I was very much surprised when I first saw Gerry. It appeared to me that I was watching the latest work of Hungarian director Bela Tarr, a genius who had inspired not one independent filmmaker around the globe. But how come he could gather the money to shoot in the US with Matt Damon and Casey Affleck, I wondered. And then, in the end credits I found the name of Tarr among those who had indeed inspired Gus Van Sant while writing and making Gerry, this slow-paced, very pure piece of art. It is a masterpiece of suspense, things unfold (if at all) with the speed of a sedated snail. Damon and Affleck set out on an excursion we don't know where to and get lost in the desert. Camera movements, angles are very basic yet very effective, thanks in most part to the peerless beauty of the Nevada, Death Valley and Argentinian scene sets. It is obvious that this film is not for all tastes. Lovers of David Lynch, Bertolucci and Gus Van Sant's latest works like Elephant will definitely find pleasure in sitting through Gerry though. Whereas, a mainstream viewer might find it difficult to force himself to view this movie without wiggling his derrière in the seat, no matter how pure its elements are.
339 Reviews
Gerry is a desert of a movie. Empty, depressing and boring as hell.
ironhorse_iv10 July 2013
Warning: Spoilers
This movie is just awful dry. The movie is just so depressing. I was really just feeling that apathetic, withdrawn, moody desolate feeling watching this. Lots of scenes walking around and almost no talking, this movie was direction-less and pointless to watch. I just waste my time watching this. I'd be very interested to hear Director Gas Van Sant's own take on what he was trying to accomplish with this film if only to provide some context for what's on the screen. I know it was create by Gus Van Sant as the first film of his "Death Trilogy", three films based on deaths that occurred in real life, and is succeeded by 2003's Elephant (About Columbine High School Shooting in 1999) and 2005's Last Day (About Kurt Cobain's death). The real story is incredibly tragic. I'll never know why they didn't use the real events to make the movie, instead of this mind-boggling repetitiveness, which doesn't even make any sense as motive for the killing. I mean, as a general rule, when movies are based on real events, they tend to spice them up, not remove everything interesting. Here are the real life events. After days of hiking, the two men Raffi Kodikian and David Coughlin became lost and dehydrated. Raffi Kodikian and David Coughlin had only brought three pints of water and one pint of Gatorade. Although they had a topographical map, neither knew how to properly read It. The two try to survive from dehydrating by licking rocks, eating cactus fruit, even drinking their own urine. Kodikian abandoned the idea of drinking his own urine after gagging. Anyways, David got sick, and Kodikian mercy kill him. All this information could have been use on Gerry. Instead of that, we get this 2 hour of nothing interesting. You sit and search for a reason why you spent an hour and 40 some odd minutes watching a movie that has no plot, no real theme, and a poor ending. I wouldn't mind it, if the film was a bit shorter. I don't know, maybe 10-15 minutes long not a hour film. Although maybe what he was really going for was exploring what it took to make a normal human being kill by making the audience want to kill him for making this movie. Gus Van Sant made this movie boring. Cinema is supposed to evoke a wide breadth of emotions and convey a near infinite amount of experiences: boredom is one of both and is just as valid as anything else. I think a lot can also be said of how it handles the situation in a realistic way. Still, why pay money for a movie to entertaining you when it fails to do that? It's isn't uplifting or even helps you out if you find yourself lost in the desert. The worst part of the movie is that Gus Van Sant had two amazing actors, Matt Damon and Casey Affleck starring in the film as Gerry and Jerry. He barely use them. All the actors do is barely talk and walk, and walk, and walk. I think the movie would have been better with a great soundtrack. Still there are so good things in the film. A lot of the scenes, including the 7 minute walking on the salt flats create a creepy, dream-like feel. Also the way their environment grows more desolate as their situation becomes bleaker was a nice touch. I think the problem is that the movie started out slowly paced and had nowhere to go. If the movie started out like a traditional film, with dialogue and typical editing, then became slower, stranger and emptier as the two guys became more and more lost, Van Sant's vision would not only be clearer, but more accessible. And why not give the characters different names? Since they're both named Gerry, they come off as nothing more than tools of the filmmakers rather than genuine characters. I keep getting the impression from the clips that Jerry and Gerry are the same person. Their conversations sound like someone talking to themselves or the other half of their personality. Then when one of them dies, it's as if a part of their personality was left in that desert. There is little to no depth to the characters. We barely know anything about them besides being fans of Wheel of Fortune and computer games. We don't even know what they were looking for in the desert in the first place! Gus Van Sant just says, they are looking for a 'Thing". What Thing? Further evidence of stupidity is seen when one of them climbs a big rock and can't get himself down! Long minutes are then squandered on Damon trying to make a dirt mattress for his pal to jump down onto! Maybe I have a better opinion of the film, because I had been told how slow and monotonous it was and was expecting much worse than I got, but some critics love this film. I can't find much deep and hidden meanings in this dust bucket of a movie. This is how not to make a survivor movie in the desert. Watch 2010's Way Back or 2010's 127 Hours was a better film. The beautiful cinematography that is this film's only saving grace. Overall: as far as I'm concerned, the movie doesn't works. It's not a walk in the park, it's a slow crawl in the desert.
very quiet movie
nobbytatoes19 January 2006
Two guys; both names Gerry, have driven to a wilderness park, to go hiking on its trails. Not far into the trail, they start to go off the track, going where they feel. Soon after they are lost. With no water or food, they walk through a never ending desert that strains their friendship, causing an ultimate dept on ones behalf.
Gerry is one of the most quiet movies I have seen. For the length of the film, there is very sparing dialog. For the moments there are dialog, it is conversations of mundane topics. Situations are drawn out passed there limitations, with scenes that have an never ending sense. While i understand that you can't take this to seriously nor over analyze, but there does come to a point of watch two people endlessly walk become mundane. There is a real distancing with Gerry. You are given a perspective that you are the third traveler, but you never get any interaction with the two Gerrys.
The harsh landscape is beautifully captured. The desert looks so wonderful, it's so breathtaking. It is a world of death that the two Gerrys are walking through.
There is a point to Gerry, but I just don't see it.
Gerry is one of the most quiet movies I have seen. For the length of the film, there is very sparing dialog. For the moments there are dialog, it is conversations of mundane topics. Situations are drawn out passed there limitations, with scenes that have an never ending sense. While i understand that you can't take this to seriously nor over analyze, but there does come to a point of watch two people endlessly walk become mundane. There is a real distancing with Gerry. You are given a perspective that you are the third traveler, but you never get any interaction with the two Gerrys.
The harsh landscape is beautifully captured. The desert looks so wonderful, it's so breathtaking. It is a world of death that the two Gerrys are walking through.
There is a point to Gerry, but I just don't see it.
O lost...
Chris Knipp7 March 2003
Warning: Spoilers
"Gerry" is rare movie that, if you yield to its spell, will provide a fresh, raw experience of a pure, simple, terrifying kind. For those who can't locate the patience and concentration "Gerry's" minimalism requires, it won't work worth a damn.
Two young men named Gerry (Matt Damon and Casey Affleck) get out of their car and go on a desert wilderness trail. There are no opening credits, only a long, long silent shot of the two guys in a middle-aged Mercedes driving impassively along the highway for miles and miles up to the trail. They leave their car and head off with no preparations, carrying nothing. After a time they know they've come to the trail, because they see a few people heading back on it. But instead of entering it themselves they decide to take a side path around it, just to be "different," go their own way, figuring everything is bound to go back around to "the thing" the same as the main path -- "the thing" the trail leads to.
