"Gerry" (2002), directed by Gus Van Sant, who previously made "Good Will Hunting" and "Elephant," features Matt Damon and Casey Affleck as two friends lost in a desert setting. The entire movie follows them as they wander through expansive, arid landscapes attempting to find their way out. As an engaging film experience, “Gerry” is without question a complete letdown. I say that directly because I consider a good film to be one that simply holds your attention; if it fails to do so—if it bores you, distracts you, or makes you sleepy—then it’s not a successful movie. Despite this, there are several reasons why "Gerry" might still be considered worthwhile: First off, it's genuinely funny. While the film presents itself as a serious narrative and isn’t intended to be comedic, I found myself laughing quite a bit. The reason for this is unclear; perhaps it’s just hard to believe someone would spend $3.5 million on something like this and expect people to enjoy it (at least beyond those with artistic pretenses). There are also several unintentionally humorous moments, such as the excessively long crunching sound scene. It's also ideal for pranking someone. You could enthusiastically recommend "Gerry" to a friend or family member, then sit back and wait for their inevitable negative reaction—something like “This movie is terrible.” In most cases, it will only take between 15 and 20 minutes to elicit that response, although it might take longer if the person has romantic feelings for you and doesn’t want to hurt your feelings. If you appreciate beautiful scenery, particularly desert landscapes filmed in America (Utah & Southern California) and Argentina, then "Gerry" is a decent choice for relaxing. It's especially good when you don't feel like thinking too much. The background music with piano and violin helps create a calming atmosphere. It’s also an effective sleep aid. Seriously, if you have trouble falling asleep, putting on “Gerry” should do the trick. I was already feeling drowsy after just 20 minutes the first time I watched it, though I managed to stay awake for about half an hour. Because of this, it took me four separate viewings to finish the movie—and yes, each time it lulled me to sleep. The film is called "Gerry" because the two characters constantly refer to each other by that name, which seems to be a friendly nickname meaning “loser” or “screw-up.” Even though I find the film itself tedious, I do enjoy discussing its possible meanings—for example, whether it represents life as a desert and the need for your impulsive side to disappear in order for you to survive. The character played by Affleck really embodies the name "Gerry." You have to listen very carefully when he speaks because he tends to mumble his lines (which aren't numerous anyway). BOTTOM LINE: Despite being an abysmal failure as a captivating film, “Gerry” has value for the reasons mentioned above, and it’s interesting to try and interpret. This leads me to give it a 2-Star rating. I suppose "Gerry" can be respected for boldly rejecting every cinematic convention, but that feels more baffling than impressive. Which makes me wonder: Could Gus Van Sant be playing us all? Are we all “Gerrys” because we fell for it! The film runs for 1 hour and 43 minutes, which is at least an hour too long. Several scenes are stretched out to about ten times their necessary length; I wish I were joking. They’re ridiculous. GRADE: D-

Source on TMDB