan needed. The three musketeers aren`t developed really well either as the movie decides to focus more on the special effects and the action rather than on the characters. One would also expect a lot more sword fighting in this movie, but there are actually more explosions and gunshots than anything else. The heroes aren`t done justice in this film and I was disappointed despite not expecting much from it either. I have to admit it`s always a difficult task to bring a highly loved novel to the big screen, and Anderson isn`t the right guy for the job as he is mostly known for focusing on the action rather than on the characters. The Three Musketeers isn’t a terrible film; it just doesn’t do the story justice. Some people may enjoy this light film since it is nonstop action, but it just wasn`t what I was expecting. There are some funny scenes however involving Orlando Bloom`s character and his discussions about fashion with King Louis. Those were the highlights of the film for me, and that is about it. I didn’t have a terrible time either, I just don`t think the three musketeers were made justice.

http://estebueno10.blogspot.com/

My Review: Water for Elephants (7/10)

¨I don`t know if I picked that circus. But something told me that circus picked me.¨

Francis Lawrence (I am Legend, Constantine) directed this film which was adapted from Sara Gruen`s novel of the same name by screenwriter Richard LaGravenese (P.S. I Love You, The Bridges of Madison County). Water for Elephants is a period drama that takes us back to the era of the Great Depression and introduces us to the dark side of the circus entertainment industry. Not everything is pure fun and entertainment because once the show is over we get to see the suffering and difficulties that go along with running a circus. Some things are just illusions as we soon find out from the mean spirited manager of the traveling circus. He seems so fun and nice during the show, but when the lights go off he runs the place with a stern hand, throwing coworkers off a running train, or beating animals whenever he`s upset. The mood of the Great Depression can be felt throughout the entire film, and only when the show is running can we experience the illusion of happiness. There is also a love triangle involved which makes things more depressing because it proves how difficult love can be at times. I really enjoyed this period drama and thought it depicted the era quite nicely. There are some interesting characters, but the heart of the film revolves around the elephant (which happens to be the star of the circus and the symbol of hope during their struggle to survive).

Jacob Jankowski (Robert Pattinson) is a veterinary student who seems to be living a normal life until he receives some bad news: his parents have just passed away in a car accident leaving him with nothing. Jacob abandons college and ends up spending the night on a train. The train happens to belong to a traveling circus but there is no space for newcomers. One of the men that find him wants to throw him off the train, but another saves him and introduces him to the manager of the circus: August (Christoph Waltz). August runs the circus with a very stern hand, he`s volatile and dangerous, but at the same time he has the charisma it takes to run a circus show. When August realizes that Jacob is a veterinarian, he hires him so that he can take care of the animals which are pretty much all in a bad shape. The first thing he has to do is sacrifice one of the horses who was badly injured, and unfortunately happened to be the star of the circus along with her rider Marlena (Reese Witherspoon). Now with little money and no main attraction to bring in an audience the circus is barely struggling to survive. August might be mean and evil, but he is a visionary and finds an opportunity when he encounters an elephant named Rosie and decides to invest all his money on that animal. Marlena must learn how to ride it, and Jacob how to master it. The two young good looking kids spend a lot of time together and they begin to fall for each other. The only problem is that Marlena is married to August and he will surely not let go of her so easily.

I could think of no better actor to play the part of August than Christoph Waltz. He is just great in this film and inspired fear every time he got upset. He proved Inglorious Basterds was no fluke and he is a great villain. At times he seemed nice, but he was just a time bomb waiting to explode the moment something went wrong. I loved Reese Witherspoon in Walk the Line, but in this film her performance isn`t really memorable. I would have preferred another actress in this role, I really didn`t feel the chemistry between her and Robert Pattinson. It was good to see Pattinson playing a none-vampire role, but I would have chosen two different actors to play these roles. They are probably the weakest links in the film. The film actually picks up when we are introduced to Rosie, the elephant. Without her I don’t think I would have enjoyed the movie as much as I did. She doesn’t just save the circus, she also saves this film. She is the heart and soul of the picture. This isn`t one of the best films of the year, but it is a satisfying and entertaining film and definitely worth your time. It could have been so much better if the lead actors would have had a better chemistry between them. The romance didn`t work as well as it should have, but the film still succeeds at depicting the era and the mood during the Great Depression. Rosie and Waltz are worth the ticket price alone.

http://estebueno10.blogspot.com/