Elephants Dream (2006 Video) User Reviews

so what did it mean? my interpretation

[cardenasricardo · 7/10 · 26 July 2006]

Proog represents the "unenlightened" old guard, who believes we can't escape "the machine". He truly sees its power and menace, and is both threatened and awed by it. Emo represents a younger generation who has grown up with "the new reality"; he is unimpressed and fearless of "the machine".

Proog tries to teach Emo to fear and respect "the machine". When he realizes Emo will not submit to Proog's reality, and since Proog believes "the machine" to be punishing both him and Emo for their insolence, he strikes Emo.

At a more specific level: given the film's objective (showcasing the power of Open Source), the context can be the world of software and high tech. So "the machine" represents the hegemony of proprietary software through ugly design, and the fact that its staying power is based on the fear, uncertainty and doubt of escaping it. "The new way", then, represents Open Source, interoperability, community collaboration.

To quote Eric Raymond, The Cathedral and the Bazaar.

Technically good, Scenaristically obscure

[yann_chachkoff · 6/10 · 23 June 2006]

A movie that left me with mixed feelings. Sure, the technical performance is rather impressive, especially considering that those people didn't have the financial backup most commercial 3D animations enjoy nowadays. The various environments are beautiful, with lots of small details that really make them alive. Although in the first part of the movie, the animation of the two main characters seems to be a little off, it clearly improves at the end, with an overall feeling of good quality. Not perfect, but nice however.

But - and that's a rather serious one - such visual enjoyment isn't backed up by a good story. Sure, the base idea is quite a promising one, and could be perfectly adapted to such a short movie duration. Yet it has failed to get me on: the symbols are too abstruse and too obscure to be understandable by most. Even after having read various comments about it, I'm still scratching my head asking myself: what was their message with this ?

So if you like movies purely for their esthetical value, then you'll definitely enjoy "Elephant Dreams". But if, like me, you are expecting from a movie that it tells you a story, or convey a message, you'll probably be disappointed by a symbolism so convoluted that it becomes impossible to understand, even after a second vision.

So my final note is: 6/10 - technically great, but the scenario is lacking

Visually impressive, Story disappointing

[Ant9510 · 5/10 · 5 June 2006]

Have just downloaded Elephants Dream, the first open source project ever made, a year of work and a lot of talk on the net about it. So why is the story completely pointless?? forgive me if I'm missing some philosophical meaning (I doubt it) but no jokes, no insight into the characters, no explanation of where they are or what they're doing there in this big machine, no nothing except a bunch of 3D animation put together. It's visually very impressive and obviously a great deal of work has gone into this project, but without any story it fails to entertain me. If it took a year to make this piece of film, didn't the creators stop to think about the basic elements of what makes a movie? even a short? Am quite disappointed.

Visually stunning ..but ...

[mstramba · 3 June 2006]

The most common comment among those who have seen E.D. is "visually stunning ... but what did the story mean?".

Even the director's comments (Bassam Kurdali) on the commentary track of the DVD are somewhat vague on the exact meaning of the story. He goes only as far as saying that parts or all of "The Machine" are merely figments of Proog's imagination. If that is the case, there are inconsistencies with the story, when Emo (the second character in the story), can see some of the things that Proog can, but not others.

At only around 10 minutes in length, it is hard to tell a complete story anyway. It might be easier to consider this as more as a scene out of a complete film. The motivation for the film was also partly to be a technical demo of what the open source software Blender (in the right hands of course) is capable of. To that end, it is a definite success.

If you like CG "eye candy", and enjoy solving puzzles and like movies that you can truly interpret personally, you'll love this film. And it's a free download from the project Orange website.

