The Delicate Art of the Rifle (1996) User Reviews

Overlooked

[Hindinwood · 8/10 · 19 October 2006]

I can't figure out why this movie is still so obscure. No one I've ever asked has seen it, even in Austin, which is really strange considering that it's based on the Charles Whitman sniper shootings at UT. I saw it over four years ago, and still remember it strongly for it's dreamy surreal quality. The protagonist drifts through the day, encountering various campus characters with equal nonchalance. Even when he realizes that someone is putting holes in his soda with a high powered rifle he seems unfazed. It's definitely a very unique take on what was at the time (60's) one of the most violent and shocking episodes to occur at an American school. (The film actually takes place in the time which it was filmed, not the 60's).

Very well made independent film.

[timmyatl · 7/10 · 18 December 2008]

I found this film on IFC recently as I was flipping channels and it caught my attention immediately and it really blew me away. The fact that it was made by a first-time writer, director, and mostly first-time actors was even more of a shock. Especially the writing and acting of Stephen Grant (who played Walt Whitman) was absolutely superb. He also bares a resemblance to the actual University of Texas at Austin shooter Charles Whitman of whom the film was based, which makes it all the more chilling (even though the film was set in current times and not 1966). The film has a very surreal feel to it which you can tell was achieved very carefully. Apparently some people say it runs too long but, being a person with a notoriously short attention span, I didn't find myself getting bored at any moment. I would definitely recommend it to any fan of independent film.

7/10.

truly indie

[davidparker2247 · 8/10 · 10 September 2008]

I have to say this movie very much exemplifies independent film from the nineties, which if you were wondering is a very good thing. Loose narrative, monologue, its focus on life as a college student/twenty something, weird enough personalities that you would only see in films from this time and much more. This film reminds me of the days of indie film when they really was indie not just a stepping stone to the major films as it is today (at least what is played in theatres, there are plenty of true indie film online.) Just think about half of what is on IFC - much of it just major studio film marketed as indie. It is in my mind in the tradition of clerks or slacker. Some half way point between overt artiness and over the top comedy with a little of each toned down.

As I mentioned this isn't so much a film about story as it is about character and the characters college environment. It captures much more truthfully, much more so than most any film I have seen, the life of a college student. You DO have those experiences in college where going to the store to get a coke leads you to catching up with old friends, running into college professors or a crush - which then maybe leads you on to a some greater adventure. This film paints that picture well and interestingly. So while some thought the beginning was slow and without much action I felt it was a an accurate portrayal of the normal life of what a student experiences.

The somewhat inactive first portion gives excellent contrast to the last half of the film with the shooter. This film is about ideas and I believe the first half of the film lets the character and viewer breathe and explore those ideas without the flash and excitement of the shooting scenes.

Second half is great mostly because of the actor that plays the shooter does it with such a great amount of idiosyncrasy and panache that the viewer is left wanting more (I have to back the comment up that this actor should have had a long career.)

This is not as low budget as everyone seems to think on this comment page, at least not to me. Keep in mind that I am comparing this to other indies of the time. It has a fairly large cast, and numerous settings, clearly a lot of time and effort went into the making of the film.

All in all I wish more films of this quality were made like this today. A bunch of friends motivated by putting good ideas and images that give you a variety of concepts to think about once it is all over. What could be better?

And you thought you were twisted...

[Rocket M · 10/10 · 1 December 1998]

If any of you has had the rare opportunity to view this work of what looks like student art....then I suggest you get cable and wait for the Independent Film Channel to give it to you....I've had the weak luck of catching this film on the channel...It follows a common college student and his common day on campus with bizarre stories and visuals...(his friends are just as weird)...And just when you think it's about to get boring.... BLAM!...a sniper(who just so happens to be our leads roomate) is taking out people in the courtyard in a comedic manner... Some of the greatest scenes in the film are on the sniper's roof and all of the philosophical discussions that our poor damaged sniper confesses to our lead in acts of desperation.. The film itself is unique in it's weirdness....

PS:If anybody can find a copy of this for sale...TELL ME WHERE TO GO!...

Whoa!

[grendel-25 · 16 May 1999]

This film played recently on the Independent Film Channel, And was a total revelation. The story, cinematography, and most of the acting were great. The guy who played Walt Whitman should become a huge star if there is any justice.

One shoots, the other doesn't.....

[liller_thyme · 7/10 · 21 September 2008]

Yes, maybe the film is a bit long, with most of the action and excitement centered on the roof. It is a riveting movie (no pun intended) when the our somewhat spacey character is up on top of the tower with just the antenna, the clouds, and the antagonist and his monologue. The ending was genuinely chilling for me and I'll be looking for it on IFC to watch again, closely and with an eye out for more details. It's a little more high-school than university as to the portrayal of the people, especially the administration, but that's my only real negative comment.

My son thinks it may have an even greater twist-as to why the police never talked to him; why Walt was never found; and why the clippings mysteriously disappeared.

