Elephant Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES
An ordinary high school day. Except that it's not.
The movie starts as a car has a hard time driving straight down the road in a residential area. We think some kid has stolen this car. Nah. It's the dad driving his son to school, and he's drunk. The teenage son must take over. So, adults give up all responsibility towards their children and mayhem can take place. The film shows one day in the life of several teenage students as they go in and out of classes. They live their student lives and we follow their steps through the corridors and doors, taking them as guides one by one, like avatars in a giant video game.
| Eric Deulen | Eric |
| Alex Frost | Alex |
| John Robinson | John McFarland |
| Timothy Bottoms | Mr. McFarland |
| Elias McConnell | Elias |
| Matt Malloy | Mr. Luce |
| Jordan Taylor | Jordan |
| Carrie Finklea | Carrie |
| Nicole George | Nicole |
| Brittany Mountain | Brittany |
| Alicia Miles | Acadia |
| Kristen Hicks | Michelle |
| Bennie Dixon | Benny |
| Nathan Tyson | Nathan |
| Ellis Williams | GSA Teacher |
| Gus Van Sant |
7.20 out of 10 (18297 votes)
Visitor Reviews
Huge Disappointment...
posted on 28 Aug 2009I saw the trailer and was so pumped for this film, then I read reviews of this film and was pumped even more. Finally, I saw the film and was completely let down by a slow moving, artistically flawed, camcorder looking movie, and I use that term loosely. Most movies have a point, I found none in Elephant. There was no character development and I could have cared less about any of them. A couple of the people we were introduced to then quickly removed. Although, the initial idea of the film is intriguing, it failed to deliver and live up to the potential it could have been. I don't think it was limited by budget, but have no idea what it was, it just seemed like there were scenes cut short or out that should have been left alone and other scenes that should have been cut long before they were. I got that it was for effect, but it became so slow moving that I lost interest in what the hell was even going on. Anyway, I wouldn't recommend this film unless you are looking for a piece of cinema that illustrates a good idea gone wrong.
Bad, but not 'cliche'
posted on 24 Aug 2009The 'script' for this movie was obviously experimental. I've heard that none of the lines were written, which is easy to tell, and it has a completely non-standard structure. Showing different perspectives leading up to a certain event isn't anything I can remember seeing done this way before, and frankly I like the idea. The lighting and the color in the movie was also inspired and beautiful. I'm wondering if this was shot on 16 or 8mm? I could be horribly wrong, but i thought that the effect was very well done. Besides that though, there's no getting away from the fact that the execution was awful. Not scripting the majority of the lines was a bad call (and if they were scripted someone is a terrible writer), the 'talent' in this movie was less than talented, and frankly the subject matter wasn't well presented. I didn't wholly dislike watching it, but it was pretty disappointing over all.
HARD TO WATCH BECAUSE IT WAS SO REAL
posted on 20 Aug 2009The first hour of Elephant is so extraordinary. Following the same people around the same space. It was a delight to see how time bended to suit the heightened sense of impending doom. I loved the look of there ordinary school kids, they were charminbg and did not deserve to suffer. I really loved how the boys kissed at the end which really surprised me and made their own story more believable. Toward the end I found it very hard to watch because it felt so real and raw and seemed to sum up just how lost the generation of school kids were. Yet the innocence and beauty of the kids on the edge of the rest of their lives gripped me, the repetition reminded me of my own teenage school years. It was a truly beautiful film.
just 1 thing I really liked
posted on 16 Aug 2009Just the fact that they do not use any music until just before the end of the movie was the only thing that really caught my attention in a positive way. The choices that they finally made, with the two Beethoven's sonatas were a surprising impact for most of the viewers (I guess) , but overall it is definitely a really poor movie, with no emotions feelings or direction... wouldn't recommend it at all... pathetic actors..no comments about them...there's no need because there weren't any real actors anyways. and for such an important topic the director and writer should have tried towork thing out better...cut some bull and get somehow deeper inside some of the characters experiences.... funny thing, the girls throwing up....hey yeah let's all throw up because of the salad dressings, we are way too fat....(suckers)...
