WATER FOR ELEPHANTS (2011 - cert 12A)

While I was at the most recent Secret Cinema I was stood with my friends talking to one of the actors, a child who had lost her mother, and realised that I was stood outside a mock-up of an old cinema in French occupied Algeria. On it's outside wall were posters of old films, and I joked about how all old film posters were the same.  A man and a woman embracing in the foreground with all sorts of flashes of action snapped from the film going on behind them. Gone With The Wind is the perfect example.

Later as I filed out of the Secret Cinema venue and hurried to catch a train to a BBQ in Waterloo I saw a poster for Water For Elephants, which I knew I was seeing the next day, the girlfriend having put in a request after a long sequence of us going to see 'my' choices.

It's clearly a throwback to those posters, the similarities jump out immediately. In many ways it sums up the whole film. It really is an old-fashioned love story, it looks like it, it feels like it. It even starts like it. Right from the opening scene that is only just short of clunky, where an old man turns up at the circus only to do so late and miss the show. He is taken into the office by a staff member who tries to ring round to find out which retirement home he is from. They talk and it transpires that the old man used to work at the circus, not just any circus, the Benzini Brothers Circus years, years ago back in 1931. Cue laboured flashback. Yes, you're right, it's been done before, many times and it immediately reminded me of the opening of Titanic, but fortunately not nearly as irritating.  Anyway, we drift back to 1931 and the old man's voice becomes that of R-Patz, sorry Robert Pattinson, this is a serious role for the heart throb from Barnes as he tries to move away from the teen-vampire-flick market, dispelling with the nickname that the female teenage masses have given him. 

Pattinson plays Jacob, a young man who has it all, about to become a vet and embark on a successful life. It quickly goes wrong though when his parents die in a car crash. Heartbroken, he doesn't finish his training, he is thrown out of his house and wanders the railways searching for the first train he comes across to take him to a new life. That first train is the travelling Benzini Brothers Circus and he quickly snaps himself a job as the vet. The film then focuses on a love triangle involving Jacob, Reese Witherspoon's character Marlena, the star attraction of the circus with her horses act, and August, the owner of the circus played by Chrisopth Waltz (Inglorious Basterds). 

It's fair to say that I wasn't thrilled at the prospect of this film, I said yes conscious of the fact that I was always dragging the girlfriend to the next Superhero film. This hesitancy could be to blame for the fact that while I was in the cinema there were parts of the film where I was bored, it dragged more often than a film should. So much so that when I left, I was convinced I hadn't enjoyed the film at all. I rolled my eyes as we got out, and in my defence the girlfriend didn't enjoy it much either. She thought long stretches were dull as well. Then the more time that passed, the more we both found ourselves thinking about it, the more scenes appeared in my mind, the more moments we kept bringing up in conversation. The weirdest thing was that the more I thought about the scenes, the more positively I felt about them. My attitude now is completely different to that of when I left the cinema. 

I've pondered long and hard about why this phenomenon has taken place and I can only really put it down to the characters and the actors. The film is very tightly written by the experienced hand of Richard LaGravenese, who has things like the Bridges of Madison County and The Fisher King under his belt, so credit should go there where it is due, but it's the actors who really bring the characters to life. All three corners of the love triangle on show here shine, each in different ways. R-Patz, sorry, Robert Pattinson is who the film follows but is probably the least interesting character of them all. That isn't to say his time on screen is dull though. He is assured and confident and keeps the film pushing along with a performance that does suggest he might actually make the transition to 'proper' actor. His Jacob is instantly likeable and although it seems simple and obvious to state the importance of that, it's not easy to actually pull it off. Reese Witherspoon doesn't stand out in Water For Elephants, but again this is not a criticism. She has become so consistently dependable that we just expect her to be nothing short of very good. She has a gift of always being someone different in all of her roles, but not changing much about her at all. She always looks and sounds like Reese Witherspoon, but she is always someone else despite that. Waltz, once again, is the show stealer. Like in Inglorious he plays a charming nutcase, smiling his way through the film but behind that grin you know he is a complete and utter maniac. It's great to watch but it's a shame that it feels like it's been done before, all be it being a more child friendly version in this instance. 

For director Francis Lawrence it's an interesting move. Following Constantine and I Am LegandCGI, highlighted in I Am Legend, is again apparent here, the animals looking cheap, lifted straight from a B-Movie.

So, it would seem that's a positive review, which I certainly wouldn't have foreseen if you had grabbed me as I was filing out of the exit of my local multiplex. It leaves me in quite a difficult position, because I would recommend it, but in doing so I would be stating that it is acceptable to leave me bored during a film if afterwards I gradually change my mind. Yes it's slightly tedious in places and a bit overly soppy throughout, but if you can get past that accept the old-school nature of it then you may just be surprised.... 

