Elephant (2003) - User Ratings and Movie Reviews

Continuity, by question

By , July 4, 2005

Why was the clock striking 5:00 on the same day the killer went home and then returned to school to do the killings? I didn't understand this because everyone remained in the same clothes as though it were the same day. Sorry, I know this is besides the point but it bothered me. I realize there is a great chance that I missed something here.

Elephant as title, by question

By , July 4, 2005

To A.H. who wondered why it was called Elephant...Besides the fact that there is an elephant bed cover in the movie, seems to me an elephant is about the most obvious of creatures. It should be equally obvious that we all need positive attention from each other and we're all not getting enough--or we could use more of it. I wish Gus would submit a comment. The unbearable fact is this movie was based on reality. Heartbreaking.

Loved it, by Shelby

By , June 12, 2004

I absoultly loved this movie! The characters where so real, it was like I was actually in the school next to the characters. All the problems in this movie are so real in actual highschools. Bulemia, out casts, family troubles, and inter-school relationships. I would reccomend this movie for ANY highschool student.

Chilling, by Matt

By , June 2, 2004

Ok I would like to first mention my thoughts on what Chris Fortune had to say about this movie. As some of his ideas are provoking and make you think I believe that they are not true. First off: I do not think that Van Sant was saying that this little instances of picking on of the killers are what made them snap, Van Sant is showing that this stuff happens everyday, and probably has for years. The killers go threw their day being picked on and tourmented, they are sick of life and all of its hardships. Also you are thinking to hard about the video game, sure maybe Van Sant didn't use a real game because of legal issues but I think that it shows that they killers had been thinking about this for a long time and practicing on the game, I mean the white background symbolizes the innocence of the people and their faceless heads and plan bodies show that the killers don't care who they get, as long as they get a lot. Second: the whole buying gun's off the internet just show's how easy it is to go and buy something to destroy the lives of many others. And third: I don't think that the character's were gay, they were thinking about what was going to happen later and the realization that they will never be with another person. If they were gay though it would also present the idea that everyone picked on them for that. That they had been "outed" and that now their lives are hell...The whole discussion of how can you tell a person is gay shadow's the thought that these two boy's were "outed" and humiliated for it. In the end I believe that this movie is a real eye opener on how we treat people and how to prevent these things from happening. I do have a few complaints though, like when John is told not to go back into the school, how come he doesn't call the police or pull the fire alarm, and when he meets his father he doesn't seem to disturbed with the horrorific event's that just happened in his school, and why does Benny just walk around and go to the killer? I would've got the f*#% out of there! I also wish that there was more special feature's on the making of this movie and that they would explain more. Otherwise this movie is great and should be shown to many to open up their eyes and help people to realize what they are doing when they pick on other's. We need to accept and tolerate all and we shouldn't treat anyone any different from what we want to be treated...or else...

different interpretation, by Warren McGrath

By , April 5, 2004

WARNING: spoilers ahead I got a way different message from Elephant than Chris Fortune (You can't do the impossible - 3/28/2004) did it seems. I didn't think the movie was pointing the finger at anyone or anything to blame. This movie doesn't at all attempt to answer 'why?' On the contrary, I think the movie leaves more questions than answers, we aren't given sufficient character development or background to attempt to ask why these kids killed their classmates. It was a snapshot into the lives of several school kids from an average school. It showed that the lives of these kids was quite unremarkable and not of such miserable pain that it could be expected for them to have undertaken their horrific blood letting. As you said Chris, many kids are made fun of, thrown food at, and oftentimes worse. This does not drive them to shoot their classmates (while deriving great pleasure out of it at the same time). I can't say that it was an "entertaining" movie and yes, there was one to two scenes where I thought this could have been shortened a little, but I thought this was a very clever film. I was expecting it to be a tear jerker but it showed nothing in the way of tragedy or pulled for emotion, it was shocking - I left this movie feeling numb, almost like shock. and was speechless for the next half hr or so. Warren PS you can interprete what you like from the boys getting into the shower together scene but i don't think its a statement that the killers were gay. One of them says as he gets into the shower with the other guy 'i've never kissed anyone before'(at least i think thats what he said). To me it suggests that the enormity of what they were about to do was being realised at that time and perhaps they were thinking 'what the hell' to everything by that stage (Note: Not too many gay lovers shoot each other in the head).