watch if: you don't want to be told why they did it
posted on 02 Aug 2009I am not sure what I expected this film to be, but I like to go into films with a blank slate. I have a personal connection to the real life events this film is commenting on and therefore it was very emotional for me. It seems this is not a typical reaction since many people are describing it as bland and badly acted. I thought the characters, although each a stereotype, were good at portraying the true reactions of people in such a shocking situation. I guess most viewers were expecting more screaming or terror, but the confusion of the events is a main idea. Students had no idea what was going on, nobody runs to call 911, some people just dumbly wander the halls. Before Columbine who in their wildest, sickest, dreams would have prepared for this kind of event?A problem I had was with how Van Sant made the two killers seem exactly how the mass media put them out there five years ago. They should not have been the quiet, skinny, nerdy boys. I think that just unfairly puts more pressure on the quiet kids not to be freaks. The killers should have been talking back to the jocks at school and had their own clique (including girls). The killers should have been aggressive and out of control, not sitting in the back trying to ignore spit wads. *small spoiler* I would not state this as a problem except for that the film is clearly made to be the events at Columbine. I take this from many details, mainly the killing of the one brave black student, along with the portrayal of two killers, the bomb scheme, and the guns arriving via mail.The way the film followed different characters with little (or no?) substantial dialogue, does give it an observers view with very little judgments made as to who to blame or try to offer a blatant explanation. For this I give Van Sant credit, I am sick of people trying to blame solely video games, the schools, the bullying and the gun industry. I will accept all of these as partial answers. The simple facts to me are: millions of kids get teased/bullied/beat up (daily), play Doom (daily), and have watched pulp fiction (more than once). Yet they are not mass murderers, thus there has to be less universal reason.I hated it during and immediately after viewing, but given time and distance I really liked the film. I would recommend it to anyone who would willingly put themselves through an excruciating experience. And anyone who wants to think about Columbine, without being told what to think.
Promising but a Failure
posted on 02 Aug 2009Gus Van Sant has been a good director (Good Will Hunting) and a bad one (Psycho), and this may be the one I will be most conflicted with.The film has the promising idea of the day of a school shooting, but it is only an idea. The film delays that portion of the film for the last fifteen or twenty minutes, mainly focusing on poor storylines with the students. The most irritating of this is the LONG tracking shots of characters just walking around the school, obviously done to stretch the movie from what would have been a very short 60 minutes to a just as short 80.Had Van Sant stretched the length to and allowed us to more intimately know the characters (more specifically the killers) and spend more time at the shooting (which was very frightening), we may have had something.
Short but takes you inside it amazingly well
posted on 02 Aug 2009It's a very short movie. I expected a lot less, believe me... It captured me since the first second. It's just great. I've never ever seen a movie like it. The way it's filmed, the sound around the characters, the music, the waiting... It just makes you feel like you're in a school day. And believe me, i know!! I'm a student... It's great although some might find boring. Not much action but in my opinion, if it had, it would only ruin it. I highly recommend it. Enjoy In case you're interested in it's subject, watch "Bowling for Columbine". that one's really cool too and gives you another look into this disaster...
stark reality
posted on 02 Aug 2009It seems to me that Elephant is a perfect title - relating to the Indian fable of blind men who argue the about the shape of the creature based purely on each person's experience of just one facet.The audience is given several perspectives on life at and around a school at which a Columbine-style killing spree is about to take place. We soon find that even with plenty of extra detail as to the "who, how and where", we still have no clear definition of "why" the killings happen. And we need to try to understand why, or history will continually be repeated.I like Gus Van Sant's development of the individual characters as they go about their school day. Most have their own different concerns which seem daunting to them at the time. I like the way their lives physically intersect - sometimes unconsciously. There's also the big true element in life of "s**t happening" - being in the wrong place at the wrong time.Elephant is captivating and intriguing. Beautiful to watch and undeniably emotive - but only because you really get the humanity of what's happening. I rarely cry in theatres, but both eyes leaked as it became obvious that these killings were fait accompli. It seems such an avoidable waste. (10/10)
Trash masquerading as art
posted on 31 Jul 2009I was expecting some kind of commentary on the Columbine massacre but all I got was thin, drawn out characterisation. Nothing was learnt about the characters - they could have been anybody. Maybe that's the point, but you don't have to waste 90 minutes of your life discovering it.The cinematography was OK, the acting was solid and the characters were brought to life by the actors playing them. The purchasing of guns on the internet was cheap and unreal as was the awful game the killers played on their laptop. Mr VanSant was making a comparison to the suing of ID Games (who made Doom) by the Columbine victims. Apparently, the real killers played it - but the game you saw these kids playing in Elephant was grossly outrageous and paints a very dangerous picture to those who don't know much about computer games.Very disappointing and should be avoided unless you appreciate appalling modern art.