I especially liked the Ho-Ho.

This is NOT a Period Piece!

[joel_wbs · 9/10 · 18 April 2008]

This film is NOT a period piece -- nor is it supposed to be one! Anyone who proceeds from this assumption was obviously not paying attention to the film. First off, the sniper in the film is not named Charles Whitman, but WALT Whitman.

Anyone panning this imaginative film based on it being "poorly researched" (as does the comment immediately before this one) tells us more about his ability to comprehend information than he does about the movie itself.

Instead, DELICATE ART OF THE RIFLE tells us much about the nature of reality. Launching from Shakespeare's line about all the world being a stage, the film then goes on to expand upon this metaphor by suggesting that most of the things that affect the world lurk behind the scenes; and as in the theatre, most of what happens on stage is affected by things that are invisible.

Stunning

[rick-1341 · 9/10 · 14 December 2008]

A unique film, drenched in symbolism and dark humor. Moments of visual and narrative brilliance alternate with scenes that reveal the low-budget student film origins of the movie.

A nerdy college student is going through yet another routine day when a rooftop sniper opens fire, and then the student hears his roommate calling from the rooftop, inviting him to come up and join him...

David Grant, lead singer of the punk rock band Action Patrol, stars as the dweebish Jay. Stephen Grant (no relation) wrote the script and plays the role of the shooter. Sci-fi author John Kessel appears in the role of a loquacious professor.

Ridiculous, bad film with an undeservedly good title.

[habanerosteele · 2/10 · 5 March 2008]

This is a ridiculous, poorly researched film with an undeservedly good title.

This is a ridiculous, poorly researched film with an undeservedly good title.

This event occurred in 1966. Will the director please explain why the police are flying around in Apache helicopters and carrying Beretta M9 pistols? I know the film is supposed to be "surreal" but give me a break. A little bit of research could have lent a lot authenticity to this film. Acting was also mediocre at best. The "tactical" team at the end of the film is absolutely ridiculous. This film constituted a complete waste of my time. Don't waste yours!

This is a ridiculous, poorly researched film with an undeservedly good title.

This event occurred in 1966. Will the director please explain why the police are flying around in Apache helicopters and carrying Beretta M9 pistols? I know the film is supposed to be "surreal" but give me a break. A little bit of research could have lent a lot authenticity to this film. Acting was also mediocre at best. The "tactical" team at the end of the film is absolutely ridiculous. This film constituted a complete waste of my time. Don't waste yours!

I thought it was just a quirky student film. I found it to be one of the best contemporary social satires ever made.

[FIDO-5 · 10/10 · 20 May 1999]

I found this movie to be subtly hypnotic. Stephen Grant's (Walt Whitman) monologue about being a rifleman is now one of my favorite cinematic scenes in film history. I am becoming mildly obsessed with this film. I just hope it does not result in my climbing up into a dorm tower with a high-powered rifle and popping off several innocent citizens in the name of Stephen Grant and "The Delicate Art of the Rifle."

Gimme me a break

[martykel · 1/10 · 2 June 2008]

A very bad attempt to pull off a David Lynch/Cohen Brothers/Tarantino. Bad acting, excessively annoying characters, and long, drawn-out, irrelevant scenes. Humor? - only when you consider the moronic idiocy of immature college students trying to impress. Ten lines of text needed to complete this comment before it can be submitted ---- OK. Let's see. The film was tedious, and dumb, and lousy, and unbelievable, and hideous, and annoying, and the sound was terrible, and the number of irrelevant scenes was exasperating, and the swat team was laughable and I'm having a really hard time trying to compile 10 lines of commentary on a film that was better left in the "bad idea" stage.

A little annoying, but a surprisingly solid film.

[necron99 · 24 May 2004]

I stayed up until nearly 1:00 AM watching this film on IFC. This film started off pretty slow, and the constant narratives bothered me a little, but overall this is a good film. The last 45 minutes or so makes up for the beginning, and the comedy and suspense is quite impressive. Worth seeking out for sure. I just wish that this film was adequately funded, as to avoid the cheap feel to it. I was also impressed with the bullet wound effects, which looked very real and convincing. I also liked the actor who played Walt Whitman. He was cast perfectly, in my opinion. I wish that this film was for sale or something. If you happen to see this on IFC you should check it out and be patient. 3 stars.

