"Gerry" theories, anyone seen this?

John C Lyons

John C Lyons

Veteran
I will first wait and see if anyone has even seen this movie before I bother to go any further...

Directed by Gus Van Sant
Stars Matt Damon and Casey Affleck
 
I saw a bit of it on HBO and was quickly bored. Just guys walking and talking. Jumped off a rock....change channel.
Is it worth renting the DVD? I really did not watch enough to properly judge but it did not grab my attention right away.
 
Saw this at a friends last fall and found the DVD on the 'previously viewed' rack for like six bucks. The hack climbing vocabulary is quite funny if you listen for it. The rest of the movie is boring as can be. Definitely an 'art house' flick. I'm surprised it even got made!

For six bucks, I'd say it's worth it.
 
Gus Van Sant is one of those Hit/Miss kind of filmmakers for me: (Listing only what I have seen)

Hits

Psycho (anyone could have shot this though right?)
Good Will Hunting (its the screenplay that rocks this one; pure story)
To Die For (nicole is nice in this; almost more of a parody)
Drugstore Cowboy (when matt dillon was still cool)

Misses

Finding Forrester
Even Cowgirls Get the Blues
My Own Private Idaho

Seems the ones he actually writes are the misses in my book (and who really wants to see the plight of male prostitutes anyway? )
 
weeeeird movie. I understand why ppl are bored by it, myself included, but I must admit, the scenes where Casey talks for 12 min. about how he lost in his computer game, or the seen where Matt tries to help Casey get down from the rock, are amazingly engaging and real.


lol dont know how to explain it, recommended if ur the adventurous type. :)
 
Alright since a couple people have seen it ill throw up a big "spoiler" warning a bit below here for those that may see it down the road. "Gerry" moves incredibly slow. Incredibly. Long long shots on one of the 2 characters, and sometimes even after they walk off-screen holding on the background for up to 30 to 60 secs. All of that background however is gorgeous. And the characters RARELY speak.

"Jazz Dog", yeah, this movie would never pull you in if you were just flipping the channels.

I can't imagine another movie exists that is so slow for 1hr 40mins. It could have been 30 minutes long easy but would it have had the same effect with the spolier questions I ask below? I think this movie may have more going on than it may seem to on the surface, but then again I could just be looking for the deeper meaning in it because it's so unique it's gotta have a point, right? I heard there is an interview with the three writers (Damon, Affleck, Van Sant) that may answer these questions I have below, I can't find it though.

I just wish everyone that posted here had already seen it, because there's no way in hell I am recommending it and then have you all hate me for wasting your time (Hudson would probably send me Van Sant's head or something, he he). Anyhow, if you've seen it or have it...what do you think of these ideas below?


***************************************SPOILERS BELOW***************************************



















Do you think it's really just about two guys getting lost in the desert or do you think there is more to it? Are Matt Damon and Casey Affleck the same person? Is Damon's "Gerry" killing a part of himself (the weaker Casey's "Gerry") ala Fight Club? They are both named "Gerry" right? At one point I think I recall Matt talking and Casey's voice was heard. At another point Casey is sitting down and talking to Matt beside him, but then the "real" Matt comes walking up and the sitting one disappears. And then of course right before Casey is choked his last words are "I'm leaving".

I would never watch this movie twice all the way through, I would just skip to these key parts if you guys had ideas similar to these or more feedback on it...
 
Never accord to me, and looking back, it doesnt jump out at me now that thats what happened, but I see ur point. Too bad I wont be sitting through it again soon. Maybe if somebody i know wants to wants it.
 
I am prety sure I listened to the commentary on this one and if I 'member correctly it's based on a true story.

I also thought this movie was very freakishly engaging.
 
This film (Van Sant's last 3 films actually, Gerry, Elephant, Last Days) are heavily inspired by the work of Bela Tarr. In the credits he is even thanked. To those that found this boring and can't imagine seeing anything worse, then go no further than Bela Tarr, because Gerry is lightweight compared to Tarr's films and not as good actually, though I do like Gerry and Elephant and haven't seen Last days yet.

As for the question; I don't think this is a question that needs to be asked. This film certainly doesn't operate on the level of a film like Fight Club and shouldn't be brought down to that level. If you think that maybe what you said could be true then I would say that your interpretation is valid. It isn't a puzzle though, it's a film.

I would say that it was one of the best films of 2002.
 
First of all:

What is the shite about Gerry? This is what I found online (no no no I have not seen it; yet. I will do this thread justice and see it this week)

"Gerry, the latest feature from hometown director Gus Van Sant, is the story of two friends who go hiking out in the desert and get lost And that's it. 110 minutes of barely any dialogue and long non-edited shots of the boys hoofing it through a barren wasteland....

...When I say "long non-edited shots," I mean shots that can last up to EIGHT minutes. And when that eight minutes are up, the angle is then switched to another walking shot lasting SIX minutes....

