So much average

A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

A review of this movie could easily evolve into a full fledged essay about school shootings in America, but we will have to consider that this is a work of art, a fictional depiction and not a documentary or, god forbid, a blueprint. The most disturbing aspect of the movie is the shallowness, carelessness and totally unempathetic way the perpetrators go about in preparing and then executing their hideous act with the support of a society in which mail order guns are a normality. Probably nobody goes unprepared into a sitting of this film since otherwise it would be difficult to understand why we would need to follow a bunch of high school kids going about their chores in a typical, if not mediocre high school setting with the cliques, weirdo's and good kids that have become the cliche's of American high school cinema. Of course that all changes when the shooting starts. For dramatic effect all kids that we had just gotten to accept for their juvenile awkwardness are popped off like rats in an abandoned house basement with a BB gun. Except it was an AR-15, which was then and since the tool of choice for instant infamy. Anger wells in this reviewer when considering the reason for inclusion of a dose of 'German weirdness' in the form of old Hitler footage and Beethoven sonata's as a hint of foreign influence to such atrocities instead of the innate sickness of American society. Nevertheless Gus van Sant could have followed the simple rule that movies that include the Moonlight Serenade are statistically more likely to attract higher review scores. Casting a final verdict on the movie should include the consideration if we learned anything, is it food for thought? When thinking about the fact the impact of the movie doesn't allow for a quick and snappy soundbite that the answer must be yes, it's highly disturbing, if this is how it is, it is terrible.

Many U.S. school massacres have gone by since 2003, and they haven't made this film seem dated or less relevant.This film is a very bold achievement. It is filmed in a real school building with a cast mostly composed of real non-professional teenagers. We can't help but react to them emotionally. Some are irritating, some are pitiable, some are admirable for one or another reason. We follow them on long walks around the long corridors of this well-equipped school, we observe some of the minutiae of their day. The timelines of the characters are presented non-linearly; they loop over each other like a spool of film that has been allowed to unreel in a pile. And then some of them die, because there are school shootings in this country.The title "Elephant" was borrowed from a British short film by Alan Clarke, which concentrated on assassinations and terror killings in Ireland during the 1980's. There are some stylistic similarities - a lot of long walks, a lot of steadicam work - but the two films are actually very different works in tone and focus. The Clarke film is ALL assassinations. Clarke deliberately refuses to give any of his many shootings a political context or rationale, but he also declines to provide any matrix of ordinary life. In contrast, Van Sant's "Elephant" is very much about that ordinary life, and about how terrible it is that it gets abruptly cut off.People ask why students take guns and go out and kill lots of people. Some of the blurbs I have seen for "Elephant" unconsciously, and incautiously, adopt the "bullied teen" narrative. Some bullied teens may sometimes take violent revenge, either on their agemates or on the system, but that's not we actually see in Van Sant's film, and in fact I believe he deliberately undercuts this kind of facile explanation. There is only one instance of bullying on screen of one of the killers - some glop is thrown at him. The other killer accuses the principal of having mistreated him, but we didn't see it ourselves.Meanwhile, other kids whom we see in the course of the day actually deal with injustice and neglect and bullying with much more resilience. And a lot of things are going on in the killers' lives that don't involve bullying. Eric is into gun culture. Alex is frustrated that he can't get that piano piece right. Probably there are a lot of frustrated kids around the world, but in our country they can get guns awfully easily. (At this point someone will call it a "goof" that they apparently order guns by mail or package delivery, but this is a technicality.) And - bottom line - Alex really just seems to like killing and terrifying people.Van Sant, who not only wrote and directed this picture but also gets editing honors, gets full auteur credit for the enterprise, but there are a couple of places where I think he could have used a second opinion. Let's just say it - I think the "Benny" episode was odd. I don't mean that it's odd that it blows up movie conventions, that was good. (Ebert singled this out as a memorable point.) But I think it stands out, maybe more than in 2003, that this African-American student, the only one with a named segment, got no lines or personal background. Also I think the way the film ends on Alex's sadistic little gaming was a false note. Not that Alex wouldn't have wanted to act that way, but that kind of lady-or-tiger-or-both ending has been done a lot. But still, on the whole, this is a pretty amazing work.