After a while walking, not talking, they run, they play around a little, and they continue to go forward through brushland on their little personal side trail. Already we get used to how they walk, because that's all they do. They hardly talk any. When they do it's so natural and telegraphic we can barely understand them. So this is how they walk: Matt Damon seems to fall forward a bit awkwardly, big hipped, and his pectorals bounce up and down as he goes. Casey Affleck strides forward with more grace: he's thinner than the muscular Damon and at a distance against the sky he looks like a Giacometti striding sculpture.
After a lot of walking like this the two suddenly decide, with no discussion, to go back before they even get to "the thing," because it's just "a thing." Only they don't get onto the right path to return, because they never got to "the thing" that the right path leads to and from. And so -- they get lost.
As twilight approaches, the two young men wander through hills and plains. They stop and stare in all directions, and from the way they stop and stare we know they know they're lost. The vast landscape seems to have opened out and become beautiful, cold, and remote. They stride over small mountains, into sandy desert. Vast vistas of a terrifying beauty extend in every direction. We don't know where they're going and neither do they and this is all that happens and all that we see. We're alone with the vastness of it all and the lostness of the two young men, because they say so little: that too is terrifying.
The first night they build a fire of small branches and brush that burns brightly and they sit by it, like Keanu and River in "Idaho," and one of them tells a long story about a game he lost. At one point he jokes and says there's a man up high a short distance off staring at them. It's not so funny because everything is blackness beyond them and they're lost in this great desert wilderness. They smoke cigarettes. They have nothing to eat or drink. There's no knowing how far they are from their car.
The next day is interminable. They agree to "scoutabout" on separate small mountains in different directions to see what they can see. Their plan as before is hasty and confused. They see nothing but vastness in all directions. Casey Affleck yells at Damon from a big rock he's scrambled onto. He's too high up to jump safely off and for a long time he stands up there and they talk about what to do to get him down without an injury that would finish them. Damon gathers dirt in a shirt and dumps little piles of it in a soft mound as a bed for Affleck to jump onto. It's very slow. We're in real time here for sure. Not much talk happens. They're serious. The moment is excruciating. Finally they're satisfied with the dirt mound and Affleck jumps and he lands unhurt, instead of twisting his ankle or hitting his head on a rock and killing himself as it looked like he might do.
At some point if you are staying with this action and this huge landscape, two elemental, lifelong fears begin to be awakened in you: the fear of getting lost and the fear of abandonment. The two Gerries are well and truly lost, and there's some danger that one will abandon the other, by mistake, or on purpose. Having lost their way they could easily lose each other.
Their (improvised) conversation is the laconic and impulsive talk of close friends (as the two actors really are), and in it there's an element of macho dare which, added to growing fear and anger, threatens to become a lethal mixture.
Nature's lovely when your car's at the end of the trail you're on and you know where food and water are. When you're lost and so exhausted and thirsty you've begun to hallucinate and you can't think straight any more, nature menaces you and mocks you. And this is where "Gerry" very quickly takes us and keeps us throughout its short but palpable length.
Owen Gleiberman in Entertainment Weekly described "Gerry" as "Andy Warhol meets Ansel Adams meets Blair Witch Project meets Beckett," and his remark is a wise one. The dialogue is improvised and boring and slow as among non actors, images are worthy of the great landscape photographer, the use of nature to terrify has the economy of "Blair Witch," and the laconic plodding is like a millennial endgame by the great Irishman and follows his rule: less is more. These allusions are needed, because "Gerry" is either a failed art piece or an epic statement. We need some guidelines to decide.
Economy requires us to participate. The two Gerries tell more by what they don't say than by what they do. They don't say they're tired or thirsty or scared. They don't tell us about themselves. One may be stronger than the other, but not much: they're both "Gerries," and a "Gerry" is a goof-up. This absence of anecdotal chatter helps us identify with their experience. The sympathy we develop makes the ending deeply shocking.
Yes, this is like Beckett: "Gerry" jumps from the trivial and humiliating to the epic and tragic in a minute. As in Beckett, the two characters are like active and passive versions of one self, nagging each other, jogging alongside each other mindlessly and doggedly. There are many moments of tonic (but also difficult, unfamiliar, scary) silence and stillness in the movie, only mildly mitigated by the music of Arvo Pärt. By the end the two men's faces are harrowing to look at. It's as if they're not only well beyond exhaustion into hallucination but there's horror and madness in their sweaty sun-blotched faces. "Gerry" deeply scared me without even seeming to try. It was very courageous of Gus Van Sant to undertake this project, which redeems him of past missteps and reminds us of the poetry and unique vision of his best work.
Two young men named Gerry (Matt Damon and Casey Affleck) get out of their car and go on a desert wilderness trail. There are no opening credits, only a long, long silent shot of the two guys in a middle-aged Mercedes driving impassively along the highway for miles and miles up to the trail. They leave their car and head off with no preparations, carrying nothing. After a time they know they've come to the trail, because they see a few people heading back on it. But instead of entering it themselves they decide to take a side path around it, just to be "different," go their own way, figuring everything is bound to go back around to "the thing" the same as the main path -- "the thing" the trail leads to.
After a while walking, not talking, they run, they play around a little, and they continue to go forward through brushland on their little personal side trail. Already we get used to how they walk, because that's all they do. They hardly talk any. When they do it's so natural and telegraphic we can barely understand them. So this is how they walk: Matt Damon seems to fall forward a bit awkwardly, big hipped, and his pectorals bounce up and down as he goes. Casey Affleck strides forward with more grace: he's thinner than the muscular Damon and at a distance against the sky he looks like a Giacometti striding sculpture.
After a lot of walking like this the two suddenly decide, with no discussion, to go back before they even get to "the thing," because it's just "a thing." Only they don't get onto the right path to return, because they never got to "the thing" that the right path leads to and from. And so -- they get lost.
As twilight approaches, the two young men wander through hills and plains. They stop and stare in all directions, and from the way they stop and stare we know they know they're lost. The vast landscape seems to have opened out and become beautiful, cold, and remote. They stride over small mountains, into sandy desert. Vast vistas of a terrifying beauty extend in every direction. We don't know where they're going and neither do they and this is all that happens and all that we see. We're alone with the vastness of it all and the lostness of the two young men, because they say so little: that too is terrifying.
The first night they build a fire of small branches and brush that burns brightly and they sit by it, like Keanu and River in "Idaho," and one of them tells a long story about a game he lost. At one point he jokes and says there's a man up high a short distance off staring at them. It's not so funny because everything is blackness beyond them and they're lost in this great desert wilderness. They smoke cigarettes. They have nothing to eat or drink. There's no knowing how far they are from their car.
The next day is interminable. They agree to "scoutabout" on separate small mountains in different directions to see what they can see. Their plan as before is hasty and confused. They see nothing but vastness in all directions. Casey Affleck yells at Damon from a big rock he's scrambled onto. He's too high up to jump safely off and for a long time he stands up there and they talk about what to do to get him down without an injury that would finish them. Damon gathers dirt in a shirt and dumps little piles of it in a soft mound as a bed for Affleck to jump onto. It's very slow. We're in real time here for sure. Not much talk happens. They're serious. The moment is excruciating. Finally they're satisfied with the dirt mound and Affleck jumps and he lands unhurt, instead of twisting his ankle or hitting his head on a rock and killing himself as it looked like he might do.
