Elephant

Rating:
Summary: Looking for Answers? Don't come here.
Review: This achievement of cinematic quality is an amazing look at an everyday high school, experiencing everyday boredom, that is interupted by cataclysmic events. This movie offers little in the way of explanation, thereby avoiding the political problems that movies of this type enter into. Yes, there are hints of an agenda at work. The teasing of the less popular, the intimidation by the beautiful girls, the "PC" video game violence influence, oppressed homosexual feelings of rage, lack of parental influence, and more all come into play, but in the end, no explanation is given by the filmmaker. This is actually what I enjoyed most about this film. It just happened. Does there have to be an explanation? Acts of violence aren't always rooted in some deeper cause. Perhaps the director simply wanted to say that the kids who would do something like this were just bored with life. Perhaps they were tired of living and sought to go out with a bang. The discussion that this movie raises is the best product of the movie. Good cinema causes good conversation. 5 out of 5.

Rating:
Summary: Boring?
Review: Were we seeing the same film? Boring and pointless? I loved this film because I remember so clearly the bland feeling of utter numbness I felt through high school. That environment is designed to suck the life out of individuals, making them pointless wandering zombies. Although I think such an event is truly shocking and heart renching, I don't think it's at all random. High School, our societies fascination with reform and our own inability to speak up create these reactions and we are all to blame for it. Gus Van Sant has said this in such a strikingly beautiful way. i'll confess to actually hating all of his other films particularly the obnoxiously over hyped Good Will Hunting (yawn)but to see a film maker connect so personally with his subject matter is better than entertaining, it's beautiful. Great work Gus, I think you reached a few people on a really personal level and you should be commended.

Rating:
Summary: staring into the void?
Review: Van Sant's too hip to tell a story or offer explanations or motivations. His long, beautiful shots of boys walking around are set to Beethoven to show how touching young men are, and how troubled. It's a poem, sort of, to male teenage angst. These boys walk away from the viewer, down the empty hallways of high school and adolescence, always turning their faces from us, always hiding their sensitivity and pain. Suggestive shots include a janitor mopping behind one walker, erasing his footsteps. Another shows boys playing a violent video game after one becomes frustrated practicing piano. Get it?

Toward the end, a couple of them take a shower together, then shoot up a high school.

It's atmospheric and deliberate, and by no means awful, it just doesn't do much. Despite the repitition of one scene from different points of view, you'll never think you're watching Kurosawa or Tarrantino. Not as excrable as "Kids" or as masterful as "River's Edge," it's finally just Van Sant's arty meditation on high school boys.

Whatever.

Rating:
Summary: Breakfast Club meets the Anti-Climatic and More
Review: I will make this review concise. This movie is full of suspense because we can all relate to the average mundane routines that Van Sant portrays. Suspense is quite the opposite of mundane and routine; however, Gus Van Sant makes watching these routines stressful because you know that they are eventually shattered by a complete destruction of everything that high school kids take for granted. What makes this a frightening film is that life is portrayed as we know it, not as Hollywood tells us it should be. Knowing what we know about Columbine, the tension is only increased by the repeated portrayal of the common and unremarkable. You will feel anxious right as the movie starts, not because of special effects or moody music but because all you need to do is walk to your local high school and you will see the underpinnings of this movie at play every day.
While we do see an average day in a high school setting, this film's underlying theme can be just as easily applied to the workplace or to life in any American home. Elephant focuses on an average day at any high school in America. That is all you need to know. The direction by Gus Van Sant is subdued and anti-climatic without trying too hard. All of the high school cliches and cliques are lightly touched upon. I am in my late 20's but for 80-minutes of this film , I felt like I was back in high school going to gym, lunch, and the library all over again. That is a scary thought for reasons that I could have never imagined at the time.

Rating:
Summary: Gus Van Sant's irresponsibility.
Review: The supposed triumph of "Elephant" is also its own downfall. Gus Van Sant's "Elephant" was laurelled with the Palm d'Or because it offers no explanation, no justification, and no insight into the tragedy of the Columbine massacre when two estranged teenager murdered 13 innocent lives. "Elephant" is not about Columbine but on another high school, which further implies Van Sant's message that a tragedy like this can occur anywhere else at anytime. That is partially true but very insulting because these sorts of event shouldn't just pop out at any random time and location. To offer no hint of reason or justification is understandable, yet irresponsible on Van Sant's part.

The first hour of this film we witness numerous tracking of the characters as they pass through empty hallways while we're just lagging behind. We first track John (John Robinson) being driven to school by his hammered dad. They stop, John tells him to get out and sit on the passenger side, John gets behind the wheel, and then more tracking. Then a slew of characters begin to appear on screen, going about in their normal lives like normal teenagers, taking advantage of their supposed safety while we in the audience know something is brewing. We follow some characters individually through flashbacks that run into other characters we eventually meet or have already met. Why does Van Sant show them in particular? I guess if perpetrators are randomly selected than so are their victims. Nothing has set rules.

Stanley Kauffmann of "The New Republic" labeled "Elephant" as a "braggart piece of empty exhibitionism" and I am inclined to agree. The first hour is so meaningless and bland that there is no reason to watch this movie, which is already aside from the fact that Van Sant intentionally offered no discernment to this matter. "Elephant" is all about fashioning the exterior as Van Sant plays with the camera by seamlessly tracking its players and shooting long shots. The cinematography is lusciously solemn and Van Sant tries to fill the emotionless gaps with classical scores of Beethoven but it merely widens it. Van Sant flaunts "Elephant" for being unconventional and becomes so preoccupied with it that he leaves it hollow. "Elephant" is as empty as the hallways we tracked.
-Please finish my review at www.filmwiseguy.funtigo.com

Rating:
Summary: Chilling and thought-provoking
Review: I had been eagerly anticipating seeing this film ever since I first heard about it. Unfortunately, I missed it in its brief showing here in town. However, I was FINALLY able to see it today on DVD, and I was far from let down.

