Metascore
70 out of 100

Generally favorable reviews - based on 37 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 25 out of 37
  2. Negative: 2 out of 37
  1. 100
    It simply looks at the day as it unfolds, and that is a brave and radical act; it refuses to supply reasons and assign cures, so that we can close the case and move on.
  2. Van Sant gives no pat or easy answers. Instead he makes us squirm, worry, and think. That's why Elephant is a must-see movie.
  3. 100
    Makes the Columbine shootings seem both abstract yet more painful and vivid. It also gets you excited all over again about the things movies can do.
  4. 100
    The atmosphere is hypo-stylized, vividly generic and worse than real, like a doomy Frederick Wiseman documentary.
  5. Reviewed by: Glenn Kenny
    100
    I haven't been crazy about a lot of Van Sant's recent work, but what he does here is simply astonishing. [November 2003, p. 25]
  6. The effect is riveting and telling--not always realistic (none of the characters carry cell phones) but often enlightening.
  7. 91
    The exquisitely exact photography and sound design represent the highest level of craft of Van Sant's career.
  8. Working with cinematographer Harris Savides and serving as the film's editor, he (Van Sant) has fashioned a visual style and a narrative shape that has the quality of a waking dream, then a nightmare. Rarely do form and content add up with such harmonious grace and power.
  9. Calmly, almost serenely, Mr. Van Sant and his superb cinematographer, Harris Savides, reveal a vision of contemporary American youth quite unlike any other.
  10. An understated, hypnotic stroke of brilliance.
  11. 90
    A movie that throws out the rules with audacity, assurance and admirable moral seriousness.
  12. 89
    Wisely, a lot like the real event. No answers are given, barely any questions are asked, and the film unfolds at a leisurely, inexorable pace that stymies the traditional filmmaking tropes of tension and release.
  13. 88
    To those who see no purpose to this film, I say the purpose is learning not to turn a blind eye. The unique and unforgettable Elephant keeps its eyes wide open.
  14. Is it, the debate asks, a truly substantial work or just a stylish cop-out? Well, for once, I'm voting with the French.
  15. Reviewed by: Ken Fox
    80
    Like the violence in Alan Clarke's Elephant, the BBC documentary about Northern Ireland from which the film takes its name, Van Sant offers no straightforward reasons for what happens at this particular school. The explosion of violence is far from unmotivated, but its roots are presented as deeply personal and, even more troubling, ultimately inexplicable.
  16. 80
    Has a gentle, hypnotic tone that's insistently sweet and elegiac, in spite of the horrors that overwhelm the frame. In its juxtaposition of the serene and the violent, the beautiful and the brutal, the film achieves a balance that's exquisitely judged, tiptoeing artfully through a cultural minefield.
  17. By making the camera an observer, we get a perspective that often comes out of horror movies, a choice that whips the ordinary with the terrifying, an unforgettable mix.
  18. The characters need more exploration, especially the killers. Yet this look at teen life and death chills you anyway.
  19. 75
    Van Sant's audacious, poetic and emotionally distanced film doesn't even have a plot. It's just a random series of incidents one day at a suburban high school.
  20. The film equivalent of Maya Lin's Vietnam monument, that collective gravestone to the fallen, in the way it employs abstract means to quantify the loss of life and elicit a profound sense of grief.
  21. Reviewed by: Ruthe Stein
    75
    A haunting elegy on the unpredictability of life. Never knowing what the next minute might bring is the elephant in all our lives.
  22. Beauty competes with vacuity in Elephant, and for a good stretch of writer-director Gus Van Sant's maddeningly passive ode to high school innocence and Columbine-age youthful evil, beauty wins.
  23. What the film does extremely well is take us deep into the crime scene, and give faces to the victims so we can experience this epic, incomprehensible and somehow prototypically American act of violence on a more personal and intimate level.
  24. 70
    Flagrantly artistic and transfixed by its own enigma, Elephant is strongest on evoking a succession of specific, "empty" moments and weakest on motivation.
  25. Reviewed by: David Ansen
    70
    There’s much to argue with, but this unconventional, oddly beautiful film resonates in unexpected ways.
  26. 60
    This is a deeply disturbing (if not very satisfying) view of what happened at Columbine and in other school shootings.
  27. Reviewed by: David Edelstein
    60
    It's a daring and original effort, yet so noncommittal--so purposely vague--that it's apt to leave you flummoxed: at once stricken and etherized.
  28. 60
    In the end, this odd, beautiful movie is remote and more suggestive than satisfying--a coolly impassive film about catastrophe made at a time when some of us might prefer an attempt at explanation. And yet Elephant is something to see. [27 October 2003, p. 112]
  29. A ­movie that takes impartiality to new places artistically. The film is infuriating.
  30. 50
    Given their lack of training, nearly all the young performers do a commendable job. It's the director who slips up by, among other things, dividing his cast into such predictable phyla.
  31. It’s just another example of art-house hokey-pokey. Amazingly, this film won both the Palme d’Or and Best Director Award at Cannes, beating out, among others, "Mystic River."
  32. 50
    As lead Columbine investigator Kate Battan has herself put it, “Everybody wants a quick answer. They want an easy answer so that they can sleep at night and know this is not going to happen tomorrow.” And now they have Gus Van Sant's Elephant.
  33. Reviewed by: Don R. Lewis
    40
    A pointless rehashing of a horrible event.
  34. 40
    Elephant is not as bad as the National Rifle Association's decision to hold a pro-gun rally near Columbine High School shortly after the killings. Unlike the NRA, Van Sant doesn't have blood on his hands. But he shares something of its callousness.
  35. Reviewed by: Todd McCarthy
    40
    Achieves some glancing poetic effects during its first hour, but becomes gross and exploitative during the shooting rampage of the final act.
  36. 25
    The film itself is an exercise in frustration.
  37. A braggart piece of empty exhibitionism.
User Score