At some point if you are staying with this action and this huge landscape, two elemental, lifelong fears begin to be awakened in you: the fear of getting lost and the fear of abandonment. The two Gerries are well and truly lost, and there's some danger that one will abandon the other, by mistake, or on purpose. Having lost their way they could easily lose each other.
Their (improvised) conversation is the laconic and impulsive talk of close friends (as the two actors really are), and in it there's an element of macho dare which, added to growing fear and anger, threatens to become a lethal mixture.
Nature's lovely when your car's at the end of the trail you're on and you know where food and water are. When you're lost and so exhausted and thirsty you've begun to hallucinate and you can't think straight any more, nature menaces you and mocks you. And this is where "Gerry" very quickly takes us and keeps us throughout its short but palpable length.
Owen Gleiberman in Entertainment Weekly described "Gerry" as "Andy Warhol meets Ansel Adams meets Blair Witch Project meets Beckett," and his remark is a wise one. The dialogue is improvised and boring and slow as among non actors, images are worthy of the great landscape photographer, the use of nature to terrify has the economy of "Blair Witch," and the laconic plodding is like a millennial endgame by the great Irishman and follows his rule: less is more. These allusions are needed, because "Gerry" is either a failed art piece or an epic statement. We need some guidelines to decide.
Economy requires us to participate. The two Gerries tell more by what they don't say than by what they do. They don't say they're tired or thirsty or scared. They don't tell us about themselves. One may be stronger than the other, but not much: they're both "Gerries," and a "Gerry" is a goof-up. This absence of anecdotal chatter helps us identify with their experience. The sympathy we develop makes the ending deeply shocking.
Yes, this is like Beckett: "Gerry" jumps from the trivial and humiliating to the epic and tragic in a minute. As in Beckett, the two characters are like active and passive versions of one self, nagging each other, jogging alongside each other mindlessly and doggedly. There are many moments of tonic (but also difficult, unfamiliar, scary) silence and stillness in the movie, only mildly mitigated by the music of Arvo Pärt. By the end the two men's faces are harrowing to look at. It's as if they're not only well beyond exhaustion into hallucination but there's horror and madness in their sweaty sun-blotched faces. "Gerry" deeply scared me without even seeming to try. It was very courageous of Gus Van Sant to undertake this project, which redeems him of past missteps and reminds us of the poetry and unique vision of his best work.
Something a little different
nzstylejapan17 October 2005
I really enjoyed this movie, largely because its style goes against so much we have become used to as modern viewers. I admit, the pace was slowwwww..... but in this age of fast-cuts, it was nice to see a director trying to do something different -- trying to create a state, rather than just tell a story. The plot is simple, two guys through lack of attention get lost in the desert. Thats it. In the next few days we follow the characters through a range of emotions--anger, worry, fear, doubt, determination, love. Central is the relationship between the two characters and the journey it takes in all its ups and downs. Here, I thought Damon and Affleck did a great job, giving their characters nuances that indicated they were friends that knew each other well. Throughout the cinematography is superb and certainly innovative. Though some scenes may be trying for some viewers (think of the scene in Lawrence of Arabia where Omar Sharif approaches from afar riding a camel), the shots are full of intensity and are visually creative. For me, the movie was a brave and largely successful attempt to give insight into a life-changing experience. I thought about it for days after.
Very Very VERY Boring
Oceansunset7927 June 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Gerry is about 2 young men who are best friends that decide to set out on a nature hike. They get lost in the desert for days and dehydration sets in for both of them. They soon realize they are going to die. Instead of both suffering, one friend suffocates the other when he is in bad shape so he doesn't have to suffer. Shortly after, the remaining Gerry is rescued and he realizes he killed his best friend for nothing.
There is not much of a plot, almost no dialogue, nothing scary, emotionally moving, or interesting in the slightest bit. There is no action or adventure. Basically, there is no real point.
This is probably the most boring movie I have ever seen. If 2 guys walking through the desert not talking sounds interesting to you, then rent it, otherwise don't. It could have been made a lot better if there was actually dialogue, action, or a good point. I rarely ever write a comment for a movie but this one was so bad that I wanted people to know about it so they don't waste their evening watching it. If you are looking for an awesome movie about best-friendship between 2 males, try Simon Birch, which is excellent.
There is not much of a plot, almost no dialogue, nothing scary, emotionally moving, or interesting in the slightest bit. There is no action or adventure. Basically, there is no real point.
This is probably the most boring movie I have ever seen. If 2 guys walking through the desert not talking sounds interesting to you, then rent it, otherwise don't. It could have been made a lot better if there was actually dialogue, action, or a good point. I rarely ever write a comment for a movie but this one was so bad that I wanted people to know about it so they don't waste their evening watching it. If you are looking for an awesome movie about best-friendship between 2 males, try Simon Birch, which is excellent.
A great film without any reason or meaning behind it.
the_usual_suspect24 December 2004
When Gerry was released it enjoyed a brief stay at the box office, available only in selected cinemas despite Matt Damon's involvement in the project. It received mixed reviews, most critics panning the film for its complete lack of a reason for existing. Perhaps it is because I have come to expect this sort of work from director Gus Van Sant, yes, the man who brought us a shot-by-shot remake of Hitchcock's classic, Psycho, but I enjoyed this tale of two best friends named Gerry who get lost in the desert.
The film opens with no credit sequence, instead of which we follow a car along a deserted road for a never ending fifteen minutes. If I am honest, I held the remote control in my hand throughout the watching of this film, pressing the fast forward button at least a dozen times. This was one of those occasions. This slow, wordless opening with a background of soft and bleak music sets up the mood for the entire film. At first, I felt it odd that two best friends would travel along in a car together without conversation, but the silence kept between Affleck and Damon is a comfortable one, one that does not need words.
This is an on screen friendship that I can believe, the script complimenting the relaxed way in which both actors play their roles. There is a lot of colloquial dialogue and phrases that appear born out of a long friendship, such as the use of the name Gerry being thrown into their exchanges, "Aw man, I did a Gerry."
Van Sant's direction is unselfish, allowing the film to play out its full course, which gives the film a realism that allows tension to build without the use of music, lighting, or even editing. This is demonstrated in the funny and captivating scene where Affleck finds himself stuck on a large rock. Damon decides that his friend's only option is to jump and thus proceeds to create a "dirt pillow". This film is worth watching just to witness the stunt double's leap from fifteen feat in the air down to the ground.
There is an underlying tension between the two friends that although may not be intentional, is certainly befitting as the film meanders to a surprising and baffling climax that holds a sense of empty relief that will jar you. Van Sant has created a delicate piece of experimental art with Gerry. Beautiful landscape shots emphasise how isolated the Gerrys are, and the minimalist mise-en-scene is true to the nature of the film's content. For something that has no real meaning or reason, this is a film that will stay with you, leaving a bittersweet taste in your mouth, and of course begs the inevitable question, "What would I do if I was lost in the desert?"
