|
Directed by: Gus Van Sant Starring: John Robinson, Carrie Finklea Fresh out of the Cannes Film Festival and coming to DVD on May 4, this drama by Gus Van Sant will give mixed reactions. Taking place in seemingly Anytown, USA, a documentary style camera films the lives of students in a typical day of highschool. We follow around regular students and learn of their daily habits, interests and problems also. One gets to know the characters almost intimately, seeing them in situations private to themselves which nobody else would get the chance to see. Much like Lost in Translation, the film offers very little dialogue with musical interludes all througout. Unlike the Bill Murray movie, however, this movie failed to keep my interest very long. Fifteen minutes into it, with the viewpoint staying on a single character for several minutes at a time just walking around the school, I got rather bored and flipped to the last 10 minutes of the movie. There was a very interesting turn in the mood of the film, and all of the walking around without dialogue seemed to actually fit at this point. It turns into a columbine-like scenario where several students go on a shooting rampage. I finished watching those ten minutes, then went back to the part I originally left off at. I watched the rest of the movie in fast forward and got the gist of it quite well actually. The basic characters were already set up in the first few scenes, and the rest of the movie between then and the interesting point was just more walking around with some drugs and homosexuality mixed in. Overall, this movie isn't worth a rental unless you're really a film buff who enjoys movies for their artistic merit, and even then you'd have to be pretty extreme at it. And this is coming from a person who loves movies like Punch Drunk Love or Lost in Translation. 2/5
|
#
?
May 2, 2004 06:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 07:57 |
|
|
Well, I watched the whole thing, and pretty much the only important part you missed was the killers getting naked and kissing in a shower.
Somebody fucked around with this message at 22:50 on May 3, 2004 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2004 07:32
|
|
|
Looking back, this movie seems like a big bunch of cliches put together. However, I can't say this movie wasn't gripping at the time I was watching.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2004 07:40
|
|
|
I had high expectations for this because the trailer was so good, but it didn't turn out so well. The biggest problem is that you get to know each character for about 5 minutes total and when the meet their demise, you just don't care. Long, five minute shots of the football captain walking from the field to the office were pointless as well. So was the black guy at the end who apparently didn't know what was going on? I guess there was symbolism in that somewhere.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2004 08:20
|
|
|
quote:Squall91 came out of the closet to say: On each card, write one high school stereotype (Jock with hot girlfirend, beaten up geeks, bulimic pretty girls). Add half a teaspoon of gay shower and several ounces of Columbine. Now, put all the ingredients into a box. Shake up the box and take one card out. Read the card. Stare at the wall for fiteen minutes. Take another card. Read card. Stare at the wall. Keep reading until cards are gone. I hope you enjoyed the movie. Jetrail fucked around with this message at 23:45 on May 2, 2004 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2004 10:26
|
|
|
It's this kind of art-for-the-sake-of-art Warhollian bullshit that Van Sant is dabbling in too often. I mean, "Gerry"? "Gerry," for Christ's sake ... ugh.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2004 10:34
|
|
|
I think the only reason this movie had the same impact it did was because of the "graphic and shocking finale" which, to most people, would be fairly shocking, but for us desensitized youths, loses much of its impact. So that leaves you with a well shot (in my opinion) movie which looks cheaper than its 2 million budget, but I think the documentary style effect comes off fairly well. Slow paced, but I never found myself checking the time, decent acting from "non-actors" and a fairly short run time left me feeling satisfied, but I haven't felt the need to watch it again, and I doubt I will anytime soon. 3/5
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2004 10:36
|
|
|
One thing that really annoyed me with this film was the short focus depth (I'm not sure if this is the proper term in English - I am foreign country citizen hello) used on the camera. So when they move the camera around, only what is within 10 feet is in focus, everything beyond that is blurred. It really made me seasick. It was probably done for a reason, but I failed to see the point of it. That goes for the script, too. There is probably a reason for keeping all the characters at such a distance, both from the viewer and each other, but I can't for the life of me understand just what Van Sant is trying to say here. I'll give it a 2, but that's just for trying to do something different. EDIT: I just feel the need to clarify that I in no way have anything against "silent" or slow paced movies in general, or need to have an overly constructed narration throughout; this film just didn't hit me, it's all about taste, isn't it? kjottbein fucked around with this message at 01:22 on May 4, 2004 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2004 12:08
|
|
|
