--- title: "Elephant: the reviews" canonical: "https://film.one/film/elephant/reviews" title_page: "https://film.one/film/elephant" critics_score: 75 critics_reviews: 7 licence: "© Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL." --- # Elephant (2003): what the critics said Critics' score 75 from 7 reviews: 5 positive, 1 mixed, 1 negative. Most critics respond favourably to Elephant, with praise clustering around Van Sant’s patient observation of students and his refusal to supply a simple explanation for school violence. The long travelling shots, overlapping perspectives and ordinary details of the school day are widely seen as absorbing and disturbing. Supporters find that the dreamlike images and uninflected presentation strip the violence of glamour, while allowing the teenagers to exist as more than illustrations of a theory. The disagreement concerns whether that restraint remains convincing when the film turns towards the killers, and the assessments range from emphatic praise to outright disappointment. Paste admires the early tracking shots and structure but finds the later concentration on the perpetrators exploitative. Eye for Film dissents more broadly, criticising the direction, acting and lack of insight; other reservations concern particular choices in depicting the killers rather than the observational approach itself. ## RogerEbert.com — Roger Ebert Rating 4/4. 7 November 2003. The film simply observes a day at a high school leading to a massacre without offering explanations or theories for the violence. Van Sant drains the violence of glamour and purpose, creating an anti-violence statement through flat, uninflected presentation. [Read the review](https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/elephant-2003) ## The Guardian — Peter Bradshaw Fi1m's normalised score 90/100 (inferred from the text). 30 January 2004. The critic finds the film a stunningly effective return to Van Sant's indie roots, blending them with a European sensibility to depict a Columbine-style shooting with dreamy, un-violent detachment and hyperreal ordinariness. It singles out the blankness and lack of affect in the assailants, along with the somnambulist camerawork, as creating a compelling and disturbing response to real events. [Read the review](https://www.theguardian.com/film/2004/jan/30/elephant-review) ## Los Angeles Times — Manohla Dargis Fi1m's normalised score 85/100 (inferred from the text). 24 October 2003. The film offers an unblinking, aesthetic look at a Columbine-like shooting that provokes thought about America's blood lust without easy answers. It blends waking-dream visuals with nightmare elements in a political and personal response to tragedy. [Read the review](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2003-oct-24-et-dargis24-story.html) ## Time Out — TCh Fi1m's normalised score 75/100 (inferred from the text). 8 March 2012. Van Sant's abstract, personal take on Columbine uses long languorous travelling shots and improvisation to immerse viewers in students' lives on an uneventful day that turns horrific, evoking the subjective experience of random violence more than explanation. [Read the review](https://www.timeout.com/movies/elephant) ## The New York Times — Karen Durbin Fi1m's normalised score 60/100 (inferred from the text). 19 October 2003. The movie refuses to explain the killers' motives, instead observing the final day and letting viewers draw their own conclusions. This approach drew criticism from some for being vacuous but is presented as a deliberate rejection of easy answers or scapegoating. [Read the review](https://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/19/movies/film-why-did-they-go-on-a-killing-spree-you-figure-it-out.html) ## Empire — Kim Newman 30 January 2004. The film is a low-key, blankly devastating account of a day in an American high school that ends in massacre. Van Sant delivers his least show-offy, most personal and best picture in years through restless, improvised long takes and overlapping snippets of student life. [Read the review](https://www.empireonline.com/movies/reviews/elephant-review/) ## Film Comment — Kent Jones The critic praises Van Sant's sensitive, nonjudgmental approach to portraying teenagers and the film's structure that underscores the unknowability of the Columbine events through repeated perspectives and sensual details. He singles out the character Benny for throwing the film into a provocative tailspin, while noting some miscalculations in the depiction of the killers. [Read the review](https://www.filmcomment.com/article/corridors-of-powerlessness-elephant/) ## Screen Daily 23 May 2003. Festival review. Van Sant's most satisfactory recent film, poetic and painterly in its mosaic of an ordinary high-school day that builds to the Columbine-style massacre without attempting to explain or psychoanalyse the perpetrators. [Read the review](https://www.screendaily.com/elephant/4013627.article) ## Slant Magazine — Ed Gonzalez 18 September 2003. The critic finds Van Sant's approach evocative in summoning the enigma of school violence through absences and mise-en-scène but criticizes the explicit gay kiss between the killers as a problematic attempt at context that betrays the film's mystique. [Read the review](https://www.slantmagazine.com/film/elephant/) ## Paste — Paste Staff Fi1m's normalised score 70/100 (inferred from the text). 30 November 2003. The film is absorbing in its first half as it introduces characters through long tracking shots and clever time-folding structure, but the final section focusing on the killers feels pornographic. It remains a striking work that forces audiences to re-examine their feelings about Columbine. [Read the review](https://www.pastemagazine.com/movies/gus-van-sant/elephant) ## Eye for Film — Amber Wilkinson Fi1m's normalised score 30/100 (inferred from the text). 29 January 2004. The critic finds the film a disappointment that offers little new insight into teen life and the Columbine events, criticizing its clunky direction, amateur acting, and heavy-handed elements while noting it misses the target despite Cannes success. [Read the review](https://www.eyeforfilm.co.uk/review/elephant-film-review-by-amber-wilkinson) --- © Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL. Our review: https://film.one/film/elephant.md