MovieChat Forums > Gerry (2002) Discussion > I actually want your opinion - how could...

I actually want your opinion - how could you like this film?

posted 16 years ago by fudgenuts101
27 replies | jump to latest

Sure it had some interesting meanings on life in general and how no matter how hard we look for the road that will take us home we either get lost along the way or it ends up finding us instead of the other way around, but this could have been a great short film. The shots were borderline retarded - a six minute scene of driving down a desolate road? A minute long would have done the job. Its sad - if you fast forward the film you see the entire story in clear view. This film had some profound things to say but it was far too pretentious for me. Sure enlightening films don't always have to be entertaining (although i believe the greatest films are both) but when the horrid bore of the film takes away from the deeper meanings behind the story, that is a major fault in a film. What are your thoughts on GERRY?

[–] flyingjy 16 years ago

Well here's the thing. To some, it isn't a bore at all to gaze at the great Natural Wonders of our World and to spend hours of our time in natural settings away from the city most of us probably live in.

It's probably hard for some to believe, but many people just enjoy getting away from the cities every now and then. This is to intentionally go to 'desolate places' to get away from our concentrated electronic mass-media and cultures of the cities we live in, and experience some Natural beauty and wonders of our planet for hours on end.

Personally, I can't say I LOVED this film, but I appreciate it. I also like living my city as much as I love going out to natural places to get away from it every now and then. This movie would have never worked as a short film though, since the images of Nature would not have had as much time to be ingrained in our memory. That was the point of this film, & it was almost required to get the point across that these 2 guys are out in the desert for what appears a few days or more.(The 'story' wasn't supposed to be the main focus point, as much as the director was trying to capture the atmosphere of nature, you see)

It wouldn't have had as much a Natural Feel to make this film anything less thant an hour & a half. When you think about it 1.5 hours is actually very short amount of time compared to most movies we watch. Maybe it just feels longer and so drawn out because our brains are so used to constantly fast moving and chaging scenes in all the action movies we watch.

So actually, I did like this movie because it felt 'natural' to me, and a breath of fresh air. Longer, drawn out scenes do make sense if you actually go to desolate spots where these guys went bc that's how things are there. I'm not knocking your opinion in any way, I just felt I need to explain my point of view on this movie though and why I personally liked it.

[–] fudgenuts101 16 years ago

I agree that its not a bore to experience nature, i am an avid hiker and mountain biker in the rockies that are close by, but this film didn't excite me after the third time you see the same rock. I just hated the way Van Sant shot the film. Thanks for your opinion and time man.

[–] mmattagirl 16 years ago

I love getting away from it all too - but here's what I carry with me when I do.

4 bottles water

2 thin t-shirts + 1 pr thick socks (for extra warmth when the sun goes down)

lightweight foil blanket

sun glasses

1/2lb Kendall mint cake (choc coated optional) V high quality energy food

T/paper and wet wipes

anti-septic and band aids

flashlight + extra batteries

matches + 2 fire lighters

1 or if possible 2 distress flares

compass/maps

cell phone plus which I always let people know where I am going

I wear very sturdy boots and wrap a hoodie around my waist.

When in bear country I carry bear spray, just in case.

All this seems as if it would be very heavy, but packed carefully into a back back it's quite manageable.

And these precautions should have the happy effect of being able to avoid strangling your hiking companion in the desert.

[–] sunnyj73 16 years ago

I respect your appreciation of natural beauty and a setting that is different than what you are used to in the city. However, the implication seems to be that those that don't like this film, or that find the drawn out scenes unpleasant feel this way because they are so accustomed to a fast-paced urban existence. I can understand your point of view, but perhaps it is the opposite situation. I live in a very rural area, not the desert, but definitely country. I found this movie darn near unbearable. It wasn't the scenery. It was a prolonged (to say the least) sense of suffering of the characters, with absolutely no break or relief for them or the viewer. I've never had this reaction to a film before, but it actually made me angry that in order to see what happens to the characters at the end, I had to endure these long, excruciating, silent scenes (I was watching it on cable so I couldn't fast forward.) I know that the film was going for a sense of hopelessness. I guess it was just too much for me. I am not a person that prefers action flicks over independent films with substance. I just don't like being bludgeoned over the head with bleakness. There was no way, with this films context, that I could enjoy the scenery. It actually became a villian to me.

[–] Revolutionow 16 years ago

For me, the long shots have a hypnotic effect and allow things to really sink in.

All I can think about are dudes.

[–] lisaloveslinkinpark 16 years ago

Exactly revolutionow, well said. The shots are long like that to make the audience feel isolated, lonely, bored... exactly what the main characters are feeling. If this movie was a short film or only 8 minutes long, it wouldn't have the same effect at all. It would be good, but not the masterpiece that it is. I love long shots because it makes you feel what the main characters are feeling... it makes you go on their journey. So by the end, when the heart-breaking climax happens, you feel so much because they went through this insanely long journey only to have it end like that.

You... you just couldn't let me go, could you?

[–] DocEmmettBrown 16 years ago

This is the only film to make me physically angry. Everyone throws around the phrase 'I lost 90 minutes of my life' but this is the one time I felt this genuinely...and I've seen a lot of films (and not just fast moving ones before anyone assumes I only watch Die Hard).
It's great (and somewhat surprising to me) that so many people enjoyed it on some level but to me it failed to provoke any positive reaction at all. I felt like I was the butt of one big joke. Two men walking in silence for ten minutes or trying to get down from a rock is not good film making in my eyes. It is pretension of the highest order. If the idea was to provoke a feeling of boredom then it succeeded but I'm sorry, I don't watch films to be bored.