quote:Gus Van Sant’s Elephant (2003), although being fictional, is essentially a re-telling of the Columbine story and the tragic events that took place. The movie contains no major stars, plot and some might argue emotion. All parts are played by students and students are all that we see. My Review I hated this movie. 1/5
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2004 12:20
|
|
|
Wow..you guys sure are harsh on Elephant. Although the pacing was super slow, the movie managed to keep my focus and attention throughout. I just think that simple movies like this are hit or miss, and most people will tend to dismiss its value meerly because there is no dialgoue and the story seems cliche. That said, there are some gorgeous moments in the film, the one i like in particular is the scene where one of the killers is playing a Mozart(or was it beethoven?) on the piano. 4/5
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2004 23:20
|
|
|
It didn't lose my attention at all, and made me cry towards the end, but overall I'll still give it a bad review because it just left me feeling unsatisfied and sad. That's probably the point...trying to get people to know what it's 'really like'. I guess it did that well enough. But after the movie was over I wasn't in awe, or deep in thought, or anything like that. I was just kind of sad and angry. And now I barely remember what went on in the movie. So in conclusion, it just made me feel bad, it didn't really make me think. 2.5/5
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2004 03:19
|
|
|
Pacing was overly slow (as has already been said). Film came off as being artsy for the sake of being artsy and I hate that in films like this. Hollywood usually doesn't get away with making crappy, generic, reruns of films (without getting poor reviews) and the independent movie scene shouldn't be able to get away with making films that bore people to death..... because honestly, a lot of indie films are known for it and its getting old. 1/5
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2004 06:47
|
|
|
I think there's a really thin line in this movie that will decide if you like it, or dislike it. Those who dislike it are the ones who expect the movie to tell a story. Not to say this is a bad thing, but this movie hardly tells a story. Movies are meant to tell stories... and this movie hardly told anything at all. Or did it? The other people put themselves in the place of the characters. Stereotypes exist for a reason, and chances are, each and every one of us knew someone like [character] in real life. For me, watching this, I saw it happening at the school I went to. This movie, I think, is kind of like a vague setting where things are going on. The only plot that's explored is the "Normal Day at highschool... but not really!". We all know things like this go on, and if we want it to, the movie opens a window to which we can see our past, present, or future happening. Happening a lot like this movie. Of course, I have a bad habit of over-analyzing things and making them seem good. For all I know, Gus could've just made a really lovely movie! 4/5
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2004 07:30
|
|
|
What Van Sant did with this was essentially use a Columbine style shooting as a back drop for his pretty little art film about pretty teenagers. There is practically no characterization in this film, the motives of the killers are never explored, save for the one incident of him getting a paper ball thrown at him. The movie was draining, left me feeling almost sick, and i felt unsatisfied. The ending was absolutely horrid. What bothered me so much was that this movie had so much potential, the direction was great, the writing, when actually present, was great as well. But somehow...Van Sant managed to gently caress it up. I'd give it a 3/5 solely for artistic and technical merit. I'd recommend to certain people to see it, but i'd never watch it twice.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2004 22:48
|
|
|
I agree with many of you guys. I really wanted to love this movie, and for the first 2/3, I thought I was going to. But I think my opinion began to change as soon as they started trying to "explain" why these boys went homicidal. Oh, of course! Violent videogames and homosexuality! Give me a break. But the cheap cop-out explanation isn't even my biggest gripe. The last 20 minutes of this movie could have been intense as hell. If I had made this movie, I would have utilized the lethargic first half by shocking the hell out of the audience with the finale. The slow-paced drudgery should have exploded into a frenzy of out-of-nowhere violence. But that's not what happened. Instead of a chaotic mess of gunfire and panic (which I'm sure is what the real Columbine was like), we get a shootout that's just as slow pace and mundane as a character developing a roll of film earlier on. Van Sant could have really made an emotional, moving, and shocking movie, but for some reason he didn't. He failed to take advantage of the heavy nature of the material at hand, which is a real shame. 2/5
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2004 01:15
|
|
|
I think I'm in a minority here, as I saw Elephant and thought it was good. I'll be the first to admit it does seem cliched and almost pretentious or forced. On one hand as a filmmaker I thought that technically the movie was astonishing. I mean sure extremely long tracking shots can get a little over the top but some of the planning that must have went into some of those shots is insane. They go inand out of rooms and characters enter and leave the scene only to show up again minutes later. Overall I thought that on one side it seemed as if they pulled out the lame "media is to blame" bullshit, but then I figured they just put the whole videogame thing in there because, as it was based on columbine, the students played a violent game beforehand. That was in the movie not because that's why they went on the spree, but just because it's accurate in the fact that they did infact play such a game beforehand. I think you could probably do a lot worse off for a art-film. 3.5/5