Rating: 4/5
The film opens with no credit sequence, instead of which we follow a car along a deserted road for a never ending fifteen minutes. If I am honest, I held the remote control in my hand throughout the watching of this film, pressing the fast forward button at least a dozen times. This was one of those occasions. This slow, wordless opening with a background of soft and bleak music sets up the mood for the entire film. At first, I felt it odd that two best friends would travel along in a car together without conversation, but the silence kept between Affleck and Damon is a comfortable one, one that does not need words.
This is an on screen friendship that I can believe, the script complimenting the relaxed way in which both actors play their roles. There is a lot of colloquial dialogue and phrases that appear born out of a long friendship, such as the use of the name Gerry being thrown into their exchanges, "Aw man, I did a Gerry."
Van Sant's direction is unselfish, allowing the film to play out its full course, which gives the film a realism that allows tension to build without the use of music, lighting, or even editing. This is demonstrated in the funny and captivating scene where Affleck finds himself stuck on a large rock. Damon decides that his friend's only option is to jump and thus proceeds to create a "dirt pillow". This film is worth watching just to witness the stunt double's leap from fifteen feat in the air down to the ground.
There is an underlying tension between the two friends that although may not be intentional, is certainly befitting as the film meanders to a surprising and baffling climax that holds a sense of empty relief that will jar you. Van Sant has created a delicate piece of experimental art with Gerry. Beautiful landscape shots emphasise how isolated the Gerrys are, and the minimalist mise-en-scene is true to the nature of the film's content. For something that has no real meaning or reason, this is a film that will stay with you, leaving a bittersweet taste in your mouth, and of course begs the inevitable question, "What would I do if I was lost in the desert?"
Rating: 4/5
The worst film I have ever seen....
sfchapman24 August 2003
I like Matt Damon and I like Casey Affleck.
I also like meaningful and arty films.
I hated Gerry. It now stands as the worst film I have EVER seen. It is totally self-indulgent and an ego trip.
Some scenes dragged on for so long that people in the cinema were laughing at how bad it was.
If I had not been with two other people, I would have walked out.
matt, Casey and the director should be ashamed - this is not arty, this is an insult.
I also like meaningful and arty films.
I hated Gerry. It now stands as the worst film I have EVER seen. It is totally self-indulgent and an ego trip.
Some scenes dragged on for so long that people in the cinema were laughing at how bad it was.
If I had not been with two other people, I would have walked out.
matt, Casey and the director should be ashamed - this is not arty, this is an insult.
One of the best movies I have ever seen
connorratliff22 November 2003
I was curious about this film, but totally unprepared for how much it affected me. GERRY worked, for me, on many different levels. In some ways, it felt like a horror film, but without any supernatural element. Two men get lost. That's the premise, and the movie takes its time to really explore what it feels like to suddenly have no idea where you are. As the film went on, something about it began to feel abstract, as if the film wasn't just about being lost physically, but about what it feels like to feel alone in the universe. I don't mean that to sound flighty or pretentious, but the film gradually moves into a state of deep sadness that is hard to describe. I'm sure (from the looks of some of the particularly angry comments some people have posted) that this film won't be appreciated by everyone who sees it. Some may find it dull. I found it completely absorbing, and unlike anything I'd ever seen.
(By the way, if you don't like a film, that's fine. But some of the ANGER displayed below is completely unjustified, and perhaps a sign of some deeper trauma that has nothing to do with the movie you didn't like.)
(By the way, if you don't like a film, that's fine. But some of the ANGER displayed below is completely unjustified, and perhaps a sign of some deeper trauma that has nothing to do with the movie you didn't like.)
A minimalist poem
bandw12 February 2007
Regarding the debate as to what this film means, I think it has no meaning beyond what the viewer ascribes to it, and that may range from nothing to cosmic significance. For me the merit of "Gerry" lies in establishing a mood which is done through visuals, sounds, music, and pacing.
The visuals of the vast expanses of desert are entrancing. If you have ever been in an isolated area of a desert, you will understand that this movie captures the sense of mystery, aloneness, and spiritual awareness that so many people experience in that environment. The time-lapse shots of sun, desert, and clouds are highly reminiscent, and equally as effective, as those in "Koyaanisqatsi."
The music, by contemporary Estonian composer Arvo Pärt, offers perfect augmentation for the meditative frame of mind induced by the desert landscapes.
Then we come to the pacing, which is the single issue that divides opinion on this film. You get introduced to this pacing issue in the first five minutes with uninterrupted shots of a car driving along an isolated desert road accompanied by Pärt's "Spiegel Im Spiegel" (mirror in the mirror). If there is nothing in the opening sequence that appeals to you, then you should bail out and save yourself some time; on the other hand, if you find the opening sequence the least bit appealing, then you might want to stick around.
Whatever you can say about the film, you have to admit that it is unique. Scenes that seem like they should go on for thirty seconds can go on for minutes. At one time I was thinking that, with proper editing, this could make a good thirty minute movie, then I realized that that movie would offer an entirely different experience. For better or worse, the slow pacing is what makes this movie what it is. There is much walking in silence. If you have ever taken long hikes, you will understand the meditative state one can easily slip into by rhythmic tedious walking. I think that capturing that is what is being attempted here - notice how accentuated the sounds of the footsteps are.
The crucial scene that takes place between the two men in their final scene together remains a mystery to me, but, like any good poem, many interpretations are possible.
If you give in to its pacing, accept its rhythms, and attend to its sounds and images, you just might like this film.
The visuals of the vast expanses of desert are entrancing. If you have ever been in an isolated area of a desert, you will understand that this movie captures the sense of mystery, aloneness, and spiritual awareness that so many people experience in that environment. The time-lapse shots of sun, desert, and clouds are highly reminiscent, and equally as effective, as those in "Koyaanisqatsi."
The music, by contemporary Estonian composer Arvo Pärt, offers perfect augmentation for the meditative frame of mind induced by the desert landscapes.
Then we come to the pacing, which is the single issue that divides opinion on this film. You get introduced to this pacing issue in the first five minutes with uninterrupted shots of a car driving along an isolated desert road accompanied by Pärt's "Spiegel Im Spiegel" (mirror in the mirror). If there is nothing in the opening sequence that appeals to you, then you should bail out and save yourself some time; on the other hand, if you find the opening sequence the least bit appealing, then you might want to stick around.
Whatever you can say about the film, you have to admit that it is unique. Scenes that seem like they should go on for thirty seconds can go on for minutes. At one time I was thinking that, with proper editing, this could make a good thirty minute movie, then I realized that that movie would offer an entirely different experience. For better or worse, the slow pacing is what makes this movie what it is. There is much walking in silence. If you have ever taken long hikes, you will understand the meditative state one can easily slip into by rhythmic tedious walking. I think that capturing that is what is being attempted here - notice how accentuated the sounds of the footsteps are.
The crucial scene that takes place between the two men in their final scene together remains a mystery to me, but, like any good poem, many interpretations are possible.
If you give in to its pacing, accept its rhythms, and attend to its sounds and images, you just might like this film.
Enigmatic, or just plain Awful?
JRmf17 August 2004
Warning: Spoilers
Or how NOT to have a safe, enjoyable hike.
The best I can say about this piece is that it was an "interesting" (boring actually, I kept looking at my watch or falling asleep) exercise in experimental cinema.
