Is there actually a real reason why people are taking one look at this film and giving it half a star? To me, anyone that gives this film a one star rating hasn't really considered much about it. But I'll be blunt: I'm giving this five stars, because I loved it.

This is without doubt one of the best films I've seen this year. And I do mean that. It's funny for me to watch this, because I'm a 17-year-old Aussie kid, and I've contemplated suicide a fair few times.

Being depressed doesn't have to be one of those outward, crying, screaming diseases; I haven't cried in two years, and it's just great to see a movie that defies the standards. For once, this is actually accurate, it being the misunderstood, ignored person who ends up killing themself. It's just nice to see something real occur.

For the movie itself, it is just superb, and even though the "Elephant"-like shots and such are somewhat cliched, the long tracking shots are superb at capturing the emotion of the scenes, and the black and white closeups are even better. I know that there is little backup for the interviews (there was some mention of a student video project), but they are still astoundingly un-forced.

For those who haven't seen it, I suggest you do, and if there were some way to show this to teenage school children, I would reccomend it in a heartbeat. Ignoring the sometimes gratuitous swearing, it is certainly a remarkable show of emotional torment. Each character is brilliantly portrayed, and there is no way this film deserves half a star. For those who gave it thus, get over yourself, or watch the movie prior to rating it.

I found this film to be very poor - the acting was bad, for the most part, the script was weak and the story was simplified. Cinematically I found the black and white 'talking head' shots with the characters to be dull and a very clumsy way to give the audience insights into their behaviour. Is this a movie, or an episode of 'A Current Affair'? I don't see how the overexposed shots of leaves against the sky was particularly skilfull either. As a teenager I was insulted by the shallow depiction of adolescents shown in this film. I don't think that this film has done anything for the issue of suicide, except oversimplify it. It's difficult to understand how this has come from a person who has any insights into suicide and what drives a person to it.

Cringeful.

As a big fan of Australian film, I am sorry to say I found this work truly awful. Heavy handed and over simplified, with a poor narrative, is being kind.

Interestingly, the film was blasted by critics in US Variety, in Cannes, and most recently in Toronto. Our very own Movie Show pretty much accussed the film-maker of plagiarism. But most telling of all, it has bombed in Australian theatres.

I am also a teacher. I wonder whether all the people speaking about how important this film is, have bothered to listen to Beyond Blue and SANE (whom I'm sure we'd all agree ARE experts on depression, and depression led suicide). Both organisations have been extraordinarily critical of the film and its handling of youth suicide.

Has anyone who made the initial reviews on this film (the MIFF reviews) missed the point that when anyone succeeds at suicide, it'll only be once? Funny that such an act usually only ends in success once, so you don't really get a chance to perfect it the first time successful, nor do you perfect navigating through teenage years the one time you do it, because,..funny...you only do it once!

Thankyou to all the recent reviews of "2:37" that make those initial repugnant, self-righteous reviews obsolete. Its rather apt that as a first time filmmaker, the energy and gaucheness of the subject portrayed is navigated with the same subtley anyone would find themselves navigating their way through the act of suicide. Hands up how many people out there manage to tackle the subject of suicide in film, especially in young adults colliding their way through life on one of the steepest learning curves the human race ever has, with subtlety, de plomme and sophistication. People shove handfuls of pills down their throats, run cold blades vertically up their veins, tighten worn out belts around their necks and press cold metal to their temples because suicide is exactly that - a harsh, cruel fact of the world. A raw, inept, unrefined, undignified act of self-obliteration. How can anyone portray this in a refined way?

Thankyou Murali for canvassing an act of life that rarely gets this kind of exposure publically, especially in kids. Isnt the whole point of this film that we are always looking for the obvious stereotyped signs in people that make them candidates for suicide & in the end, its often the people we least expect. Thats my personal experience. I don't know if it is many others. Clearly those who have seen this film & appreciated it have either strong empathy or understanding of the subject or personal sympathy from experience. The others are just emotional tourists.

I truly hope those 'reviewers' that rated this film poorly based on their own personal entertainment scale, current bellybutton navigation on what constitutes a 'good' film or textbook sociological spiel on suicide from their "last uni lecture, man" are never faced with the prospect of suicide themselves or of a loved one because when they do they'll swallow their ignorant tongues in shame for producing such purile critique.

Im in agreeance with "Inside View", its all too easy to spew forth vitriolic critique on a film when you're an armchair spectator on a subject. The public should feel privileged that this filmmaker chose to pay reverence to this painful subject. And he did a real job of it - Respects to Murali, and especially Kelly.

I think some of the acting in this film is pretty good, but the underlying theme of making the audience fully understand just how difficult high school is neglects to remember that we've all been through it.

I abhor being dragged around by my nose - feel this here, feel that there - I'll make up my own mind, thanks very much.

As it happens, I think the suicide scene was unbelievably moving - especially as it takes Kelly two or three goes to actually do it. It was horrible to watch, but I didn't look away, because I thought I could at least give the actor that much respect. It would have been extremely difficult to do it.