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2004 02:16
|
|
|
Having a distinct sense of appreciation for Van Sant, I watched this movie. Like IndieRockLance, I had high expectations. I beared with it, and I actually, in refletcion, believe the extended shots of characters work quite well, especially given the short focal length. It's a calming movie, and then without directly changing the direction attitude, it turns into an action movie. Parts were effectively done, parts weren't. Overall, I thought it to be a mixed experience. I didn't really see what Van Sant was trying to say. Namely, I was nearly offended that he implied video games were the cause. 3/5
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2004 02:47
|
|
|
Very slow movie. Easily explained by the lack of substance it has. I was very annoyed by the overused of Beethoven's moonlight sonata, the sole savior of this movie. Walking around slowly while listening to Beethoven's moonlight sonata would probably get you the same results. 2/5
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2004 04:09
|
|
|
Just finished watching this for the first time. For a film with a good reputation it is very disappointing indeed. Extended establishing shots of f.a., totally planar characters, some nice camera work but done far too slowly, presumably to draw attention to its cleverness. The single thing that did impress me was the use of sound, with background conversations partially audible (especially when the girl who skips shower after gym is listening to people bitching about her within earshot) and moments when you have to choose what to listen to (the Hitler documentary showing on the telly or the conversation between the two people watching it). Oh, and the fact that the kid with the Armalite looks just like a young John Cusack. 1.5/5
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2004 18:19
|
|
|
This movie was terrible. Avoid like the plague unless you enjoy 10 minute scenes of people walking. Everything else that could be said has been. Minus the final 10 minutes, you could probably have a more engaging experience by actually going to high school.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2004 22:52
|
|
|
quote:vivisectvnv came out of the closet to say: It was Fur Elise by Beethoven
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2004 18:40
|
|
|
Half the movie is just the camera following a character around as s/he walks down the hallways. :w-hat:
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2004 03:15
|
|
|
quote:Jetrail came out of the closet to say: I love this synopsis...Anyway, this is my absolute most hated movie of all time. If I wanted to be an obnoxious rear end in a top hat, I would have walked out while explaining why the movie sucked, but I'm not so I didn't. I love Good Will Hunting and hoped Gus had anything to do with its success, but Elephant made me doubt he even showed up. He tried to be out there and unique by casting regular kids, but the result is dumbass kids making boring dialogue even worse. Columbine was such a huge event for everyone, and I think it hit hardest for kids that were in high school at the time (I was a sophomore). The topic of school violence should have been a no-brainer for a great movie that impacted young people and adults alike. Van Sant focused too much on creating an artistic visual piece instead of getting into the minds of adolescent killers. I would have rather seen more attention to the two killers' home lives, other kids loving with them, no one caring about them etc, but instead we get to stare at the back of everyone's heads for 15 minutes at a time and then some shooting and then credits. I was furious for 3/4 of this movie because I knew it wasn't going to get any better. Ah yes, the wonderfully insightful cliches of violent video games, hitler, and homosexuality leading to shooting people. Could that video game have sucked any more? How loving retarded is the one killer if he doesn't even know who Hitler is? Alright, enough. I hate this movie with a passion, and if given the chance, would gladly pay upwards of 75 dollars to kick Van Sant in the balls.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2004 02:53
|
|
|
god this from the guy that made the great drugstore cowboy? it seem to me gus van sant felt bad for making mainstream movies like goodwill hunting & finding Forrester. so he made an independent movie just for the sake of being independent. not a bad reason to do that, but make sure the movie is at least good. i wish someone else would do a movie on the subject of school shootings. lets see what would happen in the hands of david fincher or the guy who name i can never spell that did pi & requiem for a dream (sorry imdb is down so i couldnt check how to spell his name & i am not going to try). 2 out of 5
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2004 04:53
|
|
|
Darren Aronofsky, infidel.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2004 07:29
|
|
|