Mike

Visually rivals that of Pixars' shorts

[rabidpenguin · 7/10 · 2 September 2006]

Overall, this movie is quite impressive. One must remember that it was made entirely using free software, and for free (except for the money received from DVD pre-orders and also from donations from corporations). The story is about two characters, emo and proog, who are in a surrealistic dream world. Throughout the course of the movie (about 11 minutes) they encounter various environments, some weirder than others. The title "Elephants Dream" is supposed to be a reference to how Dutch children's stories abruptly end. Anyone expecting a plot, jokes, or some deep underlying meaning will probably be disappointed (although I found some of the choreography amusing), but those who watch it with the thought in mind that is supposed to be mainly a technology demonstration of what can be done with free software will be impressed.

Bottom line: Great looking, but no storyline, jokes or puns. *FREE*.

The best (only) free animated short out there of commercial quality

NOTE: I used the VLC player (http://www.videolan.org/vlc/) to view this movie, and as long as you have a decent processor and don't run it full screen you should get an excellent performance.

Great, considering its date, but some flaws difficult to overlook

[wheeler-adrian · 7/10 · 9 June 2013]

I'm late getting to the game, but I can't agree with tdb-7 that this is "better than Pixar or Dreamworks." Most notable to me was the fact that Emo and Proog were obviously modeled by different artists. Proog is nicely textured and detailed, while Emo appears unfinished, and seems either to be extremely light-weight, or unaffected by gravity. He almost floats along, while Proog seems better integrated with the environment. Emo's motion is almost marionette-like, while Proog's movement is much smoother.

The sound mix was also not what it should be. Granted, I see this problem in theatrical films as well, but the dialog level was too low relative to the ambient sound. An excellent example of this comes early in the film: the telephone dial-tone is as loud as the characters. I found it difficult to hear the dialog because of the low volume.

Nonetheless, I love Blender, admire what they do and am impressed with what was accomplished in this film. It is entitled to be considered a film, and not a demo of the software. That's what shorts are: short films.

Blender has come a long way since this was made. Visit blender.org and watch some of the tutorials. Fantastic!

Good idea in concept, horrible idea in reality

[arnoct · 3/10 · 18 July 2006]

Elephants Dream was supposed to be the flagship project of the open source community. And while it was a very interesting idea in concept, in reality it has failed miserably.

The film is beautifully rendered, which is probably the only redeeming factor. A huge problem with them, however, is the vast overruse of light bloom. It's horrible, although I guess it helps give the film a dreamlike quality.

One thing to note is the terrible voice acting. While Proog's voice actor is at least semi-competent, Emo's voice actor is HORRIBLE. I guess when you have a budget that basically amounts to zero, you can't afford to hire real voice actors. To me it seems like they hired one of the animators to do his voice.

As a whole, the movie doesn't really go anywhere. To me it seems like it's more of a "look what we can do" kind of movie instead of a real film. The plot goes nowhere and fails at really showing any interesting point. The whole movie feels like it was made as an excuse to make interesting looking areas.

Overall, it may be worth a quick download from the official site, but don't expect anything except pretty graphics.

The real importance of the movie is in it's historical significance

[manuelciosici · 7/10 · 11 April 2008]

It's an amazing feat and it was done entirely using Open Source software. I believe that the movie stands out not for it's quality as a film, but rather for it's importance in the history of OSS (open source software). It is not a piece of film art, but we have to remember that this is more of a proof of concept than an artistic movie. One thing you will notice is that the movie is 10 minutes of graphical wonders. It is a movie for the eye, not for the soul.

But, for those seeking film art, I recommend Big Buck Bunny whose premiere was 10 April 2008. Big Buck Bunny promises to tell a very funny story.

It is a high quality demo for blender.

If depth is lacking in the 'meaning' of the Elephants Dream, it sure isn't lacking in the technicalities of putting together such a project.