SPOILERS AHEAD
OK, Two guys both named Gerry go to an out-of-the-way place, apparently to have a hike (we see a few other hikers from a distance at the start of the film). They apparently expect it will only take a few hours, as apart from hiking boots they have no water, provisions of any kind or shelter such as a tent.
Before too long it is apparent they are lost - wandering around in circles or whatever. This might be an opportunity for the film to muster some interest, but their responses are well, just very very ordinary. No sexual encounters with beautiful female aliens, or (more seriously) no rages of blame, no startling revelations or deep voyages of personal discovery... Rather just a few minor disagreements on how they got there and the best way to get out of the situation, interspersed with some cussing.
There is little talking in the film as it is. Affleck's speech I found to be often garbled and incomprehensible. Thankfully Damon, as the more mature actor, articulated mostly clearly.
The early part of the film, when there was no background music at all, was further spoilt by the occasional blurry shot (sometimes when only one Gerry was supposed to be the subject), and a distinct lack of closeups. Distant rather indistinct shots seemed to be the word.
The latter part of the film had some reasonable background music (too little too late?) and the views of scenery etc were certainly better than those in the first half of the film, where they look like the snaps of an unenthusiastic holiday maker.
The film held few surprises and virtually no tension of any kind. Either this sad pair are going to die of thirst, stumble across their vehicle or somehow be rescued. The end proves to be a combo of the latter two, as Daemon stumbles upon a road and a rescuer.
This film didn't work at all for me, and I could not tolerate watching it again. 1/10
The best I can say about this piece is that it was an "interesting" (boring actually, I kept looking at my watch or falling asleep) exercise in experimental cinema.
SPOILERS AHEAD
OK, Two guys both named Gerry go to an out-of-the-way place, apparently to have a hike (we see a few other hikers from a distance at the start of the film). They apparently expect it will only take a few hours, as apart from hiking boots they have no water, provisions of any kind or shelter such as a tent.
Before too long it is apparent they are lost - wandering around in circles or whatever. This might be an opportunity for the film to muster some interest, but their responses are well, just very very ordinary. No sexual encounters with beautiful female aliens, or (more seriously) no rages of blame, no startling revelations or deep voyages of personal discovery... Rather just a few minor disagreements on how they got there and the best way to get out of the situation, interspersed with some cussing.
There is little talking in the film as it is. Affleck's speech I found to be often garbled and incomprehensible. Thankfully Damon, as the more mature actor, articulated mostly clearly.
The early part of the film, when there was no background music at all, was further spoilt by the occasional blurry shot (sometimes when only one Gerry was supposed to be the subject), and a distinct lack of closeups. Distant rather indistinct shots seemed to be the word.
The latter part of the film had some reasonable background music (too little too late?) and the views of scenery etc were certainly better than those in the first half of the film, where they look like the snaps of an unenthusiastic holiday maker.
The film held few surprises and virtually no tension of any kind. Either this sad pair are going to die of thirst, stumble across their vehicle or somehow be rescued. The end proves to be a combo of the latter two, as Daemon stumbles upon a road and a rescuer.
This film didn't work at all for me, and I could not tolerate watching it again. 1/10
let it sink in.
mareeee17 February 2004
(I was lucky enough to see this movie at its premiere at the Sundance film fest 2 years ago in park city with Matt, Casey, and brother Ben a few rows away.)
For all of you who thought it was boring and hated it, I'm sorry. I was a bit uneasy myself at first when I was sitting there. The more I let myself go with it though, the more amazing I found it. It is not a movie made for everyone -- not in the slightest. It was made for people like me. Thank you Gus.
This movie probably has the least amount of dialogue of any movie I have ever seen (silent moves apart...), yet I find myself cracking up and quoting its lines all the time. (Going on a "mountain top scout about." And the best: "How'd you get up there?" "...scrambled.") I only wish more people had seen this movie so they know what the heck I'm talking about.
I love how Van Sant lets your mind wander. It relates real people. I can completely picture a couple of my close friends carrying on the same conversations, walking along silently, or finishing a half told story days later. Nothing is pushed in your face except maybe the 'as-is' quality of it all. He lets it grow and lets you see it all.
Here I am, two years after seeing it, still getting a huge kick out of it. For me, thumbs up.
For all of you who thought it was boring and hated it, I'm sorry. I was a bit uneasy myself at first when I was sitting there. The more I let myself go with it though, the more amazing I found it. It is not a movie made for everyone -- not in the slightest. It was made for people like me. Thank you Gus.
This movie probably has the least amount of dialogue of any movie I have ever seen (silent moves apart...), yet I find myself cracking up and quoting its lines all the time. (Going on a "mountain top scout about." And the best: "How'd you get up there?" "...scrambled.") I only wish more people had seen this movie so they know what the heck I'm talking about.
I love how Van Sant lets your mind wander. It relates real people. I can completely picture a couple of my close friends carrying on the same conversations, walking along silently, or finishing a half told story days later. Nothing is pushed in your face except maybe the 'as-is' quality of it all. He lets it grow and lets you see it all.
Here I am, two years after seeing it, still getting a huge kick out of it. For me, thumbs up.
A film Von Stroheim would have loved
patherto6 September 2004
That idiot Godard said film was truth 24 times a second. Of course he was wrong (in Europe, it's 25 frames-per-second.). But film is *facts* 24 times a second. Van Sant deals in facts. This is a simple story-two guys drive out into the desert to look at 'the thing', halfway there they decide to skip it, and then they become hopelessly, irretrievably lost. Death can be a slow, agonizing thing. Without so much as a whisper of dialogue about it, the two face death in all its horror. They're just two guys-the watch TV, they play video games. But gradually, subtly, everything is sucked out of them. How do you live when there's nothing to live for? This is the question van Sant asks, and leaves the answers unsaid.
Take a Hike
wes-connors1 January 2009
Gus Van Sant directs two stone-faced and non-commutative men - Casey Affleck and Matt Damon (as Gerry and Gerry) - to go on a hike in the "Wilderness Trail". They are going to visit what they call "The Thing". They have an impromptu race. They get lost. In POSSIBLY the film's biggest revelation, Mr. Damon reveals more knowledge about "Wheel of Fortune" than does Mr. Affleck. That kind of pointless and useless information will serve you well, if you ever appear as a contestant of "Wheel of Fortune" (and are not listening when they explain the rules).
This would have been a good film if they had given viewers SOMETHING to work with. For example, it might have been a nice idea to have cast the Affleck brothers in the title role(s) - taking advantage of their genetics, to heighten a "schizophrenia" angle. OR, have a flashback showing Affleck picked up a hitchhiking Damon, and propositioned him (for sex). OR, end with an alien spaceship landing just something to make you more INVOLVED. This film is definitely disconnected and certainly self-indulgent, BUT "Gerry" does have beautiful cinematography, by Harris Savides. Just keep your "FFWD" and "REV" buttons handy.
*** Gerry (1/12/02) Gus Van Sant ~ Casey Affleck, Matt Damon
This would have been a good film if they had given viewers SOMETHING to work with. For example, it might have been a nice idea to have cast the Affleck brothers in the title role(s) - taking advantage of their genetics, to heighten a "schizophrenia" angle. OR, have a flashback showing Affleck picked up a hitchhiking Damon, and propositioned him (for sex). OR, end with an alien spaceship landing just something to make you more INVOLVED. This film is definitely disconnected and certainly self-indulgent, BUT "Gerry" does have beautiful cinematography, by Harris Savides. Just keep your "FFWD" and "REV" buttons handy.