I bought it on it's Cannes awards merits (Golden Palm & Director). I was pretty pleased with the film, although I enjoy almost anything that tries to be different. I was interrupted a few times while watching the movie and while I had to go do things I was kind of examining myself in relation to the characters (I just graduated high school last friday). I though the film had a number of great shots, and this was also one of the only movies with slow pacing that I could stand, especially since it runs a forgiving 80 minutes. The acting was pretty good. The only character that I though was poorly acted was the punk girl that Eli photographs at the beginning. It seemed like she would start her lines before Eli even finished talking. I don't know if this was supposed to be a characteristic of that particular character or if it was lovely acting, regardless it annoyed me. I would say some of the more interesting characters were Benny (Did anyone else think that he was trying to stop the violence instead of running, or was he just clueless?, the girl who didn't want to take her shorts off, and Eli I wouldn't say that Sant blames video games or homosexuality for the shooting spree. I saw the shower encounter as another sign of their desperation and isolation from other people. The video game just seemed to characterize someone who would go on a shooting spree, rather than say it caused them to do it. Good film, I was emotionally impacted anyways. 4/5
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2004 02:06
|
|
|
For the most part I found the movie's characters believable save for the three "best friends" girls (the belemics...) - The direction does a good job of letting the viewer know what's going on at different parts of the school at the same time.. If you don't have a very long attention span you probably shouldn't be watching the movie. It has potential to make a small emotional impact, if you like independent films with an "artsy" style and can focus fairly well you can enjoy the movie. Be prepared after you're done though because it seems like you didn't really watch much at all for the movie's running time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2004 00:01
|
|
|
quote:Shady Lane came out of the closet to say: not to go against your review but i must say i love "artsy" films & i love long drawn out shots (i hate the mtv style of shooting that is taking over in movies), but this movie failed about being artsy. it seemed like it was being artsy just for the sake of being artsy. gus let being artsy become more important than storytelling. very big mistake. so far the biggest let down of the year.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2004 02:07
|
|
|
I agree with almost everything Orbital (three posts up) says except for the review. I rented this based on the Cannes awards. I really wanted to like this and usually like things that are different just for a change. Agree with the homosexual thing (another reason why they're different and feel separated from everyone) as well as the videogame thing (however after I saw what they did, I remembered back to that and initially thought  ). My favorite scene was probably that one where the kid is playing the Beethoven just for the music. It was like an action packed scene after the rest of the movie where you just see someone walking down the halls for five minutes. At first I was taking in everything in the hall shots and appreciating the small details and remmebering what it was like to walk through the halls in HS, but by the end they got kind of long. Especially at the end when the one shooter is walking towards the camera but is out of focus for probably a minute and a half until he walks up to the camera. I ended up fast forwarding through some of those parts. When I watched it, I also got the same impression that he did about Benny. I didn't think he was clueless, and actually though (and am glad that he didn't) I thought he'd come up behind the killer and save the day by subduing him I also thought it was stupid how cliched it was. You don't need a school shooting to portray a typical HS. Overall though, I'd say watch it if you're interested and think you can handle the slow pace, and keep your finger near the FF button, heh. 2.5/5
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2004 21:39
|
|
|
what a piece of poo poo. I can't believe i actually put up with those terrible long shots of NOTHING but the back of someone's head as they walk around school. And then, as if to say "gently caress you buddy, i already got your $3 for the rental" the editor wakes up and cuts out all the shooting scenes that the movie built up to. What a loving waste. Next time, less pointless following of characters around their completely typical, un-noteworthy high school day, and more of the actual shots being unloaded into these characters that we've grown to hate because they've wasted two hours of our lives. 0/5
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2004 07:52
|
|
|
I don't think Gus Van Zant was trying (or needed) to explore the killers' motivation at all. Instead, he shows us that we can look for whatever clues we want to as to why a person behaves tragically, but sometimes there is just no good answer. One thing that stuck out for me about this film as being particularly tragic is how unexperienced the characters are: the killers have never been romantically kissed, and what happens in high school seems to be the be-all and end-all for these kids. I'm still at a loss to explain why the one killer shoots the other killer at the end. It doesn't seem as though he does it out of a suicide pact, but more because he considers his accomplice like the rest of the people they've slaughtered that day. Any thoughts? 4/5
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2004 20:10
|
|
|