I realise stereotypes save us time in this society, but it might be nice to watch a teenage/high school film that isn't only about humiliation, sexual awakening and shame. Though I guess they are many people's overwhelming feeling during those teenage years.

This movie doesn't do much of a job of convincing me to have kids.

Worth a look though.

I really believe that all of you talking about how bad the film is need to think about how it affects others. Do you know what the teenage suicide rate is? Do you know that this film is trying to raise awareness to a topic which needs to be raised? Do you know that I, amongst other teenagers have contemplated committing suicide? This film was powerful, strong, full-on and masterful. I don't give a crap whether or not it was like "Elephant" or not. It really got to me and people who walked out with most likely the same view as they had when they walked in sicken me. Life is difficult for some people, maybe you should take a look around and stop being so bloody selfish.

Well done to everyone involved in the film especially the young director and Charles Baird (who played Uneven Steven).

I'm intrigued by all the high-negative, judgmental reviews 'spitting' indignation because their comfort zones have been overly disturbed, confronted and even debased. God forbid! Yes, they want a very NOW teen movie with suicide themes but NOT [with] all the icky bits - puh-leaaaasee. The same folks who may well watch "Pulp Fiction" or "Taxi Driver" and not flinch! A 17-minute standing ovation at Cannes from 'hardened critics' says it all for this impressive 20-year-old writer. Truth be known, even Stanley Kubrick's writing could be run over with the red ink. So not bad for a 20 year old who, let us NOT forget, just happens to have written this work (in 36 hours) after his own attempted suicide: is he looking from the inside out - being the point perhaps - and we dare to be horrified???? Hullo! THIS is what it looks like (subjectively) and why we NEED to be confronted in such a gruelling way so that we WILL notice our kids and help them. What broke my heart was the kids' innocence and sense of helplessness in the midst of a caring educational facility. I thought the adults were essential to the plot as being ipso facto barrier[s] to the very help needed. Adults were around but may as well have been on Mars. The important point for me of this film IS breaking down those generational barriers so that we may reach kids in pain and conflict and let them know that its OK and that there IS help and they are NOT alone in the midst of chaos. A very important film ALL parents and teachers should see. Congratulations on this film.

As a high school teacher this film really spoke to me. I deal with the stressful comings and goings of students every day but little do us teachers and parents truly understand the inner workings of the youth of today. This film was, while graphic, a necessary look into school life and the goings on of adolescents today in Australia.

While some might say the film was too graphic and this wasn't necessary I think the director did well to do the characters justice by allowing the audience to see the shocking truth. This film was a massive wake up call for many and I know the people in the cinema stayed until the final credits rolled because of the overbearing emotional power of this film.

The graphic nature of the film meant that no one could escape the reality that these issues are very real in today's youth. its films like these that make people realise that what we are doing today for youth just isn't enough. the director obviously has had close personal dealings with youth suicide and that is why I believe his passion has transferred into the graphic nature of this film.

"2:37" left me with feelings I'll never forget. I used to look at my students as young people who struggle through everyday life. Now I look at them as young people who struggle through everyday life.. the only difference is, their struggles are very real to me.

A fantastic film, fantastic cast and fantastic crew. thankyou for a film experience I'll never forget.

Unrealistic, Americanised and trashy are words I would use to describe this movie. While there were many valid issues raised in this movie, the way in which it was portrayed was totally unbelieveable.

The fact that I attended the school in which it was filmed at most probably added to my bias, but I just dont believe that this movie is in anyway a correlation on reality in schhol life today.

Disappointing.

Perhaps when viewing this film, one needs to consider the audience for whom it is intended.

Viewers do not need to see, nor do they have the time, to an in-depth indulgence of each character's background. The issues are what are important and I'm sure the viewer will be able to relate to at least one that is presented. If "2:37" was merely about homosexuality, or incest, or anorexia, it would make for a boring film.

I agree that some of the acting was dodgy. But some of it was brilliant.

I must agree with David and Margaret's (At The Movies) verdict of audience manipulation. Unlike them, however, I find it one of the more powerful elements of "2:37". After all, doesn't every film aim to manipulate its audience in one way or another. Thalluri's manipulation serves to strengthen his message.

So what is his message? Everyone has their shit. Take the time to notice those around you. Stop being so self-indulgent. Listen to others. Be a friend.

One of the best movies I have seen in a long time.

"2:37" touches on issues too many people are afraid to talk about. We have all been through High School but how many of us remember how hard it was? How many of us were unaware of the hidden issues going on around us? People you think you know, people you call your friends, are truly very different people from what you thought.

An incredible number of young men are very confused about their sexuality and this movie at the very least lets teenagers know they are not the first to have these thoughts. You should not be afraid of how you feel about other people, opposite or same sex. Perhaps you do need to keep it to yourself in some situations but do not be ashamed. The people you least expect have deep issues and often go undetected until it's too late.

This movie deals with issues some people do not want to except exist. A real life movie for a change.

