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.

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 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 I was really just feeling that apathetic, withdrawn, moody desolate feeling watching this.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.