I did not like this movie at all, and here's why: - It was a generic retelling of Columbine that only seemed to serve the purpose of saying "this cannot be explained". I disagree with that point of view, so I see this movie as inherently flawed. - The school was foreign to me, since my high school wasn't a Superplex Schoolion Megacampus 3000. - The kids were faceless and not relatable since my personal experience with high school contained NONE of those stereotypes. - The "shower scene" was a really bad attempt at providing an excuse against "You are glorifying school shooters". Overall I think this movie will appeal to faux intellectuals that hang out at Borders and read Spin while downing Mocholattes. EDIT: Score 0.5/5 - It insulted my intelligence. Stonelegs fucked around with this message at 05:14 on Jul 5, 2004 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2004 05:12
|
|
|
This movie was so annoying, and in my opinion so terribly acted ( they're kids though, I think it was just hard to take them seriously ) it was hard to take any of it in. Half the movie is spent filming kids walking through a hall The 4 girls, was also one of the worst sub plots of the movie. It's so unbeielvable the way they talk then all walk off to half a group throw up session (I live in SoCal, I realize some idiots talk this way, but it just seemed very out of sync) Terrible Movie, and words can't express my hatred for the photographer
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2004 10:21
|
|
|
I didn't enter into the film with too many expectations. 80 minutes later, all I can say is at least I wasn't terribly disappointed. The novelty of the long tracking shot wears off about halfway through the first time it's used. If the director and/or cinematographer was simply using this film to pad his portfolio, I wouldn't be surprised. These super-extended tracking shots would be forgivable if there was anything interesting going on while we were watching. Unfortunately, the script sucks. There are few moments where storylines intermingle and we see the same scene from two or three different points of view, but this happens only once or twice. And the script sucking might not be such a horrible tragedy if the actors weren't abominations. I realize that these actors are "normal" kids (about as "normal" as an Abercrombie catalog; the kids are either completely over-styled model types or heinously unattractive -- there's no attempt to portray actual adolescence here), but they have all the stage presence of firewood. Much of the spartan dialogue is ad-libbed, which should've made it sound more natural, but instead everything sounds stilted and awkward. When such a great, painstaking (and I do mean PAINstaking) effort has been undertaken to make everything else in the film as mundanely realistic as possible, how tragic is it that the actor who plays Eli should open his mouth and, with the uncertain, insecure tone in his voice, remind us all that he's a inexperienced hired actor, being paid to ad-lib lines on a closed set in front of cameras? In the end, the only character I cared about was ironically the first and only person I remember actually seeing get shot: the nerd girl. And even then, it wasn't because her character was well-written (she, like every other character in this film, is a flat-out stereotype), it was because I thought the actress that played her was very brave to show up to work every day to work in a cast full of boys who strut and purse their lips like they're the next Ashton Kutcher and girls who keep pulling their jeans down and hiking their shirts up to show off their midriffs and perfectly rounded hips. She is the closest thing to a teenager this movie has to offer, but even she is a big walking stereotype after make up and wardrobe get done with her. Three-quarters of the way through this film, I was willing to forgive the slow pacing, horrible writing and cloying visual style because I thought there was going to be pay-off in the finale, where the two misfits go on a shooting rampage. But it just never came, and I stopped being willing to forgive. There is one sequence of quick, flash cuts while the plans for the killing spree are discussed that is effective and unsettling, but any momentum gained here is paralyzed by another too-long shot from the backseat of a car, and then outright killed when we're introduced to a character that appears from nowhere and does NOTHING (Benny). And no, I didn't think he was walking around trying to stop anything. I think he was supposed to be retarded. Add in another too long, static, out of focus shot, and a "climax" that happens in the most trite place imaginable a MEAT LOCKER?! You've got to be loving kidding me. Do high schools even HAVE meatlockers?, and BLAM-O, you're at the end of the film, staring up at the clouds again, only this time, the over-long time-lapse photography of the sky serves a purpose, as credits roll on top of it. The only saving grace here was the audio, which was done very well indeed. Hallways echo, the cafeteria reverberates intensely, the bathroom is dry as a bone, and the sound editor isn't afraid to obscure or overlap the central action. The result is a very realistic if stylized audio recreation of an actual high school afternoon. Overall, I will give a 2/5, if only because I like that a Columbine-like scenario is being dealt with in a film, and for the sound, which, though it can't compensate for the god-awful plodding tracking shots, does an admirable job of masquerading or at least keeping up with them. BonesMcGuire fucked around with this message at 14:39 on Jul 5, 2004 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2004 14:36
|
|
|
