Gerry

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.

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 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.)

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 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.