text: It is fascinating how this title manages to slip by the average viewer as something new and groundbreaking (quoting some of the comments). Murali K. Thalluri must have thought by himself: "Oh, great! Elephant ... What a fantastic movie! I'll try hard to do exactly the same movie and see if anyone notices!", sadly enough, he even failed with his outrageous idea. The movie turns out a complete failure. Considering that it tries hard to catch the brilliance of Gus Van Sants "Elephant", it makes it look even more ridiculous - a most embarrassing faux pas for a film director.<br /><br />The movie starts off with the suicide of a student in the schools bathroom. This scene, already, shows the awkward acting skills of each one involved in this scene. You don't buy a single word they say. In carries on, interrupted by short interview-styled bits of the kids who "live on their marry lives" with each bit rather distressing in its plain stupidity on the basis of each worthless monologue. Thalluri means to introduce the characters this way, to give a kind of fast-as-junk-food insight look into their hearts ... and fails once again. Not five minutes later, Thalluri ultimately screams at the audience "Yes, people! I stole this movie and for some curious reason, I am proud of it!" by taking Gus Van Sants most unmistakable narrative style from "Elephant": He shot scenes twice to let the viewer follow each character involved in a scene on his particular way and role in a school situation. Hm, doesn't this seem awfully familiar? To me, this certain level of very forgiving tolerance had been infringed right there to a point at which I couldn't stand this dreadful movie any more. Shame on you, Murali K. Thalluri, I say! I am especially surprised that "2:37" has reached the official selections in Cannes as of 2006, whereas everyone must have certainly remembered "Elephant" (2003) at the very same Film Festival just a few years ago! So, how in the name of the lord did this most disgraceful rip-off end up being shown there? I find myself absolutely puzzled by this mistake.<br /><br />Directors like Thalluri use the ignorance of audiences who aren't (and cannot completely be) aware of every independent film out there. As Elephant has little to do with mainstream cinema (although it is without a doubt a masterpiece), few people notice that the story as told in "2:37" had been told before! How that is possible at a Film Festival of such importance as attributed to Cannes, I cannot say. It is sad and shameful that such things are passed on and hardly anyone sees the true fraud in it.<br /><br />2:37 is by all means solely commercial, worthless as an independent film and (on a certain level) rather a phoney parody of its obvious idol, "Elephant".