How sad is this?

Good concept, poorly executed.

It is an exhilarating, distressing, funny and profound film, with one of the more memorable film scores in years,

The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

One word sums up this movie - BORING! The opening tells you right there and then what to expect, that everything will be such a drag from thereon. It gives you this anxious feeling which is not one bit ok. The plot is flat and terrible. I will remember this movie as one the worst I've seen.

Two guys get lost somewhere far away from the cities, and as you might expect, that brings a lot of problems to their well-being. My main issue with this film happens because it has one of the strangest directing I've recently seen! I mean, there are a lot of unnecessary scenes showing those mountains, albeit we're told from the get go where they are in. For this reason, sometimes my friends and I wondered if we were watching an actual film or if someone had mistakenly switched to the Discovery Channel. Also, the lack of conversation is also something that really bothered us, since there is no character development; we are enable to know WHO are Gerry and Gerry, where they come from, and what kind of relationship they do have. On the other hand, sometimes I liked this movie for being SO odd; everything feels very different from previous movies that crossed my life, so Gus Van Sant proves to be, at least, BRAVE. In conclusion, "Gerry" isn't a picture that I would like to see again, nor even recommend to friends, but it's a reasonable opportunity for those who are tired with the same-old-story told in Hollywood.

"Gerry" is the story of two friends who get lost while hiking in the desert. There is not much to the film, very little dialog and tons of scenery shots. This is the first film in Gus Van Sant's death trilogy (which are based on true murders), with "Elephant", and "Last Days" to follow. As the characters get lost we become lost with them. I felt guilty that I could go get a drink of water in the next room. The film is a lot of long shots, such as them walking or them trying to map their way back, or incredibly daunting drawn-out scenery shots, and an hallucination caused by dehydration, which was done perfectly. But the film is entertaining, not the best of Gus Van Sant but pretty damn good. Matt Damon and Casey Affleck give outstanding performances. They do what a lot of actors can't do with a full script, and that is that they give us character development without telling us anything. I give "Gerry" an 8 out of 10.

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.