2:37 (1 Viewer)

[Serius]

can someone right a decent review of the whole movie including the spoiler bits? i wanna know the plot and whats good about this movie, but i am not going to watch it.

 

[Serius]

http://www.theage.com.au/news/opini...tects-teenagers/2006/07/28/1153816379921.html
a very good article on this movie

2.37 should be screened to year 11 and 12 students in every high school , adult supervised, with questions and answers to follow. More than that, 2.37 is the perfect catalyst for a re-assessment of what constitutes R-ratings on films that address under-18 issues. Pretending that life-defining events and life-threatening challenges are not happening to people under 18 by restricting access to information and healthy discussion about them is not only a nonsense, it is irresponsible.

I promote this stance, pretending that big issues dont effect people under 18 is a joke, and sheltering them is only ever going to make it worse

 

[Some_Guy]

elephant wasnt that good.

been a while since i saw it and maybe i misinterpreted it, but it seemed to imply the reasons for the shooting was :
- classical music
- violent video games
- being gay
- satanism

....
​

 

[hiphophooray123]

i hated elephant.

I like 2:37 though. It's a bit hard to watch at times, and it is depressing. Well done though.

Spoiler

for me, the hardest part to watch was the gay kissing scene. The chick that offed herself was kinda cute for her age that is

 

[ur_inner_child]

i hated elephant.

I like 2:37 though. It's a bit hard to watch at times, and it is depressing. Well done though.

Spoiler

for me, the hardest part to watch was the gay kissing scene. The chick that offed herself was kinda cute for her age that is

Spoiler

the harder part for me was the incest rape I had to huddle up next to someone. Also, I never cried in the entire movie until it said it was based/dedicated to someone real, and instantly I instantly teared up. :$

 

[hiphophooray123]

Spoiler

the harder part for me was the incest rape I had to huddle up next to someone. Also, I never cried in the entire movie until it said it was based/dedicated to someone real, and instantly I instantly teared up. :$

Spoiler

i think i was the oldest person in the cinema at the time and i was the only one who giggled in the incest scene im such a sick boy. I also was the only one who laughed when they showed the guy wanking over gay porn. Actually my eyes got a tad bit watery when they showed the chick that committed suicide talking about um something and smiling

i've had two suicides at my high school, i think maybe three, but i remember we had two within 1 year. I was in year 8 and i remember watching one of the victims friends walking out of conselling and he was so angry he kicked a bin so hard that it dented. Never knew the guys. I know that one of the victims once stole my friends brothers bike, like a week before he was found hanging in his garage.

 

[Tulipa]

I promote this stance, pretending that big issues dont effect people under 18 is a joke, and sheltering them is only ever going to make it worse

can someone right a decent review of the whole movie including the spoiler bits? i wanna know the plot and whats good about this movie, but i am not going to watch it.

why aren't you going to watch it if you promote every high school kid seeing it? but i agree with that to a certain extent...

Spoiler

if they edit out the rape scene, personally i just found that too graphic. yes it's controversial and good work if that was their aim but i found it to be just too much. the suicide scene was tough to watch but more important than the verbosity of the rape scene. oh and the british kid steven? i teared up whenever he came on just cause he reminded me so much of what sucked about high school. especially when he's just hanging out in the bathroom and the incidents in the corridors.

OH and WARNING (even though this doesn't give away anything that specific but i'll "spoiler" it anyways.)

Spoiler

oh and if you're someone who has had issues with rape, incest, cutting or anything in the past, think twice about seeing this movie. especially if you're not in the best frame of mine.

 

[ur_inner_child]

The person I felt most sorry for:

(this is a MASSIVE SPOILER).

Spoiler

At the time I really felt for the raped/pregnant chick. But now that I think about it, its really Steven that's pretty screwed over on the criteria of whether you could do something about it.

The pregnant girl (kelly?) could've said something to someone, no matter how hard and weird that could have been; her brother only had an issue with marks (besides being utterly sick); the out-of-closet gay seemed to charismatically love his pain; the jock could get over himself and his girlfriend could just stop being so self-absorbed. Its poor Steven that no matter what he does will keep peeing in his pants, limp etc.

