Change Your Image
marian_ryan131
Reviews
Elephant (2003)
movie-of-the-week picture
Elephant
Gus Van Sant's 'Elephant' is set in a high school, but it is not named Columbine. It's a story centered on average high school students who, one day and without warning, commit acts of ultra-violence against their fellow classmates, but they're not named Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. While 'Elephant' directly mirrors the events of the 1999 Colorado tragedy in a fictional setting, the film isn't constructed to answer questions posed by either itself, or the factual events it's based on. Bathed in an insincere, 'arty' glow; 'Elephant' is a whopper of a misfire from the usually accountable Van Sant.
The failure of 'Elephant' wouldn't be nearly as grotesque had Van Sant not already taken a lap around the cinema verity track with this past spring's, 'Gerry.' The Matt Damon and Casey Affleck rumination on nature, survival, and philosophy gave Van Sant a chance to work out some issues he had with modern MTVesque film-making, and while it didn't capture my imagination, I respected his vision for the arid drama. 'Elephant' uses the exact same tools as 'Gerry': protracted, unbroken tracking shots capturing life inside the unnamed high school as it happens, improvising actors that are given no direction outside of their own marks, and a story that completely gets off on being both elusive and debatable. Gus Van Sant has come to 'Elephant' with the intention of simply shining light on a particularly awful day at school. There is no effort to understand the motives of the killers, the mind frame of the students, or the reasoning behind the film-making. I've seen hundreds of movies that have failed to make a point in the end, and that's been fine with me. But none in recent memory have been so glaringly, spitefully obtuse as 'Elephant.' This isn't film-making, just Van Sant masturbating cinematic ally with zero intent to examine over what he's developed. There are no answers to why events occur in 'Elephant.' What's worse is that there isn't any questions either.
The picture would be an even bigger travesty if it weren't so affectionately shot by cinematographer Harris Savides. Savides uses natural light to capture the daily grind of high school, nurturing a promise that Van Sant might attain the unthinkable and finally render high school properly in a major film. The director has hired a cast of unknown, Calvin Klein-ready teenagers to portray the students of the massacre (which is appropriately vivid), also lending the film a prospect of authenticity. But these unprofessional kids are horrible actors who occasionally look into the camera lens and shockingly appear impassive and awkward during the film's climatic bloodbath. Van Sant assigns each character a name, but fails to do anything else when it comes to a characterization outside of that. Could the reasoning be to pursue a thematically larger idea based on the arbitrariness of the impending massacre? I say laziness and poor screen writing. Watch Van Sant use bulimia and vapid teenage girls here for comedic effect for further proof of lame content choices.
Van Sant also doesn't tax himself too hard in detailing the killers' background, making the two bullied kids sensitive souls who play Beethoven on the piano, but also enjoy Hitler documentaries and first-person-shooter video games. There is also a last minute glimpse of homosexuality between the two boys that Van Sant sets aside (cowardly, I might add) as 'curiosity.' Why doesn't he give them waxy mustaches to twirl on top of that? Well, that would be making a point about the two murderers. The last thing Van Sant wants to do in this movie is to be nailed down to a singular and precise thought. Why, that would make 'Elephant' an actual film, wouldn't it?
At least the endless 5-minute walking takes and mind-numbing story in 'Gerry' led to somewhere. 'Elephant' is not nearly as neatly planned out. The end of the film is as random as the opening, even with the dramatic foundation Van Sant delicately lays out during the film's protracted trip to the big execution climax. Van Sant ends the film right at the heart of an important scene. Thank you, Gus. I guess I didn't want to know how the story ends. How's that for a big middle finger?
I recognize the artistic exercise that Van Sant is trying to undertake with 'Elephant.' I 'get' the indifferent, observational camera-work and naturalist casting choices. I wouldn't want 'Elephant' to be the silly, movie-of-the-week picture it might have been under a different filmmaker. But that's no excuse for Gus Van Sant to put the audience through 80 minutes of something, and then have it add up to absolutely nothing. ---- 1/10
Top Gun (1986)
Val Kilmer was a more liked person
This is a great movie, but it lacks something. It was not Tom Cruse's
best acting performance, or I did not like Toms character. Well maybe,
pilots act this way, but Tom was not a team player, and learned about
it; Val Kilmer was a more liked person, and me with own sin should not
cast the first stone because my wife tells me I got a Tom Cruse, top
gun attitude so I should not judge. The cast is good you have Michael
Ironside, and Tom Skeriet, and the script is good, but not accurate of what happens at top gun, and the story has a moral about growing up along with over coming life obstacles. In the end the jet footage is great, but something just lacked in this film
Cowboys & Angels (2003)
humanist approach takes care of the rest
Although it sounds like the premise for a formulaic sitcom, Cowboys and Angels turns out to be something entirely different. This big-hearted crowd pleaser, written and directed by David Gleeson, centers on Shane (Michael Legge), a lonely 20-year-old misfit who moves to the big city and takes on a gay roommate, fashion-design student Victor (Allen Leech).
