That point being made, this movie is a near miss with some pleasurable aspects, but it would have taken much more inspiration on many fronts to film successfully Gruen's wonderfully written and meticulously researched book about life in a traveling circus during the early 1930s at the height of the Great Depression when prohibition was still in effect. 

With the exception of a critical scene near the end of the movie, the cinematography is lush and colorful with many magical scenes both under the circus tent and aboard the circus train. Regrettably, the magic remained with the circus, but was in short supply between the actors in a film directed by Francis Lawrence and made from a nicely written screenplay by Richard LaGravenese. Except for some minor points noted later, LaGravenese's screenplay remains pretty faithful to the story.     

I can understand the casting of Reese Witherspoon as Marlena, but for the life of me I cannot understand the casting of Robert Pattinson in the role of circus veterinarian Jacob Jankowski unless they wanted to pull in the tweenie and teen crowd mad about him for his role in the "Twilight" movies. He's the right age, of course, but his acting range stretches all of the way from serious to sullen with nary a stop in between. He hardly ever smiles and I couldn't get a feel for him as a character.

This movie is sold as a romance, but it is a romance that we never see until the very end since Marlena keeps her feelings hidden. She knows full well that her husband, a first class sadist played with delicious intensity by Christoph Waltz, is inordinately jealous and will have anyone who even looks at her beaten up or worse. This makes the role of Jacob played by Pattinson all the more important since he has to carry the emotional intensity for the two of them. 

Regrettably, when Jacob and Marlena finally do get together, it is with all of the sexual chemistry of a Disney movie. These two display little to no attraction for each other, and I have to wonder if this is because Pattinson couldn't pull this off as an actor or perhaps because he felt little chemistry with Witherspoon, who happens to be ten years older. 

The other critical flaw in this movie (spoiler alert) are the poorly filmed scenes depicting the spectacular denouement of the Benzini Brothers Greatest Show on Earth with the collapse of their giant tent and all of the wild circus animals being let out from their cages as an act of revenge for the many employees which August had "redlined" (thrown off the train while it is in motion), beaten, or killed. These scenes were like a Cliff Notes version of this important event in the novel since they were hastily filmed with little drama, focus, or intensity.

Christoph Waltz steals every scene he is in as his character is the only one with raw emotions front and center on full display. The other interesting character, perhaps the main character in the movie since she provides the pivot point for the story, is Rosie the elephant. Her scenes are as good as any other in this movie, and the love scenes between Jacob and Rosie and between Marlena and Rosie are more compelling than the love scenes between Jacob and Marlena. Is there an Oscar for animal performance? 

A couple of plot points in the novel were changed for the movie. In the novel Old Jacob's (Hal Holbrook) life in a nursing home is described in detail with him losing all hope on a Sunday when the only kind nurse tells him that she is moving out of state and then his own son forgets to show up to escort him to the small circus which has set up in the parking lot outside the home. 

Also in the novel, the owner of the circus is "Uncle Al" while August is merely the circus manager. This peripheral character is unnecessary and was dispensed with. More importantly, in the novel Jacob borrows Kinko's knife before he is murdered, not after, so Kinko is left defenseless when August's murderous thugs show up. This adds to Jacob's rage since he feels guilty for not having returned the knife.

It is for the best that much of the extreme cruelty in the novel is either not shown on the screen, verbally described after the fact, or quickly dispensed with in short scenes to preserve the movie's PG-13 rating. As an aside, I was surprised that there was no posting in the credits from SPCA proclaiming that "No animals were harmed during the making of this movie." 

One thing which has always bothered me is that this entire story depends upon a minor plot point which I find to be ludicrous. The Cornell College Dean interrupts Jacob when he is right in the middle of his final exam. I would think that the dean could have waited until Jacob had completed his exam (and be able to graduate), but then, of course, there wouldn't have been a story. 122 minutes and rated PG-13.