Thought it would be interesting to hear what you guys thought aboot it as we all (probably) are used to seing a little more shock value content than the average joe.

First thoughts: Van Sant has seen alot of von Trier's and other dogme films and wanted to have a go too, but does not quite master the technique. An incident that should unquestionably shock and disturb comes of in this film as dull, uninteresting, unaffecting and soon forgotten.

I've read people aplaud the cinematography, but I'm sorry to say I did not see the beauty of staring at the back of the head of lots of people constantly.

The 'average day' effect van Sant clearly was striving for was also not successfull as the 'actors' are obviously aware of the cameras and don't appear natural at all.

what did you think?

I loved it, my favourite 2003 movie, I don't think it relies on shock value (even if the end is still quite eerie). I can understand that some people hate it, it's much more an artistic statement (whatever) than a movie about the Columbine mass-murder. I didn't really like any Dogma movie but I dug this one.

hmm... well that makes it a different movie then.

But would you please care to elaborate a little on why you liked it? As I said I could see no other motive for this film other than what stated above and in my eyes it failed in those attempts, but I guess there might be something more I didn't get...?

quite right, it?s maybe not so much about the columbne-massacres directly, in fact knowing it spoils the movie a bit. i loved it, too, it?s like a snapshot from different points, avoiding bullshit-pop-psychology or other stuff, but just following the characters, almost mourning the innocence that is lost later. the Dogme-comparison is a bit superficial i thnk, natural lightning and amateur-actors have been used before and dogme may have similar motives, but there are also quite some differences. i didn?t think the actors weren?t really bad, the blonde one was actually quite good IMHO, but as it was not so much about full characters, but more like supposed highschool-archetypes the performances didn?t need to be too nuanced.

hmm... interesting as it is, I guess it once again just comes down to different people, different tastes. Like a joke; if you have to explain the point, it is per se pointless.

First of all, I think this movie has quite an hypnotic quality and that it depicts quite accurately the turmoil of teenage inner life, while never offering a simple explanation to the confusion that the characters wade through in their day-to-day life.
I loved the fact that this movie retains a core of mystery and opacity at its center, though I think that at the same time it stays quite simple, I didn't feel cheated by Van Sant, he's not using hermetism or non-sense as a pose or to fake deepness of thought.
You can read a lot of things in it if you get into it (personnally, my theory is that it is much more about life before and after september the 11th than it is about the Columbine murders).
Finally I didn't find it boring at all though I have friends who did.