I saw this movie and hated about 99% of it. After I found out it cost $54,000,000 to make, I started to hate the other 1%. If this is considered a love story between Lopez and Affleck, may I ask...where was the love? A sex scene with no nudity, no passion, and no sound....why? Supporting characters like Christopher Walken and others were introduced and went no where...why? The story alone peeks when Pacino arrives and shoots one of the cast members. From there, i was hoping that Pacino had finished the job and killed the rest of the cast. If that happened, the movie would have been good. Instead, the movie drags and drags and drags. The audience is not going to care if the actors in the movie learn something or progress if they don't care about the characters. Lopez and Affleck's characters do not exist! Much like the ugly tattoos on Affleck's shoulder, the movie was not fun to look at. In my opinion, and I do not think I am wrong, if Lopez had a small nude scene and / or the movie was done as an independent film for under 2 or 3 million, Gigli would have been a giant success. Instead, we are left to wonder....why?
446 Reviews
While not the literal worst movie of all time, it's undeniable that this should be much better
Jeremy_Urquhart24 April 2022
Maybe one of the most notorious flops of the 21st century so far, Gigli is a movie I finally watched, and did so right after watching another famous "bad" movie from 2003, The Room.
The Room might have too many problems to keep track of them all, but it's a thoroughly engaging and funny watch, when you watch it at an interactive screening (as I've done about 10 times now). Gigli just doesn't have the magic that The Room does. For the most part, it's bad because almost all of its comedy flops, and it's just a weirdly lifeless, boring movie...
...with a couple of exceptions, thanks to Christopher Walken and Al Pacino. They're both in the movie briefly for some reason, but each being an energy that's kind of compelling and fun. Walken especially might be the one thing preventing this from being truly irredeemable.
I think it really has the reputation it does because of the talent involved, and the careers it sank, because reading about this on paper, you'd expect better. Beyond the cast, Martin Brest has made some very good films, particularly comparable crime-comedies like Beverley Hills Cop, Midnight Run, and the original/excellent/underrated Going In Style. Since Gigli's release in 2003, Brest hasn't made another movie, which is a shame. Unless of course he made a personal choice to retire from filmmaking, the idea that one bad movie should make you a filmmaking outcast isn't really fair.
Anyway, watch the Walken and/or Pacino scenes on YouTube. Miss the rest. It's pretty dull and tedious, and probably has about 25 minutes of plot spread across two hours, and it's not even like the characters are enjoyable or likeable either.
The Room might have too many problems to keep track of them all, but it's a thoroughly engaging and funny watch, when you watch it at an interactive screening (as I've done about 10 times now). Gigli just doesn't have the magic that The Room does. For the most part, it's bad because almost all of its comedy flops, and it's just a weirdly lifeless, boring movie...
...with a couple of exceptions, thanks to Christopher Walken and Al Pacino. They're both in the movie briefly for some reason, but each being an energy that's kind of compelling and fun. Walken especially might be the one thing preventing this from being truly irredeemable.
I think it really has the reputation it does because of the talent involved, and the careers it sank, because reading about this on paper, you'd expect better. Beyond the cast, Martin Brest has made some very good films, particularly comparable crime-comedies like Beverley Hills Cop, Midnight Run, and the original/excellent/underrated Going In Style. Since Gigli's release in 2003, Brest hasn't made another movie, which is a shame. Unless of course he made a personal choice to retire from filmmaking, the idea that one bad movie should make you a filmmaking outcast isn't really fair.
Anyway, watch the Walken and/or Pacino scenes on YouTube. Miss the rest. It's pretty dull and tedious, and probably has about 25 minutes of plot spread across two hours, and it's not even like the characters are enjoyable or likeable either.
Low-budget feel, but not a total disaster
Fpi7 February 2007
What struck me first here was the overall low-budget feel. A lot of things, such as the lighting and perhaps the editing, seem slightly amateurish, and if they tried making a standard Hollywood blockbuster, they failed miserably. However, those who have seen and appreciated independent movies before will probably not be too appalled by this.
The script is quite strange, but mainly this is actually a good thing. I thought the non-standard humorous parts were funny and rather intelligent, particularly a scene with an extremely odd police officer, played by Christopher Walken. The quirky script makes the story progress very slowly, however, with the risk of boredom - but the unpredictable nature of the film added a bit to the suspense. Perhaps also aided by the decent soundtrack, I was able to connect with the characters. I thought the movie was fair enough.
