Gerry

Like many who have commented on this film, right after I saw it on DVD last night, I really didn't like it. However, this morning, I really came to the conclusion that like any piece of art, once it leaves the artist, it is up for interpretation, so here is my two cents: Gerry (whether he is two persons, or one person and the alter ego, as some have suggested) is really a product of world popular culture. We wonder if he has ever read a book, or had an original thought. We expect this to be a story that give us a rich backstory (who are these guys, where did they come from, where are they going, etc) and instead we get vapid dialog about Wheel of Fortune, or perhaps a rehashing of Dungeons and Dragons? These guys HAVE no backstory.. .they watch tv, play video games, and are completely out of touch with nature and the world at large. It is only at the very end of the movie, when death looks them in the face, that the thought process is engaged - probably for the first time in thier (his) life. They reach down deep inside and finally notice which direction the sun sets in, which way is north, and think about direction. . .is this what they were looking for in the first place - why they came to the wilderness? Is this a metaphore for life? I don't want to trash the younger generation (I am 45) because one could look back to Rebel Without a Cause in the 1950's to see the emptyness of suburban American life even then.

The slow pace of the film is the antithesis of MTV quick cuts, so I doubt if the intended audience, those under 30, will be able to sit through this - and isn't that the point!

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.

Two friends (both called Gerry) take a drive out into the New Mexico wilderness to go and see the thing. Following the trail they assume will lead them right there they eventually decide they are not going to find it and decide to head back to their car. However they have been blindly hiking for hours and before long they realise that they are lost. Sleeping rough that night, they continue their trek across the desert in search of a way out, putting their friendship under stress with every passing hour.

Perhaps this is one of those like it or hate it type movies but I do dislike the way that those that love it feel the need to lash out at those that don't, claiming that they are perhaps stupid or hollow people for not getting the beauty of this movie. Personally I do slightly suspect that the viewers who fall over themselves to love this film have never really seen many films that compare and perhaps mistake being different and non-multiplex as being the same as having depth. That the film is minimalistic and different is not in question but there is no substance to this film other than what the viewer forces into their own experience of it.

Having said that the film is still hauntingly beautiful to watch. The desert landscapes are impressive and really well captured – what a shame that you do not go to the cinema just to stare at landscapes. The cast of two have nothing to do but, as they are also responsible for the concept then they have nobody else to really blame. Affleck and Damon stumble around the place vaguely improvising but they have nothing about them; most of the time I found them an intrusion in front of the landscapes that were of much more interest.

Overall then a beautiful but empty film. The landscapes are haunting but I could not find any of this beauty in the material (such as it was). Those desperately seeking something deep will find it, but that is different from the film actually having depth.

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

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.)