*** Gerry (1/12/02) Gus Van Sant ~ Casey Affleck, Matt Damon
Having spent time in the desert makes a difference
blue3211 September 2004
I have spent a lot of time in the desert and I think what Gus Van Sant was trying to portray (and maybe not very effectively) is that space/time warp you experience when you find yourself in a place where your attention span must go from 1/2 second to a billion years, where one's sense of the passage of time becomes almost irrelevant. The human brain, especially in this age of MTV, cannot fathom the slowness of geologic change in the desert, and has trouble fathoming the change of perspective, where everything seems closer than it really is. I have "walked that walk" where the object you're heading toward keeps receding into the distance, and the tendency is to walk as the two Gerrys were walking in the slow shot of the sides of their heads, and hear nothing but the measured crunching of your footsteps. The long shot was perfectly appropriate. Maybe one has to spend time in the desert to "get it", but I thought the film was dead right-on with the music, the visuals and the pacing. I loved the film and will watch it again and probably again.
Good Movie, But the Pace is too Slow
claudio_carvalho23 December 2013
Two friends that call each other Gerry (Matt Damon / Casey Affleck) decide to hike in the wilderness to see something and they do not find it. They decide to return to the car but they get lost in the desert, without water, supplies or a compass. Now they have to walking trying to find the road to survive.
Based on a true story, "Gerry" is a good movie with great performances, but the pace is too slow. Gus Van Sant should have edited and cut at least twenty minutes of the footage. I saw this movie on DVD and I used the fast forward to jump some very slow scenes. My vote is six.
Title (Brazil): "Gerry"
Based on a true story, "Gerry" is a good movie with great performances, but the pace is too slow. Gus Van Sant should have edited and cut at least twenty minutes of the footage. I saw this movie on DVD and I used the fast forward to jump some very slow scenes. My vote is six.
Title (Brazil): "Gerry"
Dull,dull,dull,dull...
HappyHiker30 August 2004
Warning: Spoilers
This is a truly dull film. Endless shots of people walking, or driving or the sun rising over a mountain top...slowly, very painfully, slowly....
Its not arty, its not big, its not clever, its just really dull. There are people who have posted positive things about this film, I can only say your boredom threshold must be stupendous. At least I watched it on DVD so could fast forward through it. The film is 100 minutes long, the plot about 2 minutes long.
I know this film isn't about plot, but even what there is makes no sense. I do hiking, if you got lost you'd retrace your steps, they walked with the mountain range on their left on the way out, so walking with it on their right on the way back would get them back to the car. Instead they go in a completely different direction and climb a mountain!
Gerry gets stuck up a rock, but can't get down. Why not? He managed to climb up the darn thing, he should just be able to come back the same way.
Finally the ending, and I don't think I'm giving much away here, but SPOILER AHEAD...They are about to die, having given up all hope, then Gerry just ups and walks to the road, hurrah, what a bloody corny ending. Given they didn't have to think of any plot for the rest of the story they could at least have come up with a better ending.
Anyway I thought the film was pants, so if you're going to hire it make sure you are ready for a very slow, very uneventful film, and maybe get a back up DVD too.
Its not arty, its not big, its not clever, its just really dull. There are people who have posted positive things about this film, I can only say your boredom threshold must be stupendous. At least I watched it on DVD so could fast forward through it. The film is 100 minutes long, the plot about 2 minutes long.
I know this film isn't about plot, but even what there is makes no sense. I do hiking, if you got lost you'd retrace your steps, they walked with the mountain range on their left on the way out, so walking with it on their right on the way back would get them back to the car. Instead they go in a completely different direction and climb a mountain!
Gerry gets stuck up a rock, but can't get down. Why not? He managed to climb up the darn thing, he should just be able to come back the same way.
Finally the ending, and I don't think I'm giving much away here, but SPOILER AHEAD...They are about to die, having given up all hope, then Gerry just ups and walks to the road, hurrah, what a bloody corny ending. Given they didn't have to think of any plot for the rest of the story they could at least have come up with a better ending.
Anyway I thought the film was pants, so if you're going to hire it make sure you are ready for a very slow, very uneventful film, and maybe get a back up DVD too.
Some vague thoughts about Gerry
molokoplus_consumer685 July 2017
Warning: Spoilers
(slight spoilers)
Gerry could be nominated for 'The Most Boring Movie Ever Award' and it would have a fair chance of winning in this category. So, if you'd like to have yourself a nice popcorn-munching movie night, Gerry isn't your thing. Yet, it has a unique artistic merit, which is worth a patient watch for those who are into that kind of an experience.
First of all, Sant abandons all Hollywood clichés that would make this movie an exciting survival story, and instead focuses on creating the atmosphere of getting lost and being destined to die.
On a deeper level, I don't even think Gerry has an actual plot in the real world. I had to realize that literally nothing happens during the whole movie. The two characters don't have any meaningful conversation, the hiking has no point whatsoever, since all they do is walk in a certain direction for a while and then turn back. All along, it's just the two (?) guys and the endless desert, the long- long walking, the dust, the thirst. And the not too motivated struggle for their lives, which consists of climbing up and down, going here and there, kicking some rocks. They seem to give up before it's even started.
In my opinion, what we see are no physical, but mental landscapes, no outer, but an inner journey. And not too guys, but only one, and he is Gerry. Trapped in the infinite prison of his own deserted mind and lost identity.
The scenes often show the two Gerrys as the reflection, duplicate or shadow of each other. Sometimes, only one of them can be seen, as if he were alone (he is).
I don't think the movie is an allegory that can be directly translated to the inner struggling of a man, it rather transmits a feeling similar to that struggle. Because if you're lost in the desert, even knowing what to look for is hard. Should it be water, or high lands? East, west, north, south? No directions, nothing that could feed the spirit of life and assure you that your trying has any point. Exactly what I feel these days, looking for the right track.
I have no sensible explanation for the ending or why it is so important to split Gerry into two characters. All I have is impressions, but good ones. Sant is trying to grasp something that is difficult to express and is brave to do that despite all natural demands of the viewer.
Gerry could be nominated for 'The Most Boring Movie Ever Award' and it would have a fair chance of winning in this category. So, if you'd like to have yourself a nice popcorn-munching movie night, Gerry isn't your thing. Yet, it has a unique artistic merit, which is worth a patient watch for those who are into that kind of an experience.
First of all, Sant abandons all Hollywood clichés that would make this movie an exciting survival story, and instead focuses on creating the atmosphere of getting lost and being destined to die.
On a deeper level, I don't even think Gerry has an actual plot in the real world. I had to realize that literally nothing happens during the whole movie. The two characters don't have any meaningful conversation, the hiking has no point whatsoever, since all they do is walk in a certain direction for a while and then turn back. All along, it's just the two (?) guys and the endless desert, the long- long walking, the dust, the thirst. And the not too motivated struggle for their lives, which consists of climbing up and down, going here and there, kicking some rocks. They seem to give up before it's even started.
In my opinion, what we see are no physical, but mental landscapes, no outer, but an inner journey. And not too guys, but only one, and he is Gerry. Trapped in the infinite prison of his own deserted mind and lost identity.