Homer and Joyce go to High School, not on a Trojan Horse but an Elephant.
posted on 27 Jul 2009It seems pretty obvious that the film makers wanted to get away from making a film, and wanted to make a document that doesn't get into deep story lines, characterization, things that lead the viewer along to certain conclusions. By not doing these things, the film opens up to more types of interpretations about the meaning of the film as none has been overtly imposed by the makers. Thus the huge range of interpretations on this site.Personally, I am refreshed by new types of films, things that surprise or alarm me. I like film-makers not living up to expectations. I like the sequence games in this film: viewers see enough of some characters to understand them and their own dilemmas and problems, without ever been given an absolute and constant summary of people. Lots of things are left unsaid, unknown. This reflects reality: how well do we really know our friends and family, ourselves. We are constantly surprised by revelations about people that we thought we knew everything about. The film tries to, successfully I think, recreate this reality on film.The other aspect of the film that I haven't seen anyone comment on, and would love to meet the makers to check, is that it is structured around Homer's Odyssey (and closely to James Joyce's interpretation of the epic in his "Ulysses"). Film watchers who are unfamiliar with "The Odyssey" directly will have seen its major scenes played out comically in "Oh Brother Where Art Thou". What are the major scenes that recur in all these art forms?: Father - Son separation and reunion at the end; Sirens (chattering/singing fearsome women; Cyclops (a scary one-eyed figure); ship wreck (or car-wreck, or vehicle wreck); Descent into Hell/Hades (or apocalypse); etc.Additionally, Joyce's "Ulysses" spends 800 pages talking about the events of one day; Elephant comes close to that. Elephant doesn't have traditional cinematic action, nor does Ulysses have traditional literary action. Things seem not to happen, but on a second look, everything is actually happening (we just don't get a commentary any more, we are being treated like adults and forced into making our own conclusions): that unexplained glance; the ambiguous sighs; the out of context dialogue bits and pieces we hear; This is closer to how we experience our lives than traditional Hollywood would have us believe. In real life we only know bits and pieces, catching small things, but never really knowing everything that is happening. Interpretation fills in that knowledge gap, and what Joyce would call a smart careful reading (or watching) is what is necessary to get something from the film. The negative comments in this site suggest that more and more film watchers are losing the ability to actually watch a film, wanting just to be given a series of visual and aural stimulants, wanting to be given a message because we haven't the time or desire make our own.
What does the title mean?
posted on 23 Jul 2009I've been thinking and creating a lot of opinions on why Gus would name the movie the way he did. My main opinion (which is probably wrong) is that it wasn't really right for anyone to be bothering Eric or Alex and picking on them because they were quiet. However, it was obviously not correct to just go and shoot people. The kids were dealing with what was right for them and wrong for them but the film really is all based on a big gray situation like an elephant. No one is right and no one is wrong. But hey, it's only one interpretation and I may be right and I may be wrong. Anyone got any comments on why it was called "Elephant"? It'd be cool to hear other opinions of people who have seen the movie.
Burrows itself deep under your skin
posted on 23 Jul 2009After being grossly disappointed by Last Days, I was recommended to give Gus Van Sant another shot with Elephant. Let me first say that this is a movie that will have some bored to tears, some unable to sleep at night, some engrossed deeply in its mesmerizing images, and some sitting down for a cup of coffee afterward to discuss it, and yet some all of the above.The movie itself focuses on a Columbine-esquire tragedy occurring at an Oregon high school. The ending itself is revealed within the last 30 minutes and all of the characters are already established as we see them. There is no evolution or profound change in anyone or anything throughout the movie. There is no narration and little to no self-referrentialism. We are completely isolated from these characters and meant to sit back and watch. What we do see is some gorgeous cinematography and camera work as a long still shot of a ominous clouds above overhead suburban road light appear for the opening credits with the faint dialogue of a teenage football game in the background. I thought to myself, "This is a movie where anything could happen."The story is cut up and explained by the days of each character. We have our neutral main character, our jock and gorgeous girlfriend, our three-pronged dose of teenage prep girls, our disturbed criminals, our artsy photographer, our under-appreciated ugly girl, and several others. Each character overlaps with one another by the use of long panning shots where the camera makes amazing use of focus and changes its subject slowly and poignantly. The world falls into place around the camera and not a moment feels unnatural or uncoordinated.The movie has its noticeable flaws, however. Given the wide cast of characters, many events and conversations are repeated from various perspectives. Quite often, certain events become over or under-explained for little reason, sometimes to the point of being extremely annoying. With the long tracking shots used to set the mood and atmosphere of an American high school, we are sometimes left wondering what there is to look at. More than once you wish the camera ran low on battery during certain parts. Sometimes this becomes purposeful and interesting, sometimes you can't help but wonder where he's going. One or two shots entirely could've been left out.The last 20-30 minutes of this reasonably short movie are its most rewarding. They truly get under your skin and stay there long after the credits. This is an unsettling terror that never resolves itself at any point. The movie is strictly observationalist, but of something that needs to be understood. Gus Vant Sant succeeds by creating archetypes of high school teenagers that we all know and showing each of their perspectives, flawed by nature. I recommend it enthusiastically in spite of its noticeable amateurisms and difficulties.