Well, disregarding the girl that killed herself, who never got noticed etc... Poor Steven.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Spoiler

the harder part for me was the incest rape I had to huddle up next to someone.

Spoiler

Your brother?

 

[ur_inner_child]

Spoiler

Your brother?

I suppose I did leave that door wide open.

And uh like no.

 

[AlleyCat]

based/dedicated to someone real

well...apparently the director has some explaining to do...

Director's suicide claim `fiction'

19 August 2006
The Australian

MURALI Thalluri should be the toast of the Australian film industry today. The 22-year-old's first feature film 2.37 is unspooling in local cinemas this weekend after debuting as an official selection at the Cannes Film Festival in May.

Yet controversy swirls around Thalluri after he used a teenage girl's suicide to sell his film -- a suicide no one can corroborate.

Another director, Daniel Krige -- whose brother committed suicide two years ago -- has told The Weekend Australian he heard 2.37's producer, Nick Matthews, boast in a Sydney bar two months ago that they fabricated the story of Thalluri's friend's suicide, the dedication of the film and Thalluri's own depression and suicide attempt, to give Thalluri and the film more credibility.

"2.37 is a strong enough piece of work to stand on its own two feet without exploiting the serious subjects of depression and suicide to further a publicity campaign and career," Krige said yesterday.

"I believe the comments I heard at least needed to be looked into."

Matthews said Krige knew his assertion was "utter bullshit".

"It comes from a disgruntled filmmaker who's fabricated a web of lies for his own personal grudge and jealousy," Matthews said.

Thalluri says the inspiration for 2.37 was his own suicide attempt and a video "farewell note" a school friend, "Kelly", sent him before she killed herself. Yet he and Matthews steadfastly refuse to divulge Kelly's real name nor provide details that could confirm her existence.

On Thursday afternoon, he attributed his lies about her suicide date to a need to protect her family.

In another interview later that day, he said the death took place on September3, 2003. But checks of funeral and death notices from that date do not confirm his story.

Kelly's identity has been the subject of much speculation in Adelaide's school and filmmaking communities. Neither Rostrevor College nor University Senior College, where Thalluri was a student, have records or recollections of any student committing suicide in those years.

Furthermore, justice of the peace Henry Cox, who signed a statement declaring he had viewed a tape of the teen suicide message that Thalluri had provided, told The Australian this week that the woman in the recording appeared to be "in her early 20s" and not a schoolgirl younger than 18, as Thalluri claimed.

"The stuff that was in there is so f..king horrific, excuse my language, that it's not for anyone's eyes and it's not going out there to prove a story," Thalluri said.

Matthews said they agreed with Kelly's family not to disclose details. He wanted to maintain "the integrity of that" and said there would be "legal ramifications" if they did not. He could not explain what those ramifications would be.

"The fact the details of that have been sketchy is very much a deliberate ploy," he said.

"If we have to be martyrs for that cause, then good luck to the media for making a meal out of that, but that's just the way it is."

USC principal Bob Holloway said: "We've raised the question ourselves as to who this person is."

Another staff member noted: "Yes, we have our doubts", and added that even if the teen was not a student, those who knew her, such as Thalluri, would have been counselled at school.

Thalluri's mother declined to verify his story. Jyothi Thalluri is a senior lecturer in pharmacy and medical sciences at the University of South Australia. When asked if the personal details her son had disclosed in interviews were true, Dr Thalluri said: "I am not allowed to comment on anything, please."

Asked if her son was telling the truth about his suicide attempt, she said: "Can I please don't answer because I have to leave. I have nothing to do about the film or anything, it's my son that's doing it."

Thalluri and Matthews protest about such intrusions. "The fact the focus has gone on to this aspect of Murali's back-story is testament to the idea that people build you up to bring you down," said Matthews.

When told an independent verification of Kelly's existence would halt such questioning, both director and producer remained adamant they would not provide it.

The issue might have faded away if not for other inconsistencies littering Thalluri's public spruiking of his life and film: some frivolous, some potentially damaging.

Thalluri has been widely quoted as saying he lost an eye in an April 2000 stabbing by 15 youths as he stood in a telephone booth outside an Adelaide cinema. He subsequently won a $50,000 victim-of-crime payment, which he later put towards the film.