Save your time, your money and your delicate and precious soul, this one will leave you dry-reaching and wishing you had stayed home and rented "Elephant", at least then you would have got a tastefully executed and well crafted high school tragedy movie, instead of being bludgeoned about the face with grotesque scenes, off-colour language and amateur script-writing.

Somehow Murali even manages to confuse the audience in the final moments by having a principal character say that the suicide victim is "lucky". I get it - HIGH SCHOOL IS HARD!!! Especially if you (like I suspect was the case for Murali) are bullied and made outcast. But in portraying this malaise that is your formative high school years - don't you think you could have done it in a more responsible way, people on the verge of killing themselves will surely view this material, it's your moral imperative that this doesn't tip them over the edge.

Saw the film at MIFF. It was unsubtle (the Crash school of filmmaking - DID YOU GET THE FRIGGING POINT AUDIENCE MEMBER), derivative - (how to copy a film - say Gus Van Sant's Elephant was an influence - Err Murali - try almost identical), all about 'tell don't show' (I thought back-story was supposed to illuminate a film, not to be told word for word to the audience), with too many very serious issues being treated as sound bites (incestuous rape and pregnancy, struggles with sexuality, and suicide in one film - none were dealt with any degree of insight - a graphic suicide scene doesn't mean insight).

I'm not surprised more than half the audience left before the director had a chance to speak. I stayed out of politeness and was treated to "thanks to my friend up there", and "give it up for the tech. crew". I thought the MIFF theme was "It's a long way from Hollywood". Someone obviously forget to tell Murali. Well he's succeeded in getting people talking about his film, as he wanted.

If the film wasn't by a first time film-maker and dealt with less serious issues, would anyone be talking about it?

Ugh. I recognise the need to destigmatise teen depression and suicide, but why is this film being credited with doing so? It's hideous and does the complete opposite. Why the rape scene, couldn't it have just been implied? Why does a character refer to the suicide victim as being "lucky" - doesn't that make suicide seem like the preferable choice?

Shame on Thalluri - "2:37" isn't going to save lives... in fact, I fear it'll end them.

Although this film is well shot and very powerful, it's just too much to ask an audience to sit through a remake of "Elephant" for two-thirds of the film before it hits its stride. Surely the director did not think he would get away with this! The performances in the film were varied, but particular mention needs to made of Frank Sweet's hideous performance.

I did not particularly expect to enjoy this film. The subject of teenage suicide is not an easy one to tackle, and is inevitably confronting. As someone who attempted suicide a couple of times when I was a teenager, it was also too close to home for comfort. However, while I came prepared to be challenged, discomforted, even disturbed, I did not expect to walk away feeling so revolted by the experience that I needed a shower.

There were some terrific moments, including skilful camerawork and I particularly liked the flashing back and forth to show each character's POV in a given situation. The members of the cast also gave strong and compelling performances.

On the other hand, there was an unpleasantly voyeuristic overtone throughout, especially during a drawn out, gratuitous, and almost pornographic incest scene: it was obvious from the beginning what was going to happen, the rest really could have been left to the imagination. Thalluri obviously has yet to learn that what is implied is often more powerful than what is explicitly shown. The suicide scene, which is drawn out over a good seven minutes, was also bordering on the pornographic, and utterly repellent. While I believe in the "less is more" philosophy with film, it is possible to forgive graphic scenes where they are necessary to the story. In this case, they patently were not, and were merely a way of bludgeoning the audience with the "message."

That aside, there were obvious flaws in the writing, including an element of predictability about the character arcs, and apart from Melody, Uneven Steven and perhaps Sean, most of the characters were fairly one dimensional. I found I did not care about Sarah, Luke or Marcus one way or the other. We got a lot of navel gazing monologues, but no real insight into what has shaped them and made them the way they are.

The adult characters served merely as functionaries, and I wondered why bother with them at all. With a few - too few - exceptions, the screenplay was a turgid, remorselessly negative exposition of How Adolescence Can Suck. Okay, teenage years can and often do suck: I know, I was one. But I GOT THE MESSAGE already! Thalluri seems to have no concept of light and shade - life is tough, but it is not the constant misery that is depicted here. I got the impression that the filmmaker was almost getting off on the misery and anguish of his protagonists, it was so relentless.

One of the really difficult things a writer/director dealing with this subject needs to face is responsibility to the audience, many of whom may be vulnerable in the way this film's protagonists are. This film offers no hope to its audience: in fact one character expresses the view that the deceased student is "the lucky one." In an age where suicide, particularly among young people, is rife, to suggest that to take your own life is a positive thing demonstrates a moral vacuum that is really disturbing.

A poor effort. The issues relating to teen life that are of major concern in modern 21st society are not explored in any depth or complexity and the dull treatment here does them an injustice. The usual problem of not actually caring about any of the characters because we do not get drawn into their lives at all. No balance with a focus on six troubled teens and all the teachers are a pain as well. Have just seen this at the opening night of the Melbourne International Film Festival and a shocker of a decision by James Hewitson in his swan song. Time to move on if you think this is worthy of opening night I am afraid.