--------------------------------
"Why are you wearing that stupid man suit?"

[–] lisaloveslinkinpark 16 years ago

It's okay DocEmmettBrown, some people get this film, some don't. It doesn't mean that you don't understand film in general or anything. For example, I will never understand what makes No Country for Old Men so great. Does that mean I have bad taste? No. Gerry appeals to some people, but it doesn't appeal to everyone.

You... you just couldn't let me go, could you?

[–] DocEmmettBrown 16 years ago

See now I loved No Country For Old Men.
It would be boring if we were all the same I suppose.

--------------------------------
"Why are you wearing that stupid man suit?"

[–] mmattagirl 16 years ago

My thoughts on Gerry? I could kiss the guy who invented fast forward and Tivo!!

[–] polysicsarebest 15 years ago

Americans have short attention spans. I love to look at beautiful imagery. Some of my favorite films ever are Koyannisqatsi and a Scene at the Sea. This film is great.

[–] TheSonomaDude 11 years ago

Americans have short attention spans. I love to look at beautiful imagery. Some of my favorite films ever are Koyannisqatsi and a Scene at the Sea. This film is great.

I am not an American. In fact, English is not even my first language, yet I found this "film" to be one of the most pretentious, uninteresting, boring snoozefests to ever grace the silver screen. You know what else is funny? I love hiking. I live in an isolated location in which you will only find about 400 people in a 25 mile circumference, and I love exploring areas that, for all I know, have never been laid on by human eyes. I find nature to be quite beautiful and breathtaking, but the only think that this movie took from me was my time. Yes, the cinematography is fantastic, but this film is just a complete waste. If I really wanted to watch two guys walk around a desolated area without dialog for 16 minutes, I would just grab a friend and film ourselves in my backyard. Hell, I'm not sure if even I'd watch that.

The only thing I remember about celestial Spider-Man is that he's...celestial. - Bruce Campbell

[–] Nightworks89 15 years ago

Honestly I really didn't see any deeper meanings in the movie. I just like this movie because sometimes it's kind of... well... boring. Which is nice when I'm in the right mood. :)
Plus, I watched Gerry for the first time right after watching 'Indiana Jones: Kingdom of the Crystal Skull' which makes ANY movie look like Oscar material. XD

[–] rexcass2185 15 years ago

extending the viewer tolorance for single shots and asking them the to suspend there need for constant movement is one thing. But Van Sant takes these idea to absurd lengths in this film to make you feel as if you are traped in the desert with them. This film was at times compelling and dramatic and even beautiful, but that was never when Van Sant was producing an amature national geografic special filed with what looked like stock stop motion shot. This movie wasn't good because it took the viewer out of the picture and just had me screeming for the screen to change. Nature is not somthing to experince on film, while I could sit and look at a mountain for hours and contemplate the meaning of life in reality, I cannot do the same at 2 in the morning in my dark room on my small TV, and I doubt I would have been able to do it in a movie theater either. All in all this movie was a self indulgent waste of time but this film looks like a Stallone movie compared to Van Sant's next film Last Day witch was the apitome of pointlessness.

Evolution is a fact, not a theory. - Carl Sagan

[–] fred-m-stabs 15 years ago

how could you like this film?

I didn't love it, but liked it a little for the following reasons:
1) It had beautiful visuals
2) It was something different from 99.9% of all other movies, which are nothing more than re-packaged forumlas.

[–] rexcass2185 15 years ago

1. yea but, this is a "movie" things need to "move" to keep things interestingy, I could have gottent the same effect from a photo gallary of the American South West.
2. Differnt dosn't nessesarily mean good, in fact most of the time the out come is the oposite.

Evolution is a fact, not a theory. - Carl Sagan

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] rexcass2185 15 years ago

I understand what your saying benulis, but the problem I have with this movie is that even before we are lost in the dessert with no hope Van Sant never tells us why these two are out there to begin with. They whent on a hike is the best explination they give but they don't even bother to take any water? And the too guys don't even act like they like each other, they don't talk about anything in the first half hour short of Aflec says somthing about a thing they were going to see and then they deside to go back saying screw the thing, but besides that nothing at all. The longest monolouge in the movie is about some video game Aflec has ben playing and besides that we get no real characterization. I didn't feel bad for those character because I didn't feel like they were charcaters beside the basic two random guys stuck in a dessert senario. Maybe that annaminity and the everyman or anyman this could happen to is what Van Sant was going for but ultimetly it just left me feeling like why the heck am I watching this movie. All I am really saying is a litte bit of dialouge in the begining would have helped and really balanced out well with the silance of the end.

Evolution is a fact, not a theory. - Carl Sagan

[–] bicker371 15 years ago

I'll give you my opinion in one simple, self-explanatory word: BORING.

[–] Salads 15 years ago

I really liked the film, and I think that's because I was completely prepared for the experience and knew exactly what I was getting into. I expected it to be severely minimalist, and watched it in a frame of mind when I knew I would be able to more or less appreciate that.
I'm not sure about any deeper meaning. I thought it was going to be two guys lost in a desert, and that's what I got.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]