The LEGO Movie 2: The Second Part
The Walking Dead
Log in with Facebook
Forgot your password?
Don't have an account? Sign up here
and the Terms and Policies,
and to receive email from Rotten Tomatoes and Fandango.
Already have an account? Log in here
Please enter your email address and we will email you a new password.
We want to hear what you have to say but need to verify your account. Just leave us a message here and we will work on getting you verified.
Please reference “Error Code 2121” when contacting customer service.
The type of uncompromising film that divides filmgoers over whether it is profound or pretentious.
All Critics (99)
| Top Critics (30)
| Fresh (60)
| Rotten (39)
| DVD (10)
The two stars...[Casey Affleck and Matt Damon]...both playing characters named Gerry, wander across the desert for some reason, and if you enjoy watching them on any pretext, you'll probably enjoy this; if you don't, you won't.
If you can get lost along with it, Van Sant's Gerry is actually anything but empty: At times it's tonically liberating.
Fascinating, even if perversely so, and quite beautiful.
If nothing else, Gerry is restful, though I'm not sure that counts as a recommendation.
Now we know what happens when director Gus Van Sant gets bored. He makes us bored.
There's a purity of purpose in Gerry -- a clean, unwavering focus -- that makes the movie feel strangely exhilarating, even when nothing is happening on the screen.
A difficult, demanding sit, but it wouldn't have been nearly as fascinating and rewarding a film if it weren't.
Gerry, in all ways, is a film geek film. Not for mass consumption, perhaps, but nonetheless a potent expression for those that like this sort of thing.
Likely to sharply divide critics, Gerry goes back to his indie roots with a minimalist work that carries itself almost entirely through the awesome yet austere visuals and sounds.
Absolutely transfixing at one moment and unbearably boring the next.
Although the images from the film are poetic and are more fondly recalled in hindsight, in this case art film for art film's sake doesn't fly very high.
Hiking for Godot: Van Sant's existential Blair Witch Project's daemon lurks within.
This is a very artistic venture for all the cast and filmmaker. The film is beautiful to look at and is near silent from beginning to end. You can forgive mainstream audiences for ignoring this gem, in the midst of all the Hollywood films Damon made in this period, this was an insanely odd choice. I enjoyed the journey and while certain parts were funny, it is not a comedy in any sense of the word. That ending was a shock and catapulted this film into something much more sombre and personal. The soft music and that final shot will leave you with a lasting image that is not easily forgotten. Sant transcends indie cinema here, you must thank the stars for assisting with the vision, truly unique. My only real issue was the lack of character interaction, the film floats a lot which leaves the audience confused or bored. I enjoyed the film and maybe with another viewing might elevate this to a higher rating, fantastic indie cinema and must see for people annoyed with the usual blockbuster fanfare. This is just like a good literature book. 05-07-2017.
It's the adventures of Gerry and Gerry, which sounds either like a cop show title or the title to something about gay guys, although I might just be saying that because this film is directed by Gus Van Sant and is about the bond of two decent-looking men, so it just has to turn into "Brokeback Mountain" after a while. Seriously though, this is more like the continuing adventures of Will Hunting, for those interested in seeing more of Morgan O'Mally... you know, the guy in "Good Will Hunting" who was played by Casey Affleck... who was, you know, in "Good Will Hunting". Jokes about who the more notorious brother is, I'd say that Matt Damon must be disappointed about working with Casey after Ben, but while this film was being made during Damon's and Casey's coming down from the high of "Ocean's Thirteen", Ben was on the high from "Pearl Harbor". ...Yeah, okay, fine, I am that jerk who liked "Pearl Harbor", and, well, I'd imagine some people would agree with me there if they were having to compare that film to this one. This thing is so abstract that it's soundtrack only features compositions by Arvo Pärt, and if you don't know who that is, well, you're kind of missing out. Well, maybe his tintinnabuli chants would get a little dull and monotonous after a while, but no more than the aimless ramblings featured in this film, some of whose more exciting moments actually rest within the ramblings. Okay, maybe this film isn't that tedious, let alone as tedious as the Béla Tarr films that reportedly influenced it, partly because it's five hours shorter, and partly because it has its strengths to sort of get it by.