[stanleyozoemena · 5/10 · 17 September 2007]

The whole movie was about showing off the prowess and muscularity of the Blender app. A lot of people still are oblivious of the sheer versatility of free software. This movie was created to, above all else, show what Blender could do -- not for the sheer objective of entertainment. Most viewer are certain to have been drawn to seeing this movie because, let's face it, they like CGI movie. Isn't that why we all scrambled to see THE SPIRITS WITHIN when it first came out? Well, yes, agreed, The Elephants Dream doesn't make it too far when you rate it by how intelligent or intelligible the underlying message of the project is. Like I've been trying to point out; it wasn't made to match any Danielle Steel novel. It was made to show that you can achieve GREAT animation with Blender. You mustn't always take recourse to apps like Maya and 3D studio Max. Absolutely free software can make great movie!

Good Visuals. Good Story. Poor Directing. Poor Acting. Overall great for the Open Source Community.

[tonysharp · 6/10 · 20 October 2007]

Elephants dream had a really interesting story. I won't explain the story any further; I'll leave it up to you to interpret.

The lighting, modeling, special effects animation, sound effects, and music were all done exceptionally well. Visually, especially in still shots, the film looks incredible.

The character animation was good at times. In parts the characters moved very realistically. But at other times the animation was very poor and / or overdone. Animation Rule #57: Never have sections of the character standing completely still while other parts are moving.

The worst part of the film would have to be the screenplay, voice acting, and directing. With a better screenplay, director, and voice talent, I would have been able to pay more attention to the symbolism and less attention to the flaws.

Overall I think Elephants Dream is a great example of what Open Source Software can do, and I commend all of the talents behind the scenes for their hard work and effort.

Technical Demo

[exkend · 5/10 · 4 May 2007]

Having been a user of Blender for a few years, I couldn't wait to see this film. Having recruited the most talented users this was to be Blenders big promotional push to the rest of the cg industry, the expectation was high for something special.

The result is a very mixed affair. Technically this is amazing, very few users have been able to squeeze this kind of performance from the best open source 3d package. Modeling, lighting, texturing, animation, rendering all are very high quality. This brings me onto the obvious and often heard criticism: the story is almost buried under it's own multi-layered highbrow pretentious Art wannabe hopes.

Sadly what should have been accessible and inviting, ironically,instead reflects Blenders UI: unappealing and awkward.

As a film it's a failure, as a HD-DVD tech demo(first in Europe*yawn*) it's great.

A success for the free (as in freedom) software and open-source community

[bobstopper · 8/10 · 7 December 2006]

Considering this is a low-budget film made entirely with free and open-source software this is an impressive success. The technological successes made with this film can not be denied and is a testament to the suitability of free software and open source in serious projects. The movie itself was also released with an open license allowing anyone to redistribute or modify the movie as they please.

Clearly, this movie was intended to say something about copyright from the way it was created to the way it was released. It would not seem much of a leap to suspect that the movie itself might also have this intention. It is with this context I feel the movie must be watched.

At first blush this movie's story is extremely confusing. It has an extremely abstract feel and seems to make no sense at all. It is here that context helps; knowing that the makers want to speak to their audience about copyright guides us to look for this message in its metaphors.

I think the important places in this movie to look for meaning in this context include: the complexity of the machine and what it represents; what Emo and Proog represent, particularly the contrast in how Emo and Proog respond to the machine differently; what the "danger" might represent; and how each scene might be speaking about some specific use of copyright, patent or other legal restriction in some abstract fashion.

Regardless, without this preliminary context the movie seems completely pointless and baffling. Though I think it may be seen as a masterpiece to those who understand and appreciate it it offers very little but eye candy to anyone else. This failure to communicate its message to anyone who doesn't already know the message is something I consider a failing of this film. -2 stars from the otherwise 10 for this disappointment.