You can't do the impossible, by Chris Fortune

By , March 28, 2004

For being one of this year’s supposed “top films,” Elephant does a shockingly horrible job of depicting anything more than a bunch of stereotypical high schoolers being shot up by some neglected, picked on, deranged psychopaths who happen to be gay as well. Were this film to be made before any school shootings had actually occurred, it would have been disturbing. Because the Columbine School Shooting is anything but fiction, the only disturbing thing is that Gus Van Sant’s attempt at a movie is so disgustingly full of ridiculously simple implications regarding the reasons behind the shooting. According to this film, FOUR THINGS are the sole cause of the shootings. ONE, jocks threw food (or whatever it was) at one of the shooters, and made fun of him at the same time. TWO, one of the shooters played a computer game involving the absolute pointless killing of random people. THREE, they watched random clips about Nazi Germany and Hitler. FOUR, they could buy guns over the Internet… And because one of the kids got frustrated playing Beethoven’s Moonlight Sonata. Oh, and maybe because they were gay, too. You know, cause there aren’t many other repressed gay high schoolers out there. And because there’s just loads of evidence supporting the claim that the shooters were actually gay as well. I mean, wouldn’t you think two kids painting their nails black to match their leather coats constitutes gay love? Perfectly logical. Because all five of these claims as ludicrous as they are cliché, it is not necessary to waste many words on them. But just in case you disagree, I will anyway. Many kids are made fun of, thrown food at, and oftentimes worse. This does not drive them to shoot their classmates (while deriving great pleasure out of it at the same time). Does this mean they don’t think about beating them up? Obviously not. However, shooting and killing is quite another matter. Many kids play violent, first-person computer games. Besides the fact that literally no professionally made and advertised computer game advocates the purposeful killing of peaceful people walking around against some white background, the only possible implication the shot in the movie has is that the shooters liked the idea of shooting random people they didn’t know. The idea has come up that maybe the shooters created the “kill game.” This idea comes from people who desperately want to believe that the movie had an impact on them because of more than the images of high school kids being shot. If it was actually the intention of Van Sant that the program be home-made, there would have been some sort of event that implied, if not proved, this. There is, however, no mention of the shooters being interested in computer programming, or that they have any interest in computers at all (besides using them to order guns and shoot fake people, of course). The most probable reason for the look of the “kill game” is that the director realized he would be sued for showing any sort of game that the shooters might have actually played (Counterstrike being the obvious example) and told some programmer to sit down and make the simplest shoot-em’ up game imaginable. As a matter of fact, it is impossible to suppose that this did not cross Van Sant’s mind, seeing as he WOULD be sued for showing an actual game because of the obvious implication that the game is part of the reason these kids went rampant. And again, if all kids who played violent computer games and had access to guns jumped at the chance to mow down as many schoolmates and teachers as possible, there might be some good reason for this. But this is not the case. And there is no GOOD reason for the implication. Not many kids watch random clips about Nazi Germany and Hitler. At least out of school. The fact that the shooters do accomplishes but one thing: to make the majority of viewers think, “Oh, those crazy *expletive*s, they’re just like those Nazi’s.” Although there is evidence (the diary of one of the shooter’s) that they probably related to the amount of hate vested in the fundamental beliefs of the Nazi Party, there is no evidence that the beliefs themselves (regarding one race as better than the other and that the others should therefore die or serve those who are better) had anything to do with their reasoning. The film, however, simply ignores that fact, thereby inviting viewers to make the conclusion that they were probably “Nazi’s” themselves. Oh good, now we know they’re the bad guys, cause anything Nazi-related means bad, bad, bad. The fact that, shortly thereafter, a gun is delivered to their door (bad, bad, bad), only strengthens this politically-conditioned response. Not many kids buy guns over the Internet. It is, however, more possible than many would agree is safe. That being said, just because it is possible, doesn’t mean it is the cause of school shootings. It is easy to say, “if these kids couldn’t have gotten their hands on guns so easily, none of this would have happened,” but also equally as naïve. If the shooters fostered as much hate inside themselves as all evidence suggests, they would have found other ways to bring about the massacre. As a matter of fact, they did: pipe bombs. “Well, they learned how to make them on the Internet,” you say. Sorry folks, but that’s what the Internet is: an opportunity to write whatever you want. The important distinction here is the difference between ordering and writing. But beyond that, the important thing is to realize that these kids would have found ways to kill regardless. The reason Elephant is a failure is twofold: firstly, it is IMPOSSIBLE to create a dramatic interpretation of a real-life tragedy without implying certain reasons as to why it occurred, and secondly, the reasons the film DOES imply are banal to the point of revulsion (as addressed above). All stories function under one common principle: Cause and Effect. For every action, a reaction. Therefore, short of completely ignoring the events of the shooters’ lives on the day before the shooting, it is in no way possible to avoid implying certain reasons as to WHY they did what they did. What role do the previously-mentioned implications play in the film, besides to IMPLY? To give us simple background information, perhaps? Why, yes, background information as to what was going on in their lives that drove them to go on a shooting rampage. If the film were, in fact, not to address the question “Why did they do it?”, then it would have to be true that NO PART of the shooter’s lives had anything to do with their decision. It would have to be true that the shooters were simply crazy and were destined to kill since birth. This is not the case. This is not possible. Neither is the film. So really, it’s not Van Sant’s fault that Elephant is such a miserable excuse for a thought-provoking movie. Just that he lacked the insight to realize that at best it could only amount to a few lame shots at the online selling of guns, the video game industry, and Beethoven. -Chris Fortune

??????????..., by A.H.

By , March 25, 2004

what the HELL does elephant stand for, and by the way the columbine killers weren't gay...this is a disappointment...why can't they make a decent movie on what really happened there in colorado, and the days, months, years following up to that day and so on, till the end, and after. I guess nobody ever will, because they're afraid what society might say, besides, the killers didn't choose columbine because of being picked on, that was not the point. It was for a different reason which nobody chooses to understand. thats why things are the way they are today...seriously.

Wow., by Charmaine

By , March 11, 2004

After watching the first 30-45 minutes, everything was really slow, calm, and suttle. It covered a lot of high school situations. When the climax of the movie started, everything just picks up. I thought this movie was very disturbing yet in a realization kind of way.