South Australian police have no record of the 2000 attack, although in August 2001 Thalluri reported being struck around the right eye by one person at a city phone booth. He claimed he did not see the blow coming because he was shortsighted. Only then did he claim he was attacked in 2000, an attack that hospital records confirm. A police source described Thalluri's 2001 report as "quite unusual".

Thalluri said he did not approach the police until "nine or 10 months later for the pure reason that this was a gang attack, a group of Asian youths".

"I was freaking terrified that they would come after us if we pursued them," he said.

Before the 2000 attack, Thalluri had a corneal graft to remedy distorted vision. "Obviously (the attack) would have messed up the operation to begin with anyway, but after the attack happened, the graft went out the window and I lost the vision in my right eye," he said.

Thalluri also told Adelaide's The Advertiser newspaper in 2004 that the attack "was absolutely the best thing that happened to me. It affected the frontal lobe of my brain, so I went from being science and maths-minded to creative".

Staff at USC, where Thalluri completed his Year 12 studies, beg to differ. The "charismatic" young man intended to pursue a career in medicine until the school realised the area was not his forte.

While Thalluri did receive the $50,000 victim-of-crime payment, he did so in unusual circumstances. An Attorney-General's Department spokesperson said a successful claim was "extremely unlikely" without a police report.

Thalluri is also quoted regularly as saying he only turned to film after surviving his own suicide attempt. Yet his former teachers say he "leapt into film studies" at USC.

"Murali is a very confident young man with a great capacity to capture attention," said Mr Holloway. "And he was a great storyteller. If he missed a lecture he'd always have a great story to explain himself."

Thalluri says he attempted suicide six months after receiving Kelly's video message. He survived a mixture of codeine and bourbon, threw up the cocktail and re-evaluated his life. He decided that if he lived, he was going to get serious about filmmaking and after a slow recovery wrote the script that became 2.37 in 36 hours straight.

"We're actually unsure of what substance he has as an individual," said one former teacher. "Despite his achievement with the film, some staff are reticent about standing up and applauding him."

Thalluri convinced Stephen Norris, the managing director of property developer Lifestyles SA, to invest in the film's first rough cut -- a convincing achievement in itself. But Mr Norris first expected the production to yield a documentary on teenage suicide, a topic he believed society often swept under the carpet.

"I must say the quality of what was produced was far greater than I expected," he said.

Another investor was "Jennifer Hille", whom Thalluri said had a 1per cent shareholding, adding he "does not know what she does for a living". Ms Hille could not be traced.

Most of the film's $1.1 million budget was spent on post-production by Kojo Productions. Kojo has referred all inquiries to Roadshow. And a director Thalluri cites as a mentor, Rolf de Heer, was too busy making his next film, Dr Plonk, to comment.

Thalluri's marketing continued in Cannes, where a video by his production company M2 claims that the film received a "15-minute standing ovation".

The marketing video of the ovation shows the credits rolling, with a clock in the left corner of the frame indicating it went for 15 minutes. The problem was that the credits of the film only run for six minutes.

"That's a classic, that Murali's video -- that was done hastily -- about the standing ovation, is not millisecond perfect," said Matthews.

Thalluri's admission that he used Gus Van Sant's Columbine-shooting-inspired film, Elephant, as an inspiration appears almost meaningless now.

The Australian's David Stratton said: "I didn't say it was plagiaristic, but for me it came a little close to that. It's a little more than a tribute or influenced by Gus Van Sant's film.

"On the other hand, I was impressed that this guy was 19 and the actors give fantastic performances. You've got to hand it to him for doing it, but it'll be very interesting to see what he does next because his second film will tell it all."

uh oh...

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20178208-16947,00.html

 

[Serius]

elephant wasnt that good.

been a while since i saw it and maybe i misinterpreted it, but it seemed to imply the reasons for the shooting was :
- classical music
- violent video games
- being gay
- satanism

....
​

that wasnt what the director was trying to show at all. He was trying to show social apathy and bullying played a big part, but that ultimately school shootings are unfathomable.


The reason why i am not going to see it is two fold. I dealt with the issues i had a while ago and i dont NEED to see the movie to help me with that now, and two i dont want to bring it all back.

so who killed themseves? Kelly?
And whats the deal with steven, is he the smart one in the trailer?