New at BOP: Review: Matrix Resurrections Movie Review: Moonfall Movie Reviews: Scream The #1 Movie in America November Forecast The Many Saints of Newark October Forecast New Trivia Question All site updates Share & Save   Tweet Print this column

Reese Witherspoon plays his love interest, Marlena. As expected, the romance plays out a little less awkwardly onscreen. If Hollywood cinema consistently does one thing remarkably well, it’s romance. The problem may be that we don’t really get enough time between Pattinson and Witherspoon to really develop much of a connection between the two of them. The romance feels very natural on the big screen, but it’s not a very engrossing one. Pattinson’s emotionally hollow screen presence doesn’t have much to connect with against an equally vacant Witherspoon. It’s not a bad screen romance, but other, more peripheral characters come across as being much more interesting than the central two.

With a guy who cut his teeth on music videos directing the film, one might expect the circus itself to splash itself across the cinema screen with the kind of passion that would capture the wonder and spectacle of a touring circus during the great depression. One would expect dramatic visuals that would deliver that same sense of wonder to a modern cinema audience. And one would be immensely disappointed. There’s no question that the period of the circus is painstakingly rendered onscreen with as much authentic detail as possible, but the camera doesn’t capture any of the wonder of it all. The dazzling wonder of the circus from that era — the spectacle that is at the heart of what made circuses so appealing for previous generations - is completely missing here. As a result, Francis Lawrence’s film brings Gruen’s novel to the screen with remarkable fidelity right down to the bland, yawn-inducing presentation of an early 20th century circus.

With respect to the plot, much has been cut out to expedite delivery of all the major story elements. Perhaps the biggest absence felt onscreen is that of the character of Uncle Al. The film completely eliminates this character in favor of a typically brilliant Christopher Waltz as August — who also serves as the head of the circus in the film. There’s some really classy depth to Waltz’s performance, which goes a long way towards making the movie likeable. He’s a villain, yes, but a satisfyingly pathetic one with an affable side. He’s taken Gruen’s relatively weak character and made him a bit more interesting.

Things proceed pretty much the way they do in the novel with the exception of all the pointless little bits of narrative about an aging Jacob in the modern world. Here, the aging Jacob scenes bookend the story without intruding on the story beyond intro and ending scenes. Hal Holbrook plays an older Jacob with considerable humanity and genuine emotion. With a career stretching back to the mid-1960s, Holbrook knows how to deliver a deeply emotional, heartfelt performance that is onscreen for only the briefest period of time.

The Verdict

With LaGravenese’s script being a really tight, economical adaptation of Gruen’s book, it’s quite fitting (though no less disappointing) that the movie would be as bad as the book (albeit in different ways for different reasons.) Neither seem animated by much interest in telling an actual story. Both appear to have been projects for the sake of developing work. Many will read the book for the sake of reading a book. Many will see the film for the sake of seeing a film. Anyone expecting any more than that out of either will be grossly disappointed.

Continued:       1       2       3