...while some film snobby-snobs may try and convince you this is Van Sant's "cinematic homage to the work of Bela Tarr," just smile, nod, and know they're full of crap. In Gerry you cannot wait for these people to die."


I just watched the Trailer and it already looks horrible. And these critics "One of the best films in 20 years!" and "Gus Van Zant is provacative!"

These Art House Twats are exactly the kind of people you fear getting trapped in a mine with ya know? It's like "****."

I just cannot grasp these fans of Tarr and avant garde cinema. It's like eating bile. There is so many more cooler things in life than to sit through this type of crap. This kind of filmmaking reminds me of people who cannot make films; they dont know how to tell a story so they film essentially nothing. These films are the equivalent of taking quaaludes or looking at the work of Pollack; ooooohhhhhh aaaahhhhhhhhh

It's like Traditional Art. Over the last thousands of years there have been countless styles and movements; some good and some just really really bad (again pollack); it is simply evolution. It is mutatation as it finds its way to the next level. That doesnt mean its good. It's like the art movement's of Les Nabis or Pointillism or even dada; it had its time and we learned from it but it doesnt make it good.

This Bela Tarr crap or Gus Van Zant style is nothing new. It has been done for 50 years. Film movements like nouvelle vague, film noir, surrealism, neo-realism.....

Its been done to death; literally. It's dead. The Filmmakers Tarkovsky, Bresson and now we have to sit through Bela Tarr and Wim Wenders crapfests. These guys are only doing whats already been done and buried.

We ***** and moan about 'Today's Hollywood' but atleast their doing something new; at least we see 'Hollywood' taking it to the next level.

Fuuuuuuuuuck youuuu.

(Or maybe its Monday)
 
John_Hudson said:
...while some film snobby-snobs may try and convince you this is Van Sant's "cinematic homage to the work of Bela Tarr," just smile, nod, and know they're full of crap. In Gerry you cannot wait for these people to die."
Click to expand...
Fact: This is Van Sant's homage to Bela Tarr. Fact.
 
John_Hudson said:
These Art House Twats are exactly the kind of people you fear getting trapped in a mine with ya know? It's like "****."

I just cannot grasp these fans of Tarr and avant garde cinema. It's like eating bile. There is so many more cooler things in life than to sit through this type of crap. This kind of filmmaking reminds me of people who cannot make films; they dont know how to tell a story so they film essentially nothing. These films are the equivalent of taking quaaludes or looking at the work of Pollack; ooooohhhhhh aaaahhhhhhhhh

Fuuuuuuuuuck youuuu
Click to expand...

You have displayed perfectly why you are unable to handle great films.
 
Thanks for the link; I'm reading it now to better immerse myself in this thread and...

I edited above incase you missed it:

"It's like Traditional Art. Over the last thousands of years there have been countless styles and movements; some good and some just really really bad (again pollack); it is simply evolution. It is mutation as it finds its way to the next level. That doesnt mean its good. It's like the art movement's of Les Nabis or Pointillism or even dada; it had its time and we learned from it but it doesnt make it good.

This Bela Tarr crap or Gus Van Zant style is nothing new. It has been done for 50 years. Film movements like nouvelle vague, film noir, surrealism, neo-realism.....

Its been done to death; literally. It's dead. The Filmmakers Tarkovsky, Bresson and now we have to sit through Bela Tarr and Wim Wenders crapfests. These guys are only doing whats already been done and buried.

We ***** and moan about 'Today's Hollywood' but atleast their doing something new; at least we see 'Hollywood' taking it to the next level." (No I'm not talking about F4 or White Chicks)

You have displayed perfectly why you are unable to handle great films.
Click to expand...

Great to whom? You and some Art House Lesbians? (Not that there's anything wrong with that). That is e x a c t l y the mentality I'm talking about. You just stood up and saved me alot of headache. You have displayed perfectly the mindset.
 
Johm, sry but i have to point out, that maybe u went a little too far with this one, especially after all the stuff about Coltrain dissing the movies we all like. This guy had JUST said this was one of the best films of 2002 right before you completely rip it apart, and u havnt even seen it!

So sure, that was a shitty review, but im sure DOC can find a positive one. Lets just try to cool down and keep it clean eh? :)
 
Most of you should know this by now: I'm ranting more than anything.

I also made it clear 'I have not seen it but will aim to see it this week for fairness'.

The 'Fuuuuuuuuuucckkkkkkkkkkk Yooooooooouuuuuuuuuuuu' was used in context exactyl how it is phonetically Displayed; don't take it too literal.

But.....................

(Like Coltrain) the 'You have displayed perfectly why you are unable to handle great films.' is it. Bam. Nailed. It's the same thing; it pretentious bullshit. If you can capture the spirit of masturbation on film you get films like Satantango, ya know?

Come on. Knock it off.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top