After some queer-eye advice from the popular, outgoing Victor (new haircut, new wardrobe, new attitude), Shane begins to emerge from his shell. But an incidental friendship with the drug dealer who lives downstairs threatens to wreck his life just as it is beginning to come together.
Refreshingly, Cowboys and Angels uses its characters as people, not types, on its way to detailing Shane's gradual coming-of-age. Even with its brief running time, the movie feels slight and padded: The story technically ends 10 minutes before the movie does. But the lack of the expected gay-straight clichés puts you in a forgiving mood, and Gleeson's upbeat, humanist approach takes care of the rest.
In the Company of Men (1997)
LaBute's characters is so bold that it's impossible not to be affected.
In the Company of Men is one of those rarest of rare breeds -- a movie that doesn't just ignore Hollywood conventions, but openly flouts them. The film, which premiered to great critical acclaim at 1997's Sundance Film Festival, initially had trouble obtaining a U.S. distributor (for the record, Sony picked it up). The reason is simple: because of its brutally-direct depiction of certain aspects of the current North American social climate, In the Company of Men is anything but entertaining. It's virtually impossible to sit through this film without suffering bouts of intense discomfort, and therein lies its power. The picture begins as something much different than what it concludes as, and the metamorphosis occurs so gradually that it only becomes apparent in retrospect. Shortly after In the Company of Men opens, the intent appears to be to center on the conflict between the sexes. Ultimately, however, this only a small piece of the much larger pie into which Neil LaBute's directorial debut slices. In the Company of Men widens its focus to encompass the falseness and gamesmanship that underlies many aspects of everyday human interaction. It's a cynical perspective that's all the more disturbing because it's grounded so deeply in reality. The characters here aren't cardboard cut-out stereotypes -- they're the kind of people you can find anywhere inside or outside of the workplace. Chad (Aaron Eckhart) and Howard (Matt Malloy) are two very different guys with a great deal in common. They attended the same college, work for the same corporation, and have a history of bad relationships with women. Their combined romantic record reads like a litany of injustices perpetrated on them by females. They have been duped, rejected, neglected, and intentionally misunderstood. Chad, ready to go to war against the entire gender to "restore a little dignity", has a simple, vicious suggestion for revenge. They will find a woman who has trouble getting dates, both take her out, then, after duping her into falling in love with one or both of them, they'll dump her at the same time. Howard is initially reluctant, but Chad talks him into it before locating the perfect target: an attractive-but-deaf typist named Christine (Stacy Edwards), whose disability has caused her self-esteem to erode. Have you ever seen anyone leap from the top of a skyscraper? Or perhaps watched as two cars collide head-on? The revulsion and horror are indescribable, but the compulsion to look is too great to ignore. No matter how deeply the experience tears at the soul, we can not avert our eyes. It's a base reaction, but that's human nature. Sitting through In the Company of Men is a cleaner, more guilt-free experience, but it's not entirely dissimilar -- much as we dread viewing what must happen, we cannot tear ourselves away. As painful as this film can be, it is never less than engrossing. The film doesn't follow a linear path; it evolves continually, which is untrue of many lesser motion pictures. At the beginning, everything seems deceptively simple, but there are layers of complexity underlying each move. As the story unfolds, it becomes difficult to discern a genuine action from a duplicitous one, and once-clear motives grow murky. Slowly, however, the truth begins to assert itself, and, for those who really understand what drives these characters, the ending will be inevitable, not surprising. Much of LaBute's script is about manipulation and deceit, but he's smart enough to show the characters manipulating each other without turning that manipulation on the audience. Nevertheless, because we become so involved in the interaction between these people, it's impossible for us not to be enflamed by what's transpiring, or to hope that justice comes from heaven in the form of a lightning bolt. Part of us wants a deus ex machina resolution; however, LaBute's solution is more true, albeit less cathartic. And, considering the overall impact of In the Company of Men, it's hardly worth mentioning the writer/director's few rookie mistakes (static camera placement, occasionally stilted word choice). The lead actors, none of whom are well-known, give impressive performances. Aaron Eckhart, who has slightly more camera time than his fellows, brings a surprising depth of humanity to the charming-but-vengeful mastermind of the plan. As Howard, Matt Malloy does a good job emphasizing his character's internal conflict. The best member of the trio, however, is Stacy Edwards, who brings fire, passion, and fragility to Christine, and wins our hearts in the process. If you want every movie that you see to be Sleepless in Seattle, avoid In the Company of Men. This movie doesn't take prisoners, and "feel good" is a term no one will ever use to describe it. But In the Company of Men deserves high praise because what it does, it does extraordinarily well. Finally, here's a film with the guts to tell this kind of the story without turning it into a fairy tale. It's rare for any motion picture to generate such a profound sense of disquiet, but the path traversed by LaBute's characters is so bold that it's impossible not to be affected.