I AM LEGEND (2007)

'Favourite book ever' is a very bold statement and should not be thrown around lightly, but I can honestly say that Richard Matheson's 1954 novel is one of the best books I have ever read. I am not the only person who rates it so highly either. Before the most recent cinematic effort, it has been adapted into two films with different names, The Last Man on Earth (in 1964, starring Vincent Price) and The Omega Man (1971, Charlton Heston), it has been very influential in the growth of the zombie genre and in making popular the idea of infectious disease being an apocalyptic possibility. George A Romero cites it as an influence for Night of the Living Dead and 28 Days Later clearly relies heavily on the book.

This particular adaptation, and I must stress that it is loosely based on Matheson's book, has been in the pipeline for a long time, at one stage during the 80's Ridley Scott was to direct with Arnold Schwarzenegger as the lead , but ultimately it fell to Francis Lawrence (Constantine) to direct and with Will Smith as Robert Neville, the last man alive on earth. Set in New York City, 2012, a viral cure for cancer has mutated and turned human-kind in to zombie like creatures, hungry for blood, vulnerable to daylight. Neville, colonel/scientist in the army, goes about his daily survival tasks (hunting deer in Times Square) during the day, while at night, hiding in his modern fortress of an apartment while he tries to find a cure for the plague.



The first part of the film sets all of this up, and I must say, it does it very well. The explanation of the virus is done nicely, with Emma Thompson in a nice cameo as the doctor responsible. We then leap forward 3 years. Manhattan as a wasteland looks brilliant, abandoned cars, overgrown foliage, eerie silence, it really does feel like a ghost town. Very much like the opening section of 28 Days Later, but less apocalyptic, more as though people gradually gave up. The idea of hunting deer in the centre of New York is also a nice little touch. Neville's isolation is ramped up as his only companions are Sam, his dog, and mannequins that he has named and left in local stores, engaging in banal chatter as he yearns for a semblance of normality. Well executed flashback scenes showing the chaos that erupts when the disease takes hold, add a bit more meat the story and also more depth to Neville's character.

At this stage I think it's worth mentioning Will Smith and his central performance. The choice of actor in this film is perhaps even vital than most other films, as the whole thing rests on their shoulders. This would not be a role for Keanu Reeves. Smith has come a long way from his days as the Fresh Prince and the drivel that was Wild Wild West, he really is an accomplished actor and he shows it again here. He does the pumped up action man stuff well, as you would expect, but it's the other moments that really stand out. There is a constant look of resignation on his face, no hope whatsoever. There are some very touching scenes where he tries to pluck up the courage to approach one of the mannequins, just to say hello. He also manages to portray the maximum amount of emotion possible in a scene with a dog. Turner & Hooch has nothing on this.

So far so good. Then the 'Darkseekers' (a.k.a. the infected) come on to the scene, which of course is when it should really hot up. Now I have two criticisms of the creatures, one is cosmetic and the other is a lot more important.

Firstly, for a reason only they will know, the makers of this film decided to have computer generated creatures. It just doesn't look right. The creatures are essentially zombies, and we have been so used to seeing the undead over the years as actors in (advanced) make up and prosthetics, the action feels physical and textile. It's what we know, and it's what we like. The CGI here isn't exactly top class, and you can tell it isn't real, it takes away from the threat of danger. It's all rather distracting. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

The second point, is the decision to make them zombie-like. One the main reasons that the book is so interesting and arresting is that the creatures (in this case vampires) are by appearance, almost exactly the same as humans. Your neighbour John, still looks like John, sounds like John, still engages in the same banter that you had with John, but now he wants to kill you and is beyond saving. The enemy in this film is faceless, generic, bland, we've seen it all before. A huge chunk of originality has been removed and left in a wheelie bin outside.

So once the scene is set so well, it becomes a standard action/monster film that rattles along to its conclusion, which, I admit is not in the usual cannon of Hollywood cop-out happy endings and is quite satisfying, but does massively deviate from the 'Legend' that is meant in the source material, which as possibly my favourite ending to anything, is annoying to say the least.

So I was excited when I first heard about it, I was excited when it first came out, I was excited after the the first half an hour, but then it all quickly evaporated. 28 Days Later was influenced hugely by the novel I Am Legend, but the irony is, despite a promising start this adaptation feels like a dated rehash of Danny Boyle's film which is packed full of more originality and fresh ideas.

Right, I'm off to read I Am Legend again.