The scenes often show the two Gerrys as the reflection, duplicate or shadow of each other. Sometimes, only one of them can be seen, as if he were alone (he is).
I don't think the movie is an allegory that can be directly translated to the inner struggling of a man, it rather transmits a feeling similar to that struggle. Because if you're lost in the desert, even knowing what to look for is hard. Should it be water, or high lands? East, west, north, south? No directions, nothing that could feed the spirit of life and assure you that your trying has any point. Exactly what I feel these days, looking for the right track.
I have no sensible explanation for the ending or why it is so important to split Gerry into two characters. All I have is impressions, but good ones. Sant is trying to grasp something that is difficult to express and is brave to do that despite all natural demands of the viewer.
Unbelievably over-hyped, incredibly self-indulgent
sgreif16 January 2002
I saw this movie at the Sundance Film Festival and hated it. There is no plot or character development to speak of. There is beautiful scenery and some very lovely camera shots, but the camera frequently lingers for 5 or 10 minutes at a time, circling around the object of its attention, without any dialogue at all. I understand that there were only about 100 camera shots in the entire film. It was reminiscent of Blow-up in some ways, but without as much interest. I'm sure it's an "important" film from the director's point of view, but the audience seems to have been entirely ignored. Of the 25-30 people I talked to about it, one liked it and the rest hated it.
The Path Less Traveled
Lechuguilla27 December 2006
Two college-aged men who refer to each other as "Gerry" (Casey Affleck and Matt Damon) venture into the desert for a carefree, fun adventure, seemingly oblivious to the dangers that such an environment may conceal.
At face value, the story is not logical. Two guys with brains would never hike into a desert without water. Nor would they be so ignorant about geography that they couldn't get their compass bearings straight, with sun and stars to guide them, and in a landscape with such varied terrain as mountains, scrub brush, and salt flats. Further, in the absence of a safety kit, hiking long distances in rugged country almost certainly would have resulted in feet blisters, making further hiking impossible.
Ergo, we are left with two interpretations of this film. On the one hand, as some suggest, Damon and Affleck conceived the film as a joke to fool gullible viewers who naively perceive the film as "art". Alternately, the film may be construed as a genuine cinematic expression of existential philosophy consistent with Kierkegaard and Nietzsche, with themes that run deep.
The first interpretation is cynical. With their credibility on the line, and with the film's budget at over $3 million, reputable actors, directors, or producers would not pursue a project with such a devious motive as to try and fool the audience, in my opinion.
Accordingly, I take the position that "Gerry" is a well-crafted "art" film produced to counterbalance modern Hollywood films that are characterized by gaudy and intrusive special effects, loudness, irritatingly fast action, absence of thematic depth, and unnecessary complexity.
In "Gerry", depending on scene, the dialogue ranges from sparse to nonexistent. Background music is slow, mournful, mystical, and toward the end ... ominous. Images are simple and stark. Extremely long camera "takes", with the average length of each camera shot being about sixty seconds, render a pacing so slow that most viewers will fidget in their seats, become impatient, or may even give up watching. But for those willing to "endure", the film makes for good soul medicine. "Gerry" thus has qualities that make it rather Zen-like.
"Gerry" reminds me of "The Tracker" (2002). In both films, every single scene, without exception, takes place outdoors. And, with its desolate mountains, lunar landscape, and general absence of human artifacts, "Gerry" recalls to mind the 1964 sci-fi film "Robinson Crusoe On Mars". In all three of these films, the emphasis is on sparseness, simplicity, and survival.
Most filmmakers travel in cinematic ruts. Most viewers live with the herd, and travel the same worn paths in life. As the film's director, Gus Van Sant ventures down a different, less traveled cinematic path, one meant to invoke themes that will appeal mostly to nonconformists.
For viewers who can endure the slowness and the tedium, the film has a lot to say about decisions, fate, responsibilities, despair, and about life in general. Its story may not be altogether logical. But neither is a Zen koan. And those forbidding landscapes are hauntingly beautiful.
At face value, the story is not logical. Two guys with brains would never hike into a desert without water. Nor would they be so ignorant about geography that they couldn't get their compass bearings straight, with sun and stars to guide them, and in a landscape with such varied terrain as mountains, scrub brush, and salt flats. Further, in the absence of a safety kit, hiking long distances in rugged country almost certainly would have resulted in feet blisters, making further hiking impossible.
Ergo, we are left with two interpretations of this film. On the one hand, as some suggest, Damon and Affleck conceived the film as a joke to fool gullible viewers who naively perceive the film as "art". Alternately, the film may be construed as a genuine cinematic expression of existential philosophy consistent with Kierkegaard and Nietzsche, with themes that run deep.
The first interpretation is cynical. With their credibility on the line, and with the film's budget at over $3 million, reputable actors, directors, or producers would not pursue a project with such a devious motive as to try and fool the audience, in my opinion.
Accordingly, I take the position that "Gerry" is a well-crafted "art" film produced to counterbalance modern Hollywood films that are characterized by gaudy and intrusive special effects, loudness, irritatingly fast action, absence of thematic depth, and unnecessary complexity.
In "Gerry", depending on scene, the dialogue ranges from sparse to nonexistent. Background music is slow, mournful, mystical, and toward the end ... ominous. Images are simple and stark. Extremely long camera "takes", with the average length of each camera shot being about sixty seconds, render a pacing so slow that most viewers will fidget in their seats, become impatient, or may even give up watching. But for those willing to "endure", the film makes for good soul medicine. "Gerry" thus has qualities that make it rather Zen-like.
"Gerry" reminds me of "The Tracker" (2002). In both films, every single scene, without exception, takes place outdoors. And, with its desolate mountains, lunar landscape, and general absence of human artifacts, "Gerry" recalls to mind the 1964 sci-fi film "Robinson Crusoe On Mars". In all three of these films, the emphasis is on sparseness, simplicity, and survival.
Most filmmakers travel in cinematic ruts. Most viewers live with the herd, and travel the same worn paths in life. As the film's director, Gus Van Sant ventures down a different, less traveled cinematic path, one meant to invoke themes that will appeal mostly to nonconformists.
For viewers who can endure the slowness and the tedium, the film has a lot to say about decisions, fate, responsibilities, despair, and about life in general. Its story may not be altogether logical. But neither is a Zen koan. And those forbidding landscapes are hauntingly beautiful.
Beautiful, silent, and smart movie
water9815 February 2005
"So how do you think the hike's going so far?"
One of my favorite movie lines, directed at the audience as much as the other Gerry.
Some of the longer shots in this movie are amazing, and you're just sitting there admiring the camera-work. Like the closeup of Matt and Casey walking side by side, crunching rocks and sand in rhythm with each other. Or the camera weaving through desert brush in the beginning, following them as they run. There is plenty of opportunity for your mind to wander, though, as well. Which is definitely part of the point. I admit that I fell asleep on my first viewing, but when I came back to it the next day, I felt like I was right back in the desert with them.
I also really enjoyed the subtlety in the acting. The actors really communicated a lot with their legs!
One of my favorite movie lines, directed at the audience as much as the other Gerry.
