Recensioni degli utenti

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.

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.

My gosh, this movie was sooooooooo boring. You can FF the first 15 minutes and not miss anything. How dumb can two guys be, hiking in the desert with NO water??? UGH. There is so much downtime, just looking at the scenery. No one ever yelled for help. Never left signs they were there. Just dumb all around. Don't waste your time on this one.

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

This film must rate as a real turkey, but that is unkind to turkeys. It is so slow paced that any mortal will find it very difficult to remain awake. I didn't walk out because I felt that there must be something special about to happen, especially as the film had a high rating in the Guardian newspaper. Are there two versions? One for the critics and one for the plebs. I cannot see many people staying to watch this - despite the excellent photography.

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.)

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.

(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.

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.

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 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 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"

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.

GERRY (3 outta 5 stars) Okay, you are either going to find this movie incredibly fascinating or incredibly boring... or, like me, you mind keep alternating from one opinion to the other. But, by the time the movie was over (and there were actually times during my first viewing that I prayed it would be over soon) I had to admit that I admired the choices of the people involved to make the movie this way. Matt Damon and Casey Affleck play two taciturn young dudes who take a long drive out to the middle of a rocky, mountainous desert to visit some sort of nature retreat. They park the car and go off looking for "the thing". Quite a bit of time passes and soon the guys realize that they have no idea where the car is and are hopelessly lost. The keep climbing higher and higher rocks and mountains, hoping to get a glimpse of somewhere to head for... a highway, a recognizable landmark, people... but their efforts never pay off. To give the audience a sense of the futility and the anxiety that the lost hikers feel, the film is shot in a series of long, unedited takes... where not much happens. The shots look great... the desert has some great scenery to show off... but at times you may become irritated by the monotony of some of the scenes. The two stars don't have a lot of dialogue... unlike the leads in such similar movies as "The Blair Witch Project" and "Open Water"... who keep the audience's attention with endless dialogue. Do one or both or neither of the guys escape death in the desert? Well, you'll need to watch the movie to find out.

These guys get lost by wandering into 10 foot tall brush at a rest stop. They are in a small valley with a highway running through it.

As they walk the terrain changes remarkably. For the life of me I can't see why they didn't crisscross the valley to find the highway. Any kind of methodical pattern would have taken them back to the car.

This level of cluelessness could possibly be accepted as a reasonable plot device by people who can only navigate by street signs. But, I live in the country. For me it's fundamentally unrealistic. Since the entire premise of the movie crumbles under examination, I can only express my disappointment that Casey Affleck and Matt Damon were involved in this production.

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

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.

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.