Gerry

Rating:
Summary: Gerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrry
Review: Gus Van Sant is back, and with some serious style. After taking a long creativity snooze break with such mainstream pleasers as Good Will Hunting and Finding Forrester, and one that nobody seemed to like (Psycho), Sant was ready to return to the role of the risk taking filmmaker we all hoped he really was when he made the amazing My Own Private Idaho. 2003 brought two of the best Van Sant features in his line up, which were subsequently the two best films of the year.


Gerry, Sant's spare experimental film starring Matt Damon and Casey Affleck, divided audiences almost squarely down the center. I fell into the camp that was mesmerized by the film's daring long takes and striking cinematography (the former a homage to such film masters as Andrei Tarkovsky, and the latter a beautiful and original creation of gifted cinematographer Harris Savides). So much was I intrigued by what happens to these two unnamed men (they refer to one another as "Gerry," a made-up and affectionate nickname for a "royal-f--kup," explained Damon), that I find it incredibly hard to understand what so many viewers found so boring about what was happening on-screen. Not only was there plenty of eye candy to get lost in with the otherworldly desert settings (which were shot in three very separate locations to create this atmosphere), but some hilarious improvised dialogue, and a downright intense build to the seemingly inevitable doom of the "Gerrys." In addition, these characters were so completely real that I couldn't help but identify with them. They talked, they walked, they fell silent to their own thoughts, they cried. As Ebert pointed out in his review of the film, I can't imagine my getting lost in an expansive desert being much different then this.


Many critics have speculated as to what the purpose of Gerry really was, and there have been many very plausible and intriguing ideas about said purpose (solidifying in my mind the success of this art piece). Some I can see, others I feel are a stretch, but nonetheless the discussion is stimulating. What exactly was the relationship of the two men? Were they friends? Lovers? The exploration of the relationship between the "Gerrys" is probably the most intriguing aspect of the film. However, as I watched Gerry, I was increasingly interested by the way the film explored time. There was a hypnotizing long-take in which Afleck and Damon walked in step with one another . Then slowly but steadily, the two men begin separating their walking patterns (this was explored again in Elephant, creating an extremely menacing effect). Other great pieces included the 8 minute descent into night, and two clock-like revolutions around the film's subjects. This one is not to be missed!

Rating:
Summary: Pretentious Pap
Review: "Gerry" was made by the great American indie auteur - Gus Van Sant, who directed "My Own Private Idaho" and the film that established Matt Damon, "Good Will Hunting." I have enjoyed many of Van Sant's films and generally like and admire indie films. As for "Gerry," I enjoyed the music and the cinematography is undeniably beautiful; however, the film is terrible.

The movie begins with a shot of an old car driving down a barren highway in the American southwest; for almost 6 minutes the camera fixates on the car. This scene is the most action-packed of the film, so be prepared for some slow spots! The car is piloted by Casey Affleck and Matt Damon, and the pair eventually stop for a short hike to see "the thing." They see other tourists heading toward "the thing" so they decide to follow a different trail. Although we find out that the men are friends and both of the men are named Gerry, little else is apparent. Who they are or what "the thing" is are never explained. The two are clearly slackers though; after about 5 minutes of hiking, they decide to give up searching for "the thing" and head back to their car. Except they can't find the car, and they spend the remainder of the film wandering around.

The movie was shot without a script per se; instead, the dialogue was improvised. The dialogue is minimal - a story about an episode or "Wheel of Fortune" is perhaps the longest section. Unfortunately, Damon and Affleck are not believable as hikers, and they don't seem to be particularly talented at improvisation. They try to throw in technical hiking terms, but it's fairly obvious that they never used these terms before, such as "crow's-nesting," "mountain-top scout about," and "gerried the rendezvous." As a result, the dialogue feels more mannered than most formal scripts. The two characters are also devoid of depth, which leads to a complete lack of emotion concerning their fate.

The movie was filmed in Death Valley area of California as well as Argentina; the leaps in scenery between Death Valley and Argentina are distracting. The scenic panoramas are beautiful but as enjoyable to watch as slides from your Aunt Hilda's last vacation. Worst of all, the film is filled with wide-screen shots of the men walking in the distant horizon - seemingly meant to emulate the grandeur of "Lawrance of Arabia." Ultimately, the barren desert landscapes only emphasizes the characters' vapidity.

Your tolerance for "Gerry" will depend largely on how much you like the two actors. I dislike Matt Damon, so I found it dreadfully painful at times. When there's nothing else to focus on in a film other than the actors, every little quirk is magnified, such as Damon's perfect khakis that make him look like a prototypical star who bought new gear to "rough it." About the only satisfaction I received from the film was a certain twisted pleasure watching Damon look like a tool marching around the desert wearing a blue shirt as a turban. Overall, "Gerry" is a self-important mess - a "My Dinner with Andre" for slackers.