This movie goes at the pace of drying paint. The moonlight sonata is overused, and it was just boring. The cliches fit very well of a highschool. However when it go to the nazi-homosexual gun lovers it was just plain stupid. Also the movie has a major plot hole that really irked the poo poo out of me. Since when is there a loving Gun-Amazon on the internet that delivers guns to people without any legal procedures within a day . The whole time sequence laying got annoying, along with the hello this is the character good bye, replay scene from different angle. However the last scene was decent (and very unsettling) because it was realistic especially the audio work, but it still doesn't make the movie worth seeing. 1/5 Afro Thunder fucked around with this message at 06:51 on Jul 6, 2004 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2004 02:00
|
|
|
The movie is probably more interesting with mute on. There are some really good shots and timeline effects. The movie itself has some very interesting camera work, however as has been discussed above...the story is a dull, cliche of every 16 year olds boring, lovely life. 2.5/5
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2004 18:09
|
|
|
I don't think this is Gus Van Sant's best work, but still found it worth watching. Specifically, I really enjoyed the first 2/3rds of it, which are a wonderfully filmed slice of life from a modern high school. The kids actually look and act like real high school kids, a rarity in movies, and I really liked how some of the scenes were presented several times from different angles with subtle differences. There's a lot going on in this expository part of the movie, and I like how the movie doesn't hit you over the head with it. I also really liked the long shots of students walking through hallways, which I found really effective in putting the viewer into the perceptions and mentality of the high school experience. The big turning point of Elephant, however, is a disaster obviously modelled after the Columbine shootings, and here I think the film becomes overly heavy-handed and loses a lot of the impressionistic authenticity that came before. But even here, once you look past the clumsily obvious symbolism, there's still some interesting dynamics between the two killers, and the sense of nihilism and emotional void during the shooting scenes is very effective in an understated sort of way. That, and there's a real horrorshow dose of the Ludwig Van.  3.5/5 EDIT: Also, watching the credits, I thought it was a nice touch that most of the characters had the same first name as the actors playing them. h_double fucked around with this message at 03:46 on Jul 26, 2004 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2004 03:42
|
|
|
I really hated this movie. During it and afterwards I kept asking myself--and haven't yet been able to answer--who the target audience was. I will admit that I was entertained by John and his drunk dad at the very beginning of the movie (was that supposed to be funny?) but other than that the only time I was smiling was when I was thinking about how hilariously bad it was--not in a "wow, this movie is so bad it's entertaining!" way, in a "man, this is really funny how big of a waste of time this is, and it's so funny that someone somewhere thought that this movie was good enough to release" way. The movie itself was pretty, with pretty lawns and pretty hallways and pretty people, but the way it was shot was just absolutely grueling and served no purpose. Maybe one long shot like that if Gus Van Sant really had to would be OK--it'd still be boring, but at least you'd get the point, whatever it was. The film is full of them, though, and each one is as ridiculous as the last. I watched it with my mom, and we were constantly turning to each other and saying "I hope he doesn't have far to go." The acting was mostly average--not great by any stretch of the imagination, but not awful. I know Gus Van Sant has done some good stuff before, but while watching this movie I kept remembering that money-counting scene in Jay & Silent Bob Strike Back; I know this movie wasn't a huge box office draw, if it even went into wide-release, but I couldn't help but think that this movie was insincere. Like others have said, arty for the sake of being arty. I can't even believe I said that, because ordinarily I hate that in an argument against a movie or album, but Elephant is just saturated with "look at me, I'm deep." Even if you didn't like it at all, at least Donnie Darko had some funny lines and passable camerawork in it. When Elephant wasn't doing the long walk sequences, it was zoomed in so close that it obscured anything even vaguely interesting. The shootings gave me blueballs, too, because it was always awkwardly shown and never explicit enough. The worst kind of bad movie--the kind that you can't even have a good time heckling, because everything is bitter and generic. Bad Boys II, while also a very bad movie, could be laughed at until the cows came home, and you know how long the cows take to come home. 0.5, and I don't usually rate this low. Aquasol fucked around with this message at 18:58 on Oct 23, 2004 |
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2004 18:55
|
|
|
.
exp0n fucked around with this message at 01:47 on Jan 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2004 22:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 07:57 |
|
|
What a waste of time. I expected a great film....they way it was made touched on some of the attitudes of kids in high school.....but the film's story did not deliver at all. This movie is 80 minutes long......it could have easily been 60 minutes, and maybe as a short film I could appreciate it a little more. 2.5/5
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2004 09:47
|
|