Blender's weakest probably

[Horst_In_Translation · 4/10 · 19 July 2015]

I love "Sintel" and I like "Big Buck Bunny", but "Elephants Dream" does not really do too much for me. This was their first project, so the good thing to say is that they certainly improved. A lot. The director here is Bassam Kurdali and so far it's his only directorial effort. He also wrote the script with 3 other people, maybe too many for an 11-minute short film. The animation in here is good, but i found the two main characters and the story not really too interesting I have to admit. So I guess I cannot recommend this one. Oh yeah, but check it out yourself. Even if the country of origin in here are the Netherlands, you don't need to be able to understand Dutch as this is an English production, just like the other Blender works.

a pretentious tech demo

[martin_floren · 22 July 2006]

This film is truly a visually stunning one, with it's mechanical dreamscapes and multitude of fascinating details. Sadly, the character animation is rather primitive – especially the lip synching – making the general impression of the creatures inhibiting the world more lifeless than the world itself. The films main problem, however, is the inconsistent, underdeveloped story line. The problem is not that the story is vague, but rather that it neither asks nor answers any questions, nor does it encourage the viewer to do so. It is more of an anti-story really, a substitute for a real plot.

In the end, this is nothing more than a technology demo – and a rather failed demo too, since it clearly shows that no matter how competent the blender software is at creating scenery, it clearly cannot animate lifelike creatures.

Blender Showcase

[cosmorphis · 4/10 · 23 December 2006]

Well, I was excited at first to download an animated open source movie, only to be ruined by a demo reel. The animation is excellent, the lip syncing is awful, and you keep watching the movie hoping to understand what's going on, only to realize nothing is going on. You feel no emotion for the characters, only pity for the creators for wasting their time. I have seen short films with twice the emotion in half the time! This could of been an excellent short film, if they had just taken the time to hire a real director. I'm sure everyone over at Blender is excited to showcase their software and its rendering capabilities, but sorry guys-story telling is what makes a movie.

Eye candy...but that's it.

[rochester_convict · 3/10 · 21 July 2006]

As said before, the visual effects are stunning. They're breathtaking. I personally use Blender and graphics like that are not easy AT ALL. But that's all this movie is. Not only is the plot confusing, but the overall conflict is not clear. For example, in the first scene, Proog and Emo are trying to run away from who knows what. The conflict seems to be between man and nature here. Later, when they enter the room of the bottomless pit, Proog explains that "one step out of place and (you're dead)". Here, there's a more precise conflict between the careless man and nature. As the movie progresses, it's clear that a conflict exists between man and nature. But suddenly, a conflict exists between man and man when Proog, out of nowhere, murders Emo. Proog immediately changes from being a caring guardian looking after a lost child to being a "sick man". He betrays us. Not only is this depressing, but we don't care because the conflict between the character's thoughts and actions is not developed. It's not a story about someone, through struggle, emerging stronger. It's depressing and has not point because there's no great truth about the human soul or about the world brought to light like a great drama does. In my opinion, the movie is severely underdeveloped in all aspects. However, the graphics are stunning, but a movie is so much more than mere eye candy. There's no truth, no struggle and a bad surprise ending. In conclusion, an underdeveloped movie without a point. ...but the graphics are good.

Beautiful but oh my what a failure.

[rbnzdave · 1/10 · 21 June 2006]

This was thought to be the flagship work of the open source community, something that would stand up and scream at the worlds media to take notice as we're not stuck in the marketing trap with our options in producing fine work with open source tools. After the basic version download ( die hard fan here on a dial-up modem ) eventually got here I hit my first snag. Media Player, Mplayer Classic & winamp failed to open it on my xp box, and then Totem, xine & kaffeine failed to open it on my suse server. Mplayer managed to run it flawlessly. Going to be hard to spread the word about it if normal users cant even open it...

The Film. Beautiful soundtrack, superb lighting, masterful camera work and flawless texturing. Everything looked real. And then the two main characters moved.... and spoke... And the movie died for me. Everything apart from the lip syncing and the actual animation of the two main characters ( except for Proog in the dancing scene ) looked fluid and totally alive. The two main characters were animated so poorly that at times i was wondering if there are any games on the market at the moment with cut-scenes that entail less realism than this.

Any frame in the movie is fantastic.. as a frame, and the thing is great if neither actors are moving. I'm so glad i haven't actually recommended this to anyone. I'd ruin my reputation.