I talk up the usage of minimalist masterpieces by Arvo Pärt, but they're underused in this predominantly startlingly quiet film, some of whose highlights are, in fact, anchored by the tender and fittingly artistically sound pieces by Pärt, which are still not nearly as recurrently effective as cinematography by Harris Savides that, while never too playful with coloration and lighting, portray the film's lavish rocky desert trail environment with near-impeccable scope that is often truly immersive. There's more immersion value to style than substance, as irony would have it, and if substance is immersive, then credit is due to Gus Van Sant, who is generally misguided and, for that matter, under-assured in his experimental storytelling, yet has his share of moments in which thoughtfulness bonds with the style and even some writing highlights to create genuine heights in tension and drama. These highlights are very few and far between, but I suppose they're there, because no matter how sloppy Van Sant is as an artistic director, he has always been a fairly talented dramatic, and make no mistake, there is some dramatic potential to explore here. It's thin to begin with, considering the lack of dynamicity to the narrative, and what meat there is goes challenged by a questionable interpretation, and yet, on paper, this study on a friendship's collapse in the face of danger, inspired by the story of David Coughlin and Raffi Kodikian, has quite a bit of thematic intrigue and dramatic potential, occasionally done justice by storytelling, and frequently done justice by the performers. Minimalism holds back the talented lead duo of Matt Damon and Casey Affleck, and at the same time, it gives the performers an opportunity to showcase naturalist acting that is more immersive than the generally distancing naturalist storytelling, aided by a hint of chemistry, and broken up by some solid dramatic range that carries what highlights there are in this tedious drama. It's mostly blandness' being too great for the final product to descend from mediocrity that keeps contemptibility at bay, make no mistake, but strengths stand, carrying enough aesthetic and dramatic value to help save the final product the final product with glimpses into decency. Of course, while the film is saved from contemptibility, it cannot achieve the decency of the occasional highlights on the whole, ultimately falling flat as an overblown artistic endeavor and thoroughly underwhelming character drama that doesn't even flesh out its characters enough to draw all that much on the human drama.
I wouldn't so much say that the film is lacking in development as much as I would say that it is without development, going so far as to not even give you the courtesy of defining the title as a coincidental mutual name for Matt Damon's and Casey Affleck's character or a mere slang nickname, let alone putting all that much effort into immediate development or gradual expository depth. As hard as Damon and Affleck work to and are often successful as crafting reasonably interesting characters, it's just so hard to get invested in these leads through all the placements of overblown artistry over genuine substance, even though what characterization there is ought to be familiar enough for you to figure out who these characters are and what the story holds for them. The film tries to be unique, like so very many of its nature, yet, as irony would have it, that struggle to freshen things up gets to be formulaic, leaving you to pick up on tropes in the paper-thin narrative through the tropes in artistic experimentation that is aggravating enough when it's not too recognizable for the film's own good. Indeed, people, as I've lead you to believe, what really does a number on this film is simply questionable stylization that expends substance for style which isn't even as nifty as, say, abstract visuals or overtly high technical artistry, being comprised of challengingly overlong shots, naturalist visuals and long periods, not filler, but of nothing, whose joining an emptiness in expository depth results in an aimlessness that grows more and more biting until it the film can only be seen as plotless, plain and simple. Well, considering that there is something of a conflict, there are plot points, but they're just so sparse, and between them is simply nothing but dragging, and I would find that so much easier to get past if the film wasn't also quiet, featuring only a few overdrawn dialogue pieces amidst cold, silent dry spells that range from simply bland to punishingly tedious sooner than effectively immersive. While Gus Van Sant's talent as a traditional dramatic director does, in fact, lead the film to dramatic highlights, the final product is generally boring something just about awful, and some can take that better than I can, as surely as many can take that worse than I can, unable to be patient enough with the challengingly misguided art opus to find a certain charm to artistic ambition. Well, in all fairness, there are times in which the ambition descends either to pretense or a sense of unassurance, because, as I said, Van Sant is not used to projects of this nature, and when he's not getting carried away with his artistic license, he doesn't seem to know what to do, and while that makes for a film to bland to be bad, the final product falls flat as a borderline disaster, and ultimately as a mediocre misfire.
When the trail ends, the final product is pushed on by a haunting soundtrack and cinematography, some highlights in dramatic directorial storytelling, and an altogether interesting story concept, carried by Matt Damon's and Casey Affleck's effective naturalist performances, but ultimately overpowered by the lack of development and plotting and familiarity to already questionable storytelling stylization which goes backed by punishingly limp pacing and some sense of either pretense or unassurance that make Gus Van Sant's "Gerry", not contemptible, but tedious as a mediocrely misguided experimentation with a generally well-versed dramatic filmmaker's artistic license.
2/5 - Weak
An incredibly unique viewing experience, Gerry really puts you into the mindset of the characters. It feels like you're slowly but surely losing your mind and desperately trying to find your way out of a maze. The shooting style is incredible, simplistic yet beautiful. I love Gus Van Sant's vision mixed with video, it just seems to work perfectly. Matt Damon and Casey Affleck give about as good of performances as you could ask for, which is essential in a film where they are the main focus.
Add me to the "you don't get it" group because I realy fail to uderstand the brilliance of seeing two people just walking throughout the whole movie, Intellectual? Realistic? Not really, Gus Van Sant has proved that he can make great memorable movies like My Own Private Idaho but it seems that he's chosen not to
There are no approved quotes yet for this movie.