Some of the longer shots in this movie are amazing, and you're just sitting there admiring the camera-work. Like the closeup of Matt and Casey walking side by side, crunching rocks and sand in rhythm with each other. Or the camera weaving through desert brush in the beginning, following them as they run. There is plenty of opportunity for your mind to wander, though, as well. Which is definitely part of the point. I admit that I fell asleep on my first viewing, but when I came back to it the next day, I felt like I was right back in the desert with them.
I also really enjoyed the subtlety in the acting. The actors really communicated a lot with their legs!
One Of The Most Unentertaining Films I Have Seen
Theo Robertson18 February 2008
What's wrong with GERRY is obvious from the very first scene . A car drives down a road in New Mexico and the camera holds the shot , and holds , and holds , and holds and keeps holding the shot . This is what is known as " shot length " where the camera doesn't cut to another shot . The average shot length according to film critic David Bordwell was between 8 and 11 seconds from 1930 to 1960 while in the 1970s it was between 5 and 8 seconds while at the turn of the century it had shortened to 3 to 6 seconds . There's exactly 100 shots in GERRY a film that lasts for 100 minutes . If your arithmetic is really bad then let me explain that the average shot length is one minute which is 20 times longer than the average film from the same period . What makes this even worse is down to the fact that there's very little happening narrative wise . The premise involves two blokes called Gerry getting lost in the New Mexico desert and what makes this film even more unbearable is that there's often a lack of dialogue . So you've got two young men trekking through the desert not saying much making the ridiculous shot length seem even more longer than it actually is
There's something else that bugged me and that is Gerry and Gerry walk through some woodland early in the film . Think about that for a moment , they walk through some woodland in to a desert . If they're walking at a pace of perhaps three miles an hour then if they walked for about four hours then they'd be about twelve miles away from this woodland . Surely they'd still be able to make visual contact with the woodland ? We're also shown that the woodland they came from is relatively busy with families enjoying a nature ramble . Are we to consider that all of sudden the eponymous characters walk into a land based version of The Bermuda Triangele ? At no point would a relatively intelligent audience be fooled in to taking this premise seriously and while you need a suspension of disbelief in order to enjoy a great number of films there's nothing here that will make you buy in to the premise . If the characters had taken some flying lessons and the plane had crashed then this would be a more sensible way to set up the story but seems beyond the ability of authors Damon and Affleck to come with a stronger reason to set up the story I suppose you could praise Matt Damon and say that he doesn't want to be known simply for his hunky action star roles and while this might be true it's not really like he's stretching himself in this movie , I mean how much talent do you need to walk , and walk , and walk . Even if Ben Afflek had been cast instead of his brother Casey there's no way GERRY could possibly be a less unentertaining movie
There's something else that bugged me and that is Gerry and Gerry walk through some woodland early in the film . Think about that for a moment , they walk through some woodland in to a desert . If they're walking at a pace of perhaps three miles an hour then if they walked for about four hours then they'd be about twelve miles away from this woodland . Surely they'd still be able to make visual contact with the woodland ? We're also shown that the woodland they came from is relatively busy with families enjoying a nature ramble . Are we to consider that all of sudden the eponymous characters walk into a land based version of The Bermuda Triangele ? At no point would a relatively intelligent audience be fooled in to taking this premise seriously and while you need a suspension of disbelief in order to enjoy a great number of films there's nothing here that will make you buy in to the premise . If the characters had taken some flying lessons and the plane had crashed then this would be a more sensible way to set up the story but seems beyond the ability of authors Damon and Affleck to come with a stronger reason to set up the story I suppose you could praise Matt Damon and say that he doesn't want to be known simply for his hunky action star roles and while this might be true it's not really like he's stretching himself in this movie , I mean how much talent do you need to walk , and walk , and walk . Even if Ben Afflek had been cast instead of his brother Casey there's no way GERRY could possibly be a less unentertaining movie
an impressive devastating true story adaptation
d-JCB18 November 2004
I've seen "My Own Private Idaho", "Finding Forrester" and "Good Will Hunting" by Gus Van Sant which were all fairly impressive but now am very eager to watch the 2003 Palme D'Or winner "Elephant", especially after my initial screening of "Gerry" last night which tops all the Van Sant flicks I've seen to date. This is an engaging effort from Gus, and outstanding career highlight performances for the main actors Casey Affleck and Matt Damon. I can see why people are saying that some shots are "too long" and other comments like "I fell asleep", however I love this style of cinema which reminded me a lot of the spectacular effort from Kitano with "Dolls". Minimal, hypnotic, and great shots throughout. The camera trickery has to be highlighted with varying depth of field shots giving you a deluded sense of fatigue, plus the ongoing buzzing sound which intensifies with the sun throughout the evolving journey, similar to the buzzing lights in Noé's "Irréversible". The main point I want to bring up is the film was very well structured and scripted for the time it covers. It's realistic and well balanced with regular events. However if your comfort zone sits around the 'Hollywood standard' where there's a 5 camera shoot for every scene with 3 second cuts between shots and the suspenseful default score to keep you 'on your seat', then you'll be pleasantly appalled with this 'real' rendition of a devastating true story.
8/10
8/10
this movie is not for everyone
mertalpay27 July 2005
Gus Van Sant is a good director but , this movie has very less conversation than his other less conversation movies , so after sometime you only watch the nature, like documentary.so if you come to a cinema to see something to happen in this movie you can see it after 2 hours and its kind of boring.i think Gus Van Sant had some lessons from Gerry and made elephant perfect.this cant be the movie that i ve give ten out of 10 , because it only tells how we deeply go into how psychologically desperate. this is a documentary film about how people behaves against nature.not to fight against it, try to live with it friendly.that s what i got from this movie.
More than boring
JakersWild31 December 2003
Okay, as many others have said here, yes this movie is painfully boring. The scenery is the apparent star, and no scenery is interesting enough to watch on a tv screen for about two hours. Maybe in an IMAX theatre it would be awe-inspiring, but as fancy wallpaper rather than a movie.
Comments I've read that talk about great acting seem odd. We rarely see the faces of the actors because almost everything is a long shot. Even with almost no plot, there are huge holes in said plot. It is more like someone shot a lot of film and then semi-randomly pieced it together. When there is dialogue it is pointless, and almost certainly contains the F word. I'm no prude, but just F'ing saying F over and over doesn't pass for dialogue.
This is another of these movies that a select few pronounce as brilliant, and actively look down upon the apparent luddite masses who find it crap. You'll find reviews like that on this site. There is no better example I've seen than Gerry to illustrate that such an attitude is almost certainly an attempt by an overly artsy pretentious snob to impart value into something awful simply to feel above those who "don't get it". So unless you're a pretentious snob, my advice would be to pass on Gerry.
Comments I've read that talk about great acting seem odd. We rarely see the faces of the actors because almost everything is a long shot. Even with almost no plot, there are huge holes in said plot. It is more like someone shot a lot of film and then semi-randomly pieced it together. When there is dialogue it is pointless, and almost certainly contains the F word. I'm no prude, but just F'ing saying F over and over doesn't pass for dialogue.
This is another of these movies that a select few pronounce as brilliant, and actively look down upon the apparent luddite masses who find it crap. You'll find reviews like that on this site. There is no better example I've seen than Gerry to illustrate that such an attitude is almost certainly an attempt by an overly artsy pretentious snob to impart value into something awful simply to feel above those who "don't get it". So unless you're a pretentious snob, my advice would be to pass on Gerry.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