Punch with a slow film rhyme
posted on 21 Jul 2009I like and hate the slow rhyme at the same time. I need patient to follow, until I see the two guys in military suit, then I wake up.But, anyway, it is quite successful for launching the punch.The contrast between actions is impressive and striking.Also, it is very interesting that one point links three characters together. The concept for arranging the time, location, characters and events is beautiful.
My own private Oregon
posted on 17 Jul 2009This film probably will attract the wrong kind of viewer who is expecting to see a violent movie. Gus Van Sant has made a very strange film, in which the events of the Columbine High School massacre will be looked as a model for the movie. But is it? Under the surface Gus Van Sant has infused the film with symbolism that is too subtle for a lot of people to grasp, and who will undoubtedly look at the big picture, one in which almost shows no action, and will get the wrong message.The film is haunting in that the camera follows the principals of the tragedy from behind. We are basically looking at how these lives crossed one another and how fate brought all these people together for the catastrophic ending. The film is brilliantly choreographed by Mr. Van Sant as we get to see how each person is affected.Alex, the sick mind behind the killings is seen briefly in class being splashed with a substance on his jacket. He is probably bullied in school because he shows all the characteristics of being an easy mark. The most revealing aspect of Alex comes toward the end of the film in which we get to know a dark secret of his life and perhaps it could make us understand this troubled soul a bit more. The use of the music, played by Alex, is very effective in creating the mood for what will follow. One wonders how Beethoven's Moonlight sonata and Fur Elise will have any dramatic impact in the young player, who, while executing both works seem to be preparing for the devastating and tragic ending. The film is short, but as far as this viewer is concerned, it went by very fast. This shows a slice of life in suburbia that some of us never experienced and thanks to Mr. Van Sant we get to understand why, if everything is apparently so perfect, tragedies like this one happen again and again.
boring? yes boring.
posted on 15 Jul 2009my favorite part of the movie was boomer, the dog, jumping up for a fake ball throw. i can't really remember the rest of the movie other than the back of peoples heads.i guess there was a message to this movie, but i forgot it because it was so boring. it was like watching film develop, o wait, i remember now, thats what it actually was.it would've been better with some character building, especially of the shooters, but you get no understanding of anybody, so i started getting sleepy.i fell asleep in some parts, but i guess i didn't really miss anything, i tivo'd back to where i snoozed only to discover people walking in very long hallways, nothing more.this film, properly edited, would have produced a 5 minute short at best.
quite possibly one of the worst movies EVER
posted on 11 Jul 2009The only reason this movie gets a one out of ten is because i cannot give it a negative number. absolutely nothing in the movie was entertaining, thrilling, moving, stirring, or otherwise stimulating unless you like walking....I would not recommend that anyone anywhere ever watch this movie. it will waste 70 minutes of your life that you will never ever get back and quite possibly scar you for life. one would have to try pretty hard to intentionally make a movie this horrible. i cannot believe that this is by the same director that made good will hunting...Honestly just don't watch this movie (unless you really like walking) the only thing that could make the movie worse would be to add a random teenage homosexual nude shower scene... oh wait.....that aspect seems to get covered.The DVD extra features include exciting features such as walking routes through a school...I think that this movie along with boxing helena win the worst movie ever awards...
One of the most meaningless films ever...
posted on 07 Jul 2009I was just amazed what the film made it way though to get to DVD. The plot: regular day at American high school, then two dudes come with weapons and kill everyone they see, then one of shooters kills another. That's it. Dialogues: "it's kinda; you know; like...". Hidden idea: no idea is avail. People just talk, walk, shoot and die. Absolutely empty movie. If you want to see something about Columbine shooting - "Bowling for Columbine" is your movie, not "Elephant" which totally meaningless waste of time. I acknowledge that there are many things that I cannot understand and I just pass by, but that film is a fake and fraud: you pay money for nothing.