DVD Extras: A brief, un-narrated documentary called "Salt Lake Van Sant" that shows filming one early morning but really adds little. Van Sant does not contribute a director's commentary, which is a real crime on a film of this nature.


Rating:
Summary: I found a great use for this movie...
Review: Combating insomnia. Nothing like watching two guys drive or walk for 10 minutes to send you off to dreamland. I recorded it on TiVo because of Matt Damon. Once I watched the 8 minutes of driving that begins the movie, I quickly realized its value as a sleep aid.

How can two guys pull off the road with mountains on one side, and not have the sense to use the mountains as a point of reference to get back to the road?

Anyway, the long walking scenes with the crunching of shoes in the sand were great for helping me fall asleep, I almost saved it just for that. However, the absurdity of it all made me cave in and delete it.

The few bits of dialogue were entertaining, the story about the wheel of fortune episode, deciding to follow the animal tracks but worrying that the animals would see them and not mate, therefore not get thirsty and lead them to water, etc. Actually, there is no etc., these were the only two.

Rating:
Summary: Bizarre and a bit pointless
Review: This could have been a really interesting movie. I just watched a news special about that guy who got trapped in a crevasse and cut his own arm off -- that was WAY more interesting than this movie, and it's about the same thing, just a different ending.

I am fascinated about human nature and how one chooses to survive in desperate times, but I'm sorry, the brilliant team of Van Sant, Damon and Affleck just do not get it. There wasn't really any intense moments. It takes you awhile (and the characters) to even realize that they are lost and probably won't find their way back. And it just seems really bizarre that this has happened to them because they're on flat land. And when they spot the mountains/hills, they think by climbing up them, they will be able to scout their surroundings. Seems like a good idea, but why doesn't this work for them?

Okay, okay, admittedly, I've never been lost in the desert and in fact, I've never been to the desert, but I just see the whole thing as really bizarre. Especially with both characters' determination to find the thing at the end of the trail, whatever that is (pay attention in the beginning). If they're so determined, then they must at least know what they're doing, right? Wrong. It's like taking two guys from New York, plopping them in the desert while in good spirits, and then running off without them and leave them to figure it out for themselves.

There are some pointless but funny moments, like when Casey Affleck's character gets stuck on a high rock platform (for lack of a better word). Somehow he got himself up there, but the only way down means possible broken bones. My husband and I kept saying, just dangle yourself down; your feet would be half way to the ground and then drop (emphasis on then). But instead, Matt Damon's character comes up with some brilliant dirt mattress plan that actually works somehow.

Ah, this could have been great. There could have been wonderful, thought provoking dialogue, but alas, it was not meant to be. One good thing I can say about this movie is that you can easily take care of things around the house while watching it. Just wander by the TV every so often to check on the boys -- see what progress they're making, and who (if any) survives in the end.


Rating:
Summary: Not a cheeseburger. A fillet mignon.
Review: It depends what you're hungry for. Sometimes there's nothing better than a greasy cheeseburger, other times a subtle, fine meal is just what the doctor ordered. If you've had a long day and all you want is to fill your gut, this film is not going to do it.

The majority will hate this film. We all have been trained to a certain extent to be spoon-fed plots with an attention getter every five minutes to keep our low attention spans. Most of us want fast food, not fine dining. It's understandable since we work all day and just want to sit and vegetate while being mindlessly entertained. I know that 99% of the time that's exactly what I want.

This film is a slow, gourmet meal, with small portions and beautiful plate presentation. You have to not be in a rush, and just sit down, relax, and just let it unfold. It's like lying in the grass and watching the clouds go by. Most don't have the patience for it anymore, it's not very exciting, but it's so beautiful and soothing.


Rating:
Summary: Total waste of time and film!!!!
Review: Ever wonder why your dvd has a fast forward button? Its to get through 5-10 minute long shots of these 2 driving down a road with no dialogue, 5-10 minute long shots of showing the back of their heads and 5-10 minute long shots of them walking. I just finished this very painful movie and felt it my duty to try to save others from wasting 110 minutes of their life on this worthless boring excuse for a film. It had all the suspense of watching grass grow or waiting for a dollop of heinz 57 to drop. Honestly theres about enough dialogue to fill MAYBE 3-4 sheets of notebook paper and thats being generous. Dont waste your time!!

Rating:
Summary: Von Stroheim would have loved this film.
Review: An ultra-simple story, told with the barest minimum of dialogue and sound. Two normal guys, guys who watch TV and play video games, go off on a jaunt in the desert to see "the thing," whatever that is. Before they reach it, they get bored and decide to turn back to the car. And then...they are lost. And more lost. From the brush and cactus of the early scenes, the background gradually becomes rock, then mountain, then sand. The guys gradually realize that they're going to die. Nobody says anything about it, but we all know. Give this film the attention, the patience that it requires, and you will be amply repaid.