Pleasantville (1998)

Wow, this is an old movie - so old that the back of the DVD case lists the date in roman numerals, which took me just a couple of seconds to translate. What a great skill to have. 1998 you say? Why that's MCMXCVIII. (And the crowd goes wild...various pieces of women's underwear rain down upon the stage)
This was a movie I was never going to watch. It looked cheesey, and seeing that it was from the director of Big and Dave didn't help it. But, then I watched the Hunger Games and more importantly the DVD extras and liked how Gary Ross presented himself. And hey, who doesn't love Peter Parker and June Carter Cash?
I'm glad that I watched Pleasantville. Would it be too cheeky to say it was a pleasant movie? Okay, maybe a little. It was a nice story about normal kids thrust into a non-normal situation, and their coming of age. Plus, you gotta love any story where the fry cook discovers that his true love is as a painter and that his other true love is the married mother of his only employee.
Joan Allen is outstanding in this film, as is Jeff Daniels. Everyone else is good, but not really noteworthy, which considering the names of some of these heavy-hitters is a bit surprising. I have to think that if William H. Macy were given just a little more to work with that his character would have shined the whole way through, and not just in the end. Oh, there is one other name that is worth mentioning - Don Knotts. He played the t.v. repairman with a mix of devil and angel and child that was brilliant. I think it's easy to sell him short based on his career, but I doubt that he really has been given many chances to play anything more than the comic relief, which is too bad - he was conveying more with a look than any of the younger actors.
I wonder if Mr. Knotts is still alive? I had no idea how old this film was until after watching it, so when he first came on screen, my reaction was, "Hey! It's Don Freaki' Knotts! I didn't know he was still alive..." And then I enjoy the film and in order to write this check out the back of the case and see that it was released in MCMXCVIII, I mean 1998 (sorry), and now I feel a bit sad because he might not be still alive and for some reason that really bums me out. Okay Google, time to break it to me...

Pleasantville on IMDb

Water for Elephants (2011)

I haven't read the book, so I can't compare this film to it, I can only compare the film to other circus films / love stories. Robert Pattinson is Jacob, wait isn't that the name of one of the characters from those other movies? Reese Witherspoon is Marlena the horse/elephant performer. There's a lot of smiling, and I guess if I was as pretty as either one of them, I'd smile a lot too. Add Cristoph Waltz in as August and you've got quite a main cast.
Considering that two of the three are Academy Award (r) you would think this movie would be amazing. It's not bad, but it's not amazing. The pacing of the film is a tad slow, though it does start to pick up at an hour or so into the film, but that is sooooo long to wait for things to pick up.
The vast portion of this film takes place in 1931, and everything seems to be very accurate. The costumery is top notch, as is the portrayal of depression era United States. But what really steals the show, is Rosie the elephant, played by Tai (hey, I'm giving everyone else their creds). She steals every scene she is in, but animals, especially those that are smart and well-trained, are well known for upstaging their human counterparts.
I wasn't around when prohibition was going on, but I was always under the impression that people did not flaunt their alcohol, they just drank in private, or if the movies are any indication, in speak-easies. This film has lots of booze. It seems to me that if you're going to fill a film with lots of booze and keep mentioning the prohibition that it should be key to the plot - cops busting you, or the friendly towny helping out with a warning, and then bam! In run the cops yelling it's a raid, just so that we can finally get the kiss we've been waiting for the last 78 minutes.
And then the movie goes on in slow motion with triumphant scenes of Witherspoon performing with the elephant as sad music plays to Pattinson looking on. Meanwhile Waltz is getting more and more jealous and a little crazy with what he imagines, and in no small part insures will happen.
But, at least Rosie is still in the movie. Right? As the movie finally builds to it's awkward climax, you finally get the idea that if the movie is like the book, that you're glad that you've watched the movie. Maybe I'm not a romantic (I guess there is more than one person that could confirm this for you if you need it confirmed) but I don't think this book would have done anything more than put me to sleep. Maybe the book was full of all kinds of delicious details like the wonderful "Night Circus" by Erin Morgenstern. And maybe the book wasn't as formulaic as the film, I know that making a movie can often shape stories into something unrecognizable.
The finale of the movie makes up for the previous slowness, but leaves me wondering why they didn't have better pacing all along - I don't mean non-stop action, but non-stop movement of the story or non-stop character development, or preferably all of the above.
Oh, and I'm sure that Pattinson is happy to know that when he grows up and then old, he will be Hal Holbrook. There are far worse ways to turn out.

Water for Elephants at IMDb