"Elephant" does not provide easy answers to quell our fears and sense of loss over school shootings. While it does address potential triggers for why it occurred, the director never casts blame on any of the proposed catalysts. Instead, director Van Sant goes for a new (and stunningly realized) approach---making a "real" film. The movie follows a group of teenagers on what is an ordinary day at school--getting dropped off by your parents, detentions, classes, bullying, lunch break with friends, teasing in the locker room, etc. I found this extremely effective, as it builds a level of tension in every frame; you just never truly know when it will hit the fan. The way in which the film alternates back and forth in time (similar to Tarantino, but not exact) also escalates the suspense further, as little details and sounds (ie Michelle in the library when we hear a shotgun rack--this will probably make your heart jump as bad as mine did!!) start to clue you in as to how things will unfold.

However, what truly makes this film work is the way in which it brings memories of high school floating back. I had several instances of deja vu so strong I had to shake the chills off my back. Once it is all over, you begin to ponder what would have happened had this occured in your school, and would you have been someone to cause such atrocity.

This is definitely not an easy film to watch. It seems extremely tedious at first, but once you begin to relate to it, you become enveloped. For anyone that wants to ponder such events in relation to their own school years, and try to make their own conclusions on why such things happen, I would strongly reccomend this fine film. It is definitely one I will watch again soon.

Rating:
Summary: Pointless and boring
Review: I've heard all the arguments about this movie and it is completely pointless and boring. If you want to know what high school is like just drive by your nearest high school, park in the parking lot and observe. Or talk to the neighbor kid who is in high school. Either way, both of those options are more exciting than this craptacular movie called "Elephant".
This film tries too hard to be an art film and yet fails miserably. It is supposedly an excercise in voyeurism but it is just all too boring to hold the attention of the audience. Everyone already knows that some kids get made fun of in high school. Everyone already knows what happened at Columbine. Sure high school can be tough and depressing at times but this is just ridiculous. I like the idea that this movie was trying to convey, yet it is just so boring and badly done that it can't keep my attention for more than 5 minutes.

Please save yourself from this horrible film and watch Evil Dead II instead. It actually has more meaning and depth to it than Elephant has.

Rating:
Summary: great
Review: I don't care if people write they don't like this movie because it just shows how stupid and shallow they are and it's pity for them. I think it's very not american movie and Van Sant's best well maybe not his best but my favourite. It's an unusual movie to come from the "great USofA" beacause it makes you think and really touches you somewhere inside (at least it touched me). I know it may seem boring, nothing is really happening here as in Die Hard series or other "ambitious" films. But if you're a real movie fan you will see the genius in this movie:great cinematography,great script, great direction, good cast and the slowly builded atmosphere. And the final is truly...it's even hard to describe...I was at least speechless.

Rating:
Summary: Realistic And Harrowing; And Nothing More to it
Review: In spite of the unreliable disclaimer in the end credits -- to the effect "The events depicted here are not related to anything in real life" -- everyone knows that "Elephant," which won two major awards in Canne, and co-executive-produced by Diane Keaton, is based on the shooting at Columbine.

And the director Gus Van Sant knows we know the fact while watching the film. We know the film is NOT about an ordinary day in a fictional highschool in Oregon (a disused school stands for the film's one), where the camera follows the ordinary students and teachers (and a drunk father) played mostly by amateurs. So "John" is played by John Robinson, and "Alex" by Alex Frost, and so on, excpet the few professional actors like Timothy Bottoms as John's dad.

And the tragic thing happens, which I don't think needs further explanation. The film depicts the two boys' atrocious deed with drab, realistic touch, being intent on showing the things as they are.

The film is, to me, unnnerving, and is never boring for I know what will happen in the end, and clearly Gus Van Sant knows the effects coming from that. The film's long, continous shot as if floating in the air works to make the unsettling effects even though some may say, quite rightly, that the director is self-indulgent in sticking to the intention, not culculating the effects on us, like many arty films do.

In fact, the minutely worked-out camerawork is quite memorable, to be fair, and the actors are very good and convincing though it is palpable that they are not trained pros. At least they are natural, and as a whole, promising if they want to continue the job. (Actually John Robinson went on to be in next Asia Argent-directed film.)

What I do not understand about the film is ... hard to explain, but the fact the film is made at all. I know this is a slice of life in 1999 April 20th, but do we have to watch this "thought-provoking film" (which it is) while we are still thinking about the incident? I respect the director's decision to leave out any attempt to explain how come this happened, but after watching it the film starts to look pointless, even though that may be exactly what it aims for.

I said the film does not explain; in fact, it does. There is a suggestion about Nati, violent video game, Internet, and even the boys' sexuality. Probably Van Sant wants to criticize, with these references, the possible "causes" suggested by the media. I know, but by introducing them, "Elephant" begins to show, unknown to itself, the comtempt to these characters which should be more rounded. My advice is, just strike it out.

To be frank, I do not know why the film is made while there are many people suffering from the aftermath. "Elepahnt" will offers the occasion for you to share the moment of that day, but I do believe this is the documentary film's job, not Michael Moore. but someone with more balanced-viewpoint.

Rating:
Summary: Keep It Simple
Review: Elephant is one of the best movies I have seen in years. The film is shot in an original and interesting format which most audiences have found boring. If you sit down and invest yourself in this seventy minute movie, you won't be disappointed.