Gerry

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.)

This is not a good film.

But it's not a bad film either.

Consider the blank canvas hung in the museum. Questions arise: What is this? Why is this here? Who did this? Why did they do this? And most importantly, do I care about this?

These are the type of questions you will be left with after seeing `Gerry.'

The film is painfully slow to watch, the dialogue unrewarding, the landscape more interesting than the cinematography, the characters undefined, and the plot full of holes.

And yet, the film sticks with you and makes you think... just as the blank canvas does.

After leaving the theater, you truly contemplate the strange trip you just took through the middle of nowhere while you draw parallels to your own adventures.

And for these reasons the journey is worthwhile... the film, worth seeing.

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's `Gerry' is a bit like `The Blair Witch Project' minus the sensationalistic, supernatural elements. In this two-character film, Matt Damon and Casey Affleck (both of whom co-wrote the film with Van Sant) are buddies who decide to go hiking in the desert. When Damon offhandedly suggests leaving the trail, the decision turns out to be a fateful one for the both of them. The young men are both named Gerry, an appellation which turns out to have allegorical significance, since `gerry,' we are informed, is slang for `mistake.' And these guys sure come up with a beaut.

Like `Blair Witch,' `Gerry' taps into the almost primordial fear humans have of being lost in unfamiliar, hostile territory bereft of even the most rudimentary supplies necessary for survival. It also shows how even the most seemingly insignificant decision a person makes can wind up having fatal ramifications in the end. Despite the fact that the film runs a little over 100 minutes, the three screenwriters have opted to have the characters speak as little as possible, both before and after the fateful decision. Although this does prevent us from really getting to know the men in any great depth, the purpose of the filmmakers seems to be not so much to craft a narrative-driven drama but to create a kind of lyrical tone-poem about fate and the ways in which people face the inevitability of impending death. As director, Van Sant lingers long on both his images and his scenes, probably too long for many in the audience, who may well become restless and impatient long before the closing shot has faded from the screen. Personally, I found the rhythm and the pacing of the film to be both hypnotic and entrancing. There's an immense sadness that hangs over the film, enhanced by the starkness and bleakness of the setting and the grimness of the subject matter. Damon and Affleck turn in subtle, taciturn performances, relying on body language and facial expressions rather than words to convey their thoughts and fears. Arvo Parte has also provided a brooding, melancholic score that enhances the atmosphere of the film.

`Gerry,' is occasionally self-conscious, frequently padded and often maddeningly superficial in the way it fails to develop its two characters. Nevertheless, the film has an amazing ability to draw you into its world and to haunt you long after you've seen it.

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!