Oh, and final fantasy had a more followable and cunningly devised plot.

this movie would get 10 stars if it wasn't for the tragedy that sits right there on the screen.

Great short that's visually stunning and leaves you talking about it for ages!

[simontayloranimation · 10/10 · 15 June 2006]

As an animator myself on an almost zero budget I love seeing short films like these made by a non big name company. The visuals as other reviews have said are stunning (the only thing I've ever managed to create on Blender was a flying splodgy shape!). The story is confusing but to me that makes it all the more interesting. Even if there isn't a definitive explanation it's always fun debating it with others who have seen it. It's also nice to see characters that are original instead of the "straight man and comedy side kick" combo that we see so much of these days in animation. Great film! And to top it off they offer the film for free in every format from mobile phone to HDTV along with all their files, which is a great resource for other animators.

Don't Underestimate

[echowarpt · 9/10 · 21 July 2006]

Considering this movie was done with a tiny budget and is only ten minutes in length one cannot expect extensive depth of character and storyline as some reviewers here seem to complain about.

There is very little that can be developed in little over ten minutes -- plot and character-wise so the developers chose to take a more abstract route. If you do not attempt to get hard facts out of it and try to see it as a more open-minded experiment that may result in multiple interpretations then I think you will find it enjoyable.

also the computer animation is just amazing for a small budget film that was developed entirely with a product made and given away freely.

While it has some flaws, this movie does exactly what it's supposed to do - and more.

[tdb-7 · 9/10 · 25 September 2007]

If it were to me, I wouldn't even put Elephant's dream on IMDb. Not because it's bad, but because it's barely a movie. It was intended as a tech demo of what Blender can do, and they succeeded 100% in that. Every single frame of this movie is amazing to see, and is full of amazing details. This is - by all standards - the best looking rendering I've ever seen in any movie. Even Pixar and Dreamworks aren't even getting close to the power of Elephant's dream.

If the developers wanted to make an actual movie with a perfect storyline, they wouldn't have spend so much time on all those details and making it look so good. A story for these kind of productions are usually just enough to give the whole thing some direction. However, we're dealing with a very deep story that really keeps you puzzled, yet makes absolute sense at the same time.

It is true that animation and perhaps lip syncing lacks at some points. But I have no problem with it, since it was never intended to be perfect. Look for example at Doom III for a comparison: it focuses on graphics and physics, which are awesome, but lacks any AI, decent level design and virtually nothing in the environment can be used by the player. Yet it was extremely popular. It's the same thing with Elephant's dream: it's a really well done tech demo, and even has an intriguing storyline. It has some flaws on the animation part, but it's barely noticeable when watching it on normal speed.

All in all, a very fine production, which really does what it was supposed to do, if not more.

Wow...talk about a tough crowd!

[planktonrules · 8/10 · 26 September 2009]

I was rather amazed when I read through the reviews how tough many of the reviewers were towards this film. In particular, there were a lot of complaints about the story and the voice acting. However, I see this quite differently--considering that this was made by relatively inexperienced folks using open source software, the end results are amazing. In particular, the CGI is amazing--very fluid and beautiful. So, although the story is a bit odd and unconventional, I see it as a very, very good film regardless--it is an important film to the history of computer generated animation.

For an even better and practically perfect film, try BIG BUCK BUNNY--made by many of the same people that worked on ELEPHANTS DREAM. It's quality, for the first time, truly rivals the output from Pixar and Dreamworks.

remembering "Waiting for Godot"

[Kirpianuscus · 14 November 2017]

this is my image about film. fair, because it has no explanations and, almost, no story. spectacular 3 D animation, so impressive than it seems not have need of a coherent story. two characters walking inside a huge machine. that is all. and the motif for see it without looking for explanations. because , like some stuffs, it is enough to see theme. the purpose is only a small detail. "Elephants Dream" is an example for that.