Possibly the best independent film I have ever seen

[Random439 · 9/10 · 28 September 2004]

The movie has all kinds of down sides to it; It seems to be a

student film, it's confusing in places, and the acting is mostly poor. But I love it anyway. The film takes you on a tour of a larger than life campus where the

little things that are true of all universities are magnified. There are

rumors about the 19th floor on Fucault Tower, and a bunch of other

interesting Campus Legends. The directing is good, the script is really good. The film succeeds

for me on almost every level. I like the characters, I like the setting,

and I like the reason for why Walt starts shooting people. I laugh, I

cry... well, not actually cry, but the movie has a number of touching

moments that are very well done and that stand out. If you're hung up on acting, special effects, needing a

straightforward plot, you might want to skip this one. If you like well-written, quirky films, give it a shot. So to speak.

quietly bloodcurdling

[soneill · 8/10 · 16 July 2008]

i keep reading complaints on this board about how slow-paced and meandering this movie is. and it is slow and meandering, much like its bewildered protagonist, a college kid who keeps his eyes open and his mouth shut as he plods through his day. much of the bizarre behavior he encounters on the campus is counterfeit and flamboyant, meant to attract attention, much like the girl in everyone's high school class who wore black nail polish and a ghastly pallor and called herself a witch. then the kid runs up against the true madness of his roommate, who has ascended to the top of the clock tower with a sniper rifle and plenty of bullets and is idly picking off random victims in the quadrangle. the sniper, walt whitman, is easily the most matter-of-fact character in the movie. there's a hell fury roaring just beneath his clean blondness, but so long as he keeps shooting, he can hold himself together. quite a fascinating and lengthy look into that old heart of darkness.

Why no DVD?

[kanekuni · 10/10 · 14 December 2005]

Excellent movie. Good to see Dante has a new project in the works finally. What is Stephen Grant up to these days? Come to think of it, Tim McVeigh is sort of an updated Walt Whitman isn't he? But anyway, I saw the movie at IFFM, enjoyed the hell out of it, talked to Dante for good long time during a fake interview conducted by a fellow film fanatic. Saw the movie repeatedly on IFC, but why no DVD? The only reason I can think of is E&O -- all the Coca-Cola references and showing of the product, probably without the permission of the Coca-Cola Company. Just change the label, Dante, you can do it now digitally, probably on a home computer. You have fans that want to see the movie on DVD and good luck with your Tim McVeigh project.

Filmed at NCSU

[sbunc92-3 · 2/10 · 2 June 2004]

For the viewer who was wondering where this movie was filmed: it was filmed on the campus of North Carolina State University in Raleigh, NC. I can't say this film did much for me. As others had said it seemed to be padded out just to make it into a feature length movie. The long takes of following the stage tech wondering around backstage reminded me of the recent film "Elephant"(but to it's credit it did come 7 years before that film). The stuff with the sniper on the roof was interesting but even that could have been fleshed out more.The budget obviously showed but where it let the viewer down was long bits of nothing happening. A decent student film with some nice Steadicam work at the end but nothing more than that.

rough but ambitious writing

[daydreamblvr1210 · 6 August 2004]

This occasionally airs on the IFC and is definitely worth a viewing when it does. I saw this recently and it's a fine example of the type of challenging film-making and writing that is lacking in independents today.

A sniper takes control of a rooftop of one of the dorms on a college campus - but rather than focus on the obvious tragedy and danger of the situation, the film addresses the everyday aspects of life surrounding it, to comedic effect on occasion. This seems crude and insensitive on the surface- but it plays as something just outside dark comedy with atypical approaches to side story and narration. The narrator and main character, Jay has an unique viewpoint to the ordeal after he witnesses one of his professor's get shot in the quad only to later find out his connection to the sniper responsible. The interesting character of Walt Whitman is portrayed by the writer of the film, Stephen Grant. Campus life and the transitory nature of relationships are playfully foregrounded here and it makes for a far more interesting and unexpectedly entertaining result than you'd expect.

This approach to the subject matter may be something that would never see the light of day as a mainstream film with all the sensitivity to events like Columbine, D.C.sniper from 2001 or even the UT sniper from the 60s but as a low budget indie it works and is worth watching.

Where is it?

[jessehartbenson · 22 December 2000]

Yet another fantastic movie that I can't find anywhere. If anyone knows where I can get a copy of it; let me know. I have 2 more lines to fill. Damn, this is a grrreat movie. You really ought to see it. You'll laugh till you pee your chones. College kids are annoying, but this movie isnt; Go figure.

A candy with a delicious center

[Tibor-3 · 4 April 2000]

This student film, which seems to appear only on IFC, has a beginning and an end that is rather boring. Where the film really explodes however is in the middle, when the lead's roommate starts shooting everyone at the University from the top of the dorm tower. The 40 or so minutes that take place on top of the roof are the real gem in this movie. The roommate, Walt, is played fervently by the writer, and every scene with him is fantastic. The beginning and end seem to be tacked on simply to extend the roof scene into a feature length picture, with only a slight plot thread about government agents linking it all together. The roof scene is worth it however, even if you have to spend the remainder of the movie with the exceedingly dull lead character. Note: IFC keeps saying that the movie takes place at the University of Texas, although no mention of this is made in the movie, and the campus used is definitely not UT. The only connection appears to be the name Walt Whitman, the roommate shooter, with Charles Whitman, the real life sniper who attacked students at UT in the 60's.