Generally favorable reviews- based on 105 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 40 out of 70
  2. Negative: 26 out of 70
  1. David
    10
    Simply put, this is a film where you either like its style or you do not. I very much fall into the former category. It is a hypnotizing and harrowing experiene. The films greatest strength besides just the superb cinematography is its portrayl or real people- I mean REAL people. We all knew people like these in high school, they are not cliches at all- quite the opposite. Even if you hated this movie I know you could never forget it, and to those that "got" it, this is truly one of the greatest films of the new millenium thus far. Full Review »
  2. MikeT.
    1
    This movie is awful. It's the cinematic equivalent of an empty canvas - arrogant and insulting. My immediate response when the movie thankfully ended, was "that's 80 minutes of my life I'll never get back". This is a class project, not a film. As a class project, it might rate a good grade. I highly reccomend this movie for cinematography instructors - it will give you something to talk about. I gave it 1 point for the cinematography (I was going to give it 2, but the scene with a flag football game where the camera didn't move for 5 minutes was a 1 point deduction). For anybody looking for something of interest, or to be (gasp!) entertained, don't bother. This must be what watching a snuff film is like. I knew where the film would evolve to, and sat through an agonizing hour of nothing to get there. Only to have the 20 minutes of actual script concentrate entirely on the violence, and end suddenly with no warning, no point, and no conclusion. A prize winning film? Right. This is a film for those people who likes anything that they are sure nobody else will like, because that allows them to proclaim themselves to be an "expert". A for Arrogant. B for Boring. C for Catatonic. D for Dreadful. And F for the movie's grade. Full Review »
  3. it disturbs me as to how many of those "users" who reviewed this film did so only at face value, and did nothing more than judge it by it's superficial exterior without giving any thought of it's social commentary. Maybe they'd forgotten that typical high school tropes (once viewed as benign) had taken a dramatic and violent left turn over the course of the last 30 years. Maybe they've forgotten the dirty ramifications of our countries past and flippant attitude pertaining the law of guns (using the second amendment as the proverbial crutch to further purify their agenda). Maybe, and just maybe, a movie like 'Elephant' gives supporters of lax gun laws another reason to cry bloody murder, re-thrown back towards the film industry. Who knows. regardless, there is a story to tell in Gus Van Sant's shocking (though cathartic) tale of a typical (or "typically violent") day in america's public school system......and for once, it doesn't have to be soft, or even pretty.

    not a bad film (though not an extraordinary film) 'elephant' is a vivid and fictional depiction of a typical American high school shooting; one that nearly mimicks to the 'T' the events of April 20, 1999....or simply, the Columbine Massacre. Whether it mimicks it or not, it follows in a series of many shootings that has kept the nation in proverbial stalemate, often times being the catalyst to current gun laws and the feasability of an archaic second amendment to the American constitution. No matter what side of the fence you reside on, the connotations of lax gun laws in this film are not only prevalent, but glaring. Take for instance a scene depicting an 18 year old kid purchasing a high powered assault rifle over the internet. Is that troubling enough for you?

    This isn't exactly a far fetched Suspense/Horror film shot with an art-house aesthetic.......these things actually happen.

    Whether there is validity in the films claims, it really doesn't matter. Albeit, not entirely a moot point, the fact that the fllm was still met with a barrage of unnecessary bad reviews says a lot about our nations apathy towards gun violence, and the kids who remain victim of it today.

    As for the movie......it is a bit trite and somewhat pretentious at times. It still manages a decent commentary on today's standards of low morals, false empowerment (by both the bullies and those who kill them) and the collective apathetic eye of the world. If you are bothered by this movie, or in any way find it to be in bad taste, try to remember what you did the day you learned about the Sandy Hook Murders. If you only read an article about it, congrats. If you have no idea what I'm talking about, absolute congrats. If you can tell me the name of the killer, some of the names of the children, the rifle that was used in the killings and some of the conspiracy theories passed around the internet........well, then you are in fact the reason major news corps love reporting on these things; 24/7 and for the world to see. *3.5 out of 5 stars"
    Full Review »