What was supposed to be serious movie showing us the reality of a school shooting (presumably Columbine) ended up being mostly very boring and repetitive with some sequences even being unintentionally hilarious (the shower scene especially). Parts of it are very cheesy E.g. the scene where Alex plays the piano, the kiss scene, the three bulimic girls and the fact that the main characters room has a picture of and elephant both on the wall and the bed throw.The acting is terrible, the ways the director tries to immerse us into the story are very obvious and obviously not working. You could walk in an hour into the movie and not miss any important information. The movie, aside from trying to tackle the problem of school shooting and general violence, also takes n numerous problems of young people, including eating disorders, low self- esteem, parent's alcoholism and teenage pregnancy. The intent is very noble and i get what he was trying to do but i find the execution very disappointing, especially for a film tackling such an important topic.

Being the second film in director Gus Van Sant's "Death Trilogy" — the first is Gerry (2002) and the third Last Days (2005) in which, all three of which are loosely based on actual events. Elephant is by far, the most disturbing and most riveting of the three, because it deals with mass-murders. While, school violence has existed, since the born of the education system, it's the real-life events of the Columbine High School massacre of 1999 that put the issue on the map. Widely held to be a serious problem in recent decades in many countries, especially where weapons such as guns or knives are involved. Elephant is allowing an inside look at how something so unthinkable and surreal such as mass-murder, can logistic happen, using an illusory story in fictional high school in Portland, OR. The film stars mostly new or non-professional actors, including John Robinson, Alex Frost, and Eric Deulen, in very limited dialogue roles, and the script was "written" to its final form during shooting, with cast members improvising freely and collaborating in the direction of scenes, gives the movie, it's realistic, yet mysterious tone. While, this movie might not have much story. Still, with its brilliant narrative construction—where some scenes leading up to a high school massacre are seen at different times from three different perspectives—combined with cinematographer Harris Savides' camera roving the hallways in tracking shots, Elephant's subtle examination of Columbine provides no easy answers to teen angst, but certainly asks questions about what's is wrong with some of America's youth. Is bullying, a big cause of this teen angst? Yes, it is, but like my review of 2011's documentary, 'Bully', bullying is a complex issue. Not only does, it can detrimental to a child's well-being and development, but also, it does somewhat builds character that is need for the harsh adult life. It's need for children to interact with those having diverse points of view. In some ways, bullying is just part of life, you just have to deal with it, in a positive or negative matter. It's the same of other issues in which this film showcase, like gun rights, gay rights, drug use, media, juvenile delinquency, racism and social classes. There is no real true 'black and white', answer to this. After all, who is to blame for this tragedy!? The killers or society's harsh reality. I just glad, the movie isn't heavy-handed or preachy. However, Gus Van Sant's movie also feels a bit exploitation; capitalizing on a national tragedy, just to make a few bucks. It's somewhat offensive to every victim that die, in such of an event, before. Being the first high-profile movie to depict a high school shooting since Columbine, despite being released after similar film, 2003's Zero Day & 1999's Duck! The Carbine High Massacre. The film was so-controversial for its subject matter and possible influence on teenage copy-cats that some protests call for a ban or boycott of the film. Nevertheless, I can understand, their worries. It's clear, that the movie does have a subliminal message toward violence. After all, it did supposedly cause the Red Lake shootings of 2005, after the gunman viewed the movie, 17 days earlier, before committing to his crime. Indeed, watching movies based in part on the 1999 Columbine High School massacre could be view as unhealthy. However, the movie can also be viewed, as soul-searching, and inspiring to open and useful discussion. The movie does always show a positive message about learning tolerance and trying to help, your fellow man. Some of the students in the film, does this. Not everybody in the film, was cookie cutter, evil or good. It's a lot more complex than that. It's like the parable of the blind men and elephant in Anekantavada. It's hard to describe. However, I do have to say, the movie seem to be, very influence, by the 1989 British short film by director Alan Clarke of the same name. Not only does, Gus Van Sant's film borrowed Clarke's title, but also closely mirrors his minimalist style in which the movie's disconnected and ethereal quality flows. Overall: This powerful and provocative movie might not be for everybody. It's really is hard to watch, but a very well-made film. Check it out, on your own risk.