Why it's easier for me to comment a bad film like this one, rather than to talk about a masterpiece ?...
posted on 05 Jul 2009Contains SPOILERS, better see the movie first. or not (as I try to prove!).A subject like this one - the Columbine incident - deserves a 'surgery precision' psychological analysis and depiction, not the 'average-walking-pace-study-of-the common-USA-student' that Van Sant gives us! It's true, we learn more about walking on the corridors of hi-schools, rather than the actual inner feelings and struggling of everybody involved.The film tries to be cleaver, but fails miserably.First of all, all that elaborate - à la Kubrick ripoff - camera work is useless. A hand-held camera approach - à la Von Trier - I think would have been more appropriate, as it gives more immersion. After all we want to fully delve in this tiny universe that spawned such a tragedy.And second, all the symbolism feels kind of cheap: clear sky at start, heavy clouds before the shoot out. Character clichés: too-cool-for-skool, nerd(s), group-of-3-wannabe's-girls-of-witch-one-tries-to-be-superior (sic!): come on!Finally: the criminal mind at work: one of the killers starts playing Fur Elise while his lover - yeah, they were gay, we found out this as a 'minor' detail at some later point! - is engaged in a non-existent-in-real-life shooter game. Then the guns arrive via regular mail, oh great, on with the killing then!So scarce and to the last minute character development, I can't even believe! For example: at the end, one of the guys just kills his partner: why oh why?All in all, I gave it 4 out of 10, as not only it failed to impress me, but it did the totally opposed thing.
No.
posted on 03 Jul 2009I didn't like this movie.I liked "Good Will Hunting", and independent films that center around kids like this are usually pretty good. I put this on expecting something like the movie "Kids", but somehow involving a school shooting. If you haven't seen it, "Kids" is an independent film centering around a few teenagers living in the city. It's more of a series of events than an actual story. It shows the drug use, sex, and discrimination that is a cornerstone of any modern urban (and to a lesser extent suburban) life. The closest thing to a message or a point that the movie has is "Urban teenagers are irresponsible with no plans for the future and have constant unprotected sex with each other which is why by the end of the film all of the main characters have AIDS." Okay.After "Kids" was over, I was thinking "Alright. That was pretty f*cking pointless." But there's nothing wrong with that. In fact, the lack of a message or point in the movie was a message in itself: "Life is pointless." Cool. There doesn't always need to be a solid positive"message" for a movie to be good.And, as I suspected, Van Sant's film was similar to "Kids". It is basically a series of events, not an actual continuous story. It shows a day in the life of a few suburban teenagers. And it shows how, no matter how much sh*t you have going on...no matter how many intracicies are involved, it can all be over LIKE THAT. All of the stuff you've done has been for nothing. Alright, thanks for wasting three f*cking hours of my time.The whole film follows the same basic recipe: 1) Show a moderately interesting event that introduces a character and gives you a small example of what an average day in this kid's life is like. 2) Follow him/her around for a while, not showing anything particularly interesting, just showing how this is any average kid that you'd see walking in the halls at school. Make sure to make this part is as boring and tedious as possible, just like in REAL LIFE. 3) Have the kid get abruptly massacred, showing how, even though they had all this sh*t going on, now they're DEAD. 4) Repeat.Of course you have to mix in some random and irritating chronological jumps, because after all this IS an independent film. Make sure to reference the paths of other characters throughout the path of the character that you're following so the audience will think there will be some cool twist at the end that will somehow link all of the characters together. Be sure to disappoint them by abruptly killing everyone off.Now once again, I'm not saying the bleak message in this is a bad one. Just like "Kids", it shows that life is pointless. But the difference between this and "Kids" is that this was not remotely entertaining. Why do people go to see movies? To be entertained. Not to watch a series of drawn out extended shots that are supposed to be artistic but are really just irritating.And I really enjoyed the random gay sex.
Just a question about this movie
posted on 30 Aug 2009This was an excellent flick. Gus Van Sant once again proves that he can be the director known from his previous movies. I even fully get into his style of showing the "day in the life" routine of the average high school student. I especially enjoyed not knowing who exactly the gunmen were until you see how everyone is bullied for their own style of life --whether "normal" or otherwise. Van Sant's slow moving episodes draw the watcher into the film ever so gradually. But, once there, one grasps the meaning of his style. Still though, while I loved this movie, there is one part that I'm not clear about. Near the end, as the two gunmen re-meet up, someone shoots the blonde guy...who was it? His boyfriend, or the cops? If it was his boyfriend, why did he do it?