Ben Affleck's character is an awkward and pathetic type, and I guess this gives a risk that such a flawed movie itself will have an overall awkward feel. It does, but not to a gigantic and ridiculous degree. The acting is never superb, but really not astonishingly bad either. Worse things happen at sea. The chemistry between Affleck and Lopez is very poor, but that sort of adds to the story. If you're looking for a turkey, this movie will probably disappoint you. I've seen far, far, far worse.
The script is quite strange, but mainly this is actually a good thing. I thought the non-standard humorous parts were funny and rather intelligent, particularly a scene with an extremely odd police officer, played by Christopher Walken. The quirky script makes the story progress very slowly, however, with the risk of boredom - but the unpredictable nature of the film added a bit to the suspense. Perhaps also aided by the decent soundtrack, I was able to connect with the characters. I thought the movie was fair enough.
Ben Affleck's character is an awkward and pathetic type, and I guess this gives a risk that such a flawed movie itself will have an overall awkward feel. It does, but not to a gigantic and ridiculous degree. The acting is never superb, but really not astonishingly bad either. Worse things happen at sea. The chemistry between Affleck and Lopez is very poor, but that sort of adds to the story. If you're looking for a turkey, this movie will probably disappoint you. I've seen far, far, far worse.
I lost two hours of my life.
lindzeyhh23 June 2016
Things I would rather do than watch this movie ever again:
1.) Smash my head on a boulder. 2.) Lick a gas station toilet seat.
3.) Be attacked by a zombie. 4.) Send my paycheck to a Nigerian "prince" I met online. 5.) Make out with a chicken's butthole. 6.) Give myself a non-medicated root canal. 7.) Face off with a T-rex. 8.) Bathe with buffalo diarrhea. 9.) Swim in an active volcano. 10.) Eat aforementioned buffalo diarrhea.
It's long. It's horrible. Just. Don't. Gosh dang it, I have to add more stuff because I have to add at least 10 lines of text. Hmmm.... TWO AND A HALF FREAKING HOURS WASTED! OH the things I could have accomplished. But no... It was wasted on this horrible, awful, insulting, narcissistic-filled piece of crap. J-Lo is a lesbian in the beginning, but of course, Ben Asshat "turns" her straight. GTFO here, Ben. Did they really have to go there? Really... I am going to leave it at that. This film has taken enough of my time, and by typing this review, I am just reliving the garbage memories.
1.) Smash my head on a boulder. 2.) Lick a gas station toilet seat.
3.) Be attacked by a zombie. 4.) Send my paycheck to a Nigerian "prince" I met online. 5.) Make out with a chicken's butthole. 6.) Give myself a non-medicated root canal. 7.) Face off with a T-rex. 8.) Bathe with buffalo diarrhea. 9.) Swim in an active volcano. 10.) Eat aforementioned buffalo diarrhea.
It's long. It's horrible. Just. Don't. Gosh dang it, I have to add more stuff because I have to add at least 10 lines of text. Hmmm.... TWO AND A HALF FREAKING HOURS WASTED! OH the things I could have accomplished. But no... It was wasted on this horrible, awful, insulting, narcissistic-filled piece of crap. J-Lo is a lesbian in the beginning, but of course, Ben Asshat "turns" her straight. GTFO here, Ben. Did they really have to go there? Really... I am going to leave it at that. This film has taken enough of my time, and by typing this review, I am just reliving the garbage memories.
Critics, we owe you an apology
gregsrants18 January 2004
`Awful', `Hopeless', `Terrible', `Benifer's Gate'.
These are the words I read from some of North America's most respected film critics in my research before viewing the debacle Gigli starring Ben Affleck and Jennifer Lopez. At first, I wondered aloud 'how bad can it be'. After all, how often does the common public agree with the harsh words of a critic. Besides, Pacino and Walken in the same film should be enough to generate even one star out of even the sternest critic, right. Right?
Gigli is about two unbelievable gangsters who are assigned the task of kidnapping and watching over a prosecutors mentally challenged brother while also keeping an open eye on each other to ensure the success of the operation. Ben plays Gigli, an accent challenged goon who is as believable as Madonna in a nuns uniform, and Jennifer plays Ricky, a lesbian gangster who is primarily hired to ensure that Gigli doesn't screw things up.
Along the way, plenty of bit characters and ridiculous side plots stymie the progress of the mission. Ricky has an ex-lover show up at the house and attempt suicide, the gangsters ask for the thumb of the prisoner sent to the prosecutor, Gigli has to rush to his mothers house and learns that good ole ma knows all about lesbians and throughout the film we are constantly annoyed by conversations between Gigli and his crime boss, Lenny over the phone. I could go on, but what's the point.
Gigli was one of the worst reviewed films of 2003. So I began to wonder why this film in particular ended up on everyone's poop list even though there were plenty of worse films people were throwing good money at (Boat Trip, Bad Boys II, Masked and Anonymous). The answer became pretty obvious. Nothing was expected of these other entries, but Gigli had the star power of the two most talked about celebrities in Tinseltown. Throw in director Martin Brest who has had incredible success with Scent of a Woman, Midnight Run and Beverley Hills Cop, and sprinkle in the veteran a-list power of Christopher Walken and Al Pacino. With a recipe as rich as these ingredients suggest, one's expectations are set to a higher standard. Gigli simply does not deliver the goods. The dialogue is so laughable that you expect this film to have midnight showings a la Rocky Horror Picture Show in the next ten years, and the characters are so eccentrically hysterical that you can't help but cringe in your seat in embarrassment for all those involved.
So now back to the critics. We, owe you an apology. Most of the year, we read your reviews and chastise your opinions, but every once and a while, a consensus amongst your peers keeps us from going in mass and spending our hard earned dollars on crap like this. A $6 million dollar domestic take for Gigli is an example of the power that you possess, and for that, I will keep reading.
These are the words I read from some of North America's most respected film critics in my research before viewing the debacle Gigli starring Ben Affleck and Jennifer Lopez. At first, I wondered aloud 'how bad can it be'. After all, how often does the common public agree with the harsh words of a critic. Besides, Pacino and Walken in the same film should be enough to generate even one star out of even the sternest critic, right. Right?
Gigli is about two unbelievable gangsters who are assigned the task of kidnapping and watching over a prosecutors mentally challenged brother while also keeping an open eye on each other to ensure the success of the operation. Ben plays Gigli, an accent challenged goon who is as believable as Madonna in a nuns uniform, and Jennifer plays Ricky, a lesbian gangster who is primarily hired to ensure that Gigli doesn't screw things up.
Along the way, plenty of bit characters and ridiculous side plots stymie the progress of the mission. Ricky has an ex-lover show up at the house and attempt suicide, the gangsters ask for the thumb of the prisoner sent to the prosecutor, Gigli has to rush to his mothers house and learns that good ole ma knows all about lesbians and throughout the film we are constantly annoyed by conversations between Gigli and his crime boss, Lenny over the phone. I could go on, but what's the point.
Gigli was one of the worst reviewed films of 2003. So I began to wonder why this film in particular ended up on everyone's poop list even though there were plenty of worse films people were throwing good money at (Boat Trip, Bad Boys II, Masked and Anonymous). The answer became pretty obvious. Nothing was expected of these other entries, but Gigli had the star power of the two most talked about celebrities in Tinseltown. Throw in director Martin Brest who has had incredible success with Scent of a Woman, Midnight Run and Beverley Hills Cop, and sprinkle in the veteran a-list power of Christopher Walken and Al Pacino. With a recipe as rich as these ingredients suggest, one's expectations are set to a higher standard. Gigli simply does not deliver the goods. The dialogue is so laughable that you expect this film to have midnight showings a la Rocky Horror Picture Show in the next ten years, and the characters are so eccentrically hysterical that you can't help but cringe in your seat in embarrassment for all those involved.
So now back to the critics. We, owe you an apology. Most of the year, we read your reviews and chastise your opinions, but every once and a while, a consensus amongst your peers keeps us from going in mass and spending our hard earned dollars on crap like this. A $6 million dollar domestic take for Gigli is an example of the power that you possess, and for that, I will keep reading.
Those Five dollars could've got me some chicken McNuggets!!!!
robojesus7776 August 2003
I could've went to McDonald's with my five buck and gotten something to eat but INSTEAD I went and saw the new J-lo/ Ben Affleck puke bonanza titled; Gigli. God, I'm an IDIOT!!! The first ten minutes weren't so bad but then I realized I was in "Finding Nemo". When I made my way to the right theater- I was horrifed!This was Gigli? A J-Lo movie ALL ABOUT J-LO- Well I never! Anywho- there's only too things worse then this movie: 1, Burning to death and 2, burning to death while watching "Gigli"
for A movie titled "Gigli" -- I never laughed once! Total rip off! Horrible! I give it 4 stars **** ...out of 240!
for A movie titled "Gigli" -- I never laughed once! Total rip off! Horrible! I give it 4 stars **