Review of Elephant

Elephant (2003)
1/10
Just because it's artistic doesn't mean it's good
22 February 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Elephant could have been a very beautiful short film. As a feature length movie, however, it is awful. And I fear the reason it has gotten so many positive reviews is that people feel they should like it. Maybe if I were 16 I'd think this film was spectacular too. But just because it's artistic doesn't mean it's good.

I didn't have a problem with the acting, in fact the dark haired killer was pretty good. And the fact that we never know why they decided to kill everyone was acceptable. The biggest problem with the movie was that it was filmed like a short, yet was over 80 minutes long. In a feature length movie you need character development. At least one. In Elephant you learn more about John's drunk father than you do about anyone else and he had only two or three lines.

And these interesting camera techniques that Van Sant employed needed to be complemented or contrasted with something. If the film ended with the surviving killer walking down a hallway as the credits rolled, then maybe the 20 minutes of other people walking wouldn't have been pointless.

My advice: if within the first ten minutes of this film you find yourself waiting for something to happen, stop watching it. You'll save yourself those other 70 minutes that, otherwise, you'd never get back.
120 out of 206 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed