Alicia I love this movie so much

ThiefHott Too much of everything

Hottoceame The Age of Commercialism

Erica Derrick By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

molokoplus_consumer68 (slight spoilers)Gerry could be nominated for 'The Most Boring Movie Ever Award' and it would have a fair chance of winning in this category. So, if you'd like to have yourself a nice popcorn-munching movie night, Gerry isn't your thing. Yet, it has a unique artistic merit, which is worth a patient watch for those who are into that kind of an experience.First of all, Sant abandons all Hollywood clichés that would make this movie an exciting survival story, and instead focuses on creating the atmosphere of getting lost and being destined to die.On a deeper level, I don't even think Gerry has an actual plot in the real world. I had to realize that literally nothing happens during the whole movie. The two characters don't have any meaningful conversation, the hiking has no point whatsoever, since all they do is walk in a certain direction for a while and then turn back. All along, it's just the two (?) guys and the endless desert, the long- long walking, the dust, the thirst. And the not too motivated struggle for their lives, which consists of climbing up and down, going here and there, kicking some rocks. They seem to give up before it's even started.In my opinion, what we see are no physical, but mental landscapes, no outer, but an inner journey. And not too guys, but only one, and he is Gerry. Trapped in the infinite prison of his own deserted mind and lost identity.The scenes often show the two Gerrys as the reflection, duplicate or shadow of each other. Sometimes, only one of them can be seen, as if he were alone (he is).I don't think the movie is an allegory that can be directly translated to the inner struggling of a man, it rather transmits a feeling similar to that struggle. Because if you're lost in the desert, even knowing what to look for is hard. Should it be water, or high lands? East, west, north, south? No directions, nothing that could feed the spirit of life and assure you that your trying has any point. Exactly what I feel these days, looking for the right track.I have no sensible explanation for the ending or why it is so important to split Gerry into two characters. All I have is impressions, but good ones. Sant is trying to grasp something that is difficult to express and is brave to do that despite all natural demands of the viewer.

Angelika_New_York You may not have heard of this film. It was in very limited release almost fourteen years ago. I understand that this film requires a lot of patience to sit through. It isn't really enjoyable or entertaining. It is about two men, both named Gerry, who go hiking one day and both venture off from a wilderness trail. That is it. Hardly any dialogue. It is roughly 1 hour and 43 minutes. You may not want to see it and I would not blame you. Almost ten years ago I first watched this in its entirety and I really let myself go while viewing. It is a calming experience. It is rare that I feel that way while watching a movie. I marvel at the landscapes that are throughout this film. It is dreamlike. Sort of a personal trek I feel while watching this film. At some point, it feels quite maddening as if descending into an abyss. I suppose it could've been done differently or perhaps been more interesting, but this is a Gus Van Sant film. He is a visionary.

nymeria-meliae This is quite possibly the most boring film I've ever watched... and it took me three attempts to get to the end because it is a fantastic film for sending you to sleep.SPOILER ALERT: Not sure if this counts as a spoiler or not... but the film consists of 10 minutes of two blokes walking followed by 10 minutes of a close up on the faces of two blokes walking followed by 1 minute of very brief dialogue followed by 10 minutes of two blokes walking followed by 10 minutes of 360 degree panoramic shot of the scenery followed by 10 minutes close up on the faces of two blokes walking followed by 10 minutes of one bloke on a rock followed by 5 minutes on top of a hill followed by 10 minutes of walking followed by 10 minutes lying down in the sun The end The lack of dialogue, the lack of anything, and the rhythmic sound of marching just sends you to sleep.Just an awful film. There is literally nothing good to say about the film. I can only think that positive reviews are from people who have a thing for one of the two actors because there are a lot of close ups of them walking. There is a homo-erotic feel to the film that might be why it gets some positive responses from those who like that kind of thing but except that... what was the point of this film?

ironhorse_iv This movie is just awful dry. The movie is just so depressing. I was really just feeling that apathetic, withdrawn, moody desolate feeling watching this. Lots of scenes walking around and almost no talking, this movie was direction-less and pointless to watch. I just waste my time watching this. I'd be very interested to hear Director Gas Van Sant's own take on what he was trying to accomplish with this film if only to provide some context for what's on the screen. I know it was create by Gus Van Sant as the first film of his "Death Trilogy", three films based on deaths that occurred in real life, and is succeeded by 2003's Elephant (About Columbine High School Shooting in 1999) and 2005's Last Day (About Kurt Cobain's death). The real story is incredibly tragic. I'll never know why they didn't use the real events to make the movie, instead of this mind-boggling repetitiveness, which doesn't even make any sense as motive for the killing. I mean, as a general rule, when movies are based on real events, they tend to spice them up, not remove everything interesting. Here are the real life events. After days of hiking, the two men Raffi Kodikian and David Coughlin became lost and dehydrated. Raffi Kodikian and David Coughlin had only brought three pints of water and one pint of Gatorade. Although they had a topographical map, neither knew how to properly read It. The two try to survive from dehydrating by licking rocks, eating cactus fruit, even drinking their own urine. Kodikian abandoned the idea of drinking his own urine after gagging. Anyways, David got sick, and Kodikian mercy kill him. All this information could have been use on Gerry. Instead of that, we get this 2 hour of nothing interesting. You sit and search for a reason why you spent an hour and 40 some odd minutes watching a movie that has no plot, no real theme, and a poor ending. I wouldn't mind it, if the film was a bit shorter. I don't know, maybe 10-15 minutes long not a hour film. Although maybe what he was really going for was exploring what it took to make a normal human being kill by making the audience want to kill him for making this movie. Gus Van Sant made this movie boring. Cinema is supposed to evoke a wide breadth of emotions and convey a near infinite amount of experiences: boredom is one of both and is just as valid as anything else. I think a lot can also be said of how it handles the situation in a realistic way. Still, why pay money for a movie to entertaining you when it fails to do that? It's isn't uplifting or even helps you out if you find yourself lost in the desert. The worst part of the movie is that Gus Van Sant had two amazing actors, Matt Damon and Casey Affleck starring in the film as Gerry and Jerry. He barely use them. All the actors do is barely talk and walk, and walk, and walk. I think the movie would have been better with a great soundtrack. Still there are so good things in the film. A lot of the scenes, including the 7 minute walking on the salt flats create a creepy, dream-like feel. Also the way their environment grows more desolate as their situation becomes bleaker was a nice touch. I think the problem is that the movie started out slowly paced and had nowhere to go. If the movie started out like a traditional film, with dialogue and typical editing, then became slower, stranger and emptier as the two guys became more and more lost, Van Sant's vision would not only be clearer, but more accessible. And why not give the characters different names? Since they're both named Gerry, they come off as nothing more than tools of the filmmakers rather than genuine characters. I keep getting the impression from the clips that Jerry and Gerry are the same person. Their conversations sound like someone talking to themselves or the other half of their personality. Then when one of them dies, it's as if a part of their personality was left in that desert. There is little to no depth to the characters. We barely know anything about them besides being fans of Wheel of Fortune and computer games. We don't even know what they were looking for in the desert in the first place! Gus Van Sant just says, they are looking for a 'Thing". What Thing? Further evidence of stupidity is seen when one of them climbs a big rock and can't get himself down! Long minutes are then squandered on Damon trying to make a dirt mattress for his pal to jump down onto! Maybe I have a better opinion of the film, because I had been told how slow and monotonous it was and was expecting much worse than I got, but some critics love this film. I can't find much deep and hidden meanings in this dust bucket of a movie. This is how not to make a survivor movie in the desert. Watch 2010's Way Back or 2010's 127 Hours was a better film. The beautiful cinematography that is this film's only saving grace. Overall: as far as I'm concerned, the movie doesn't works. It's not a walk in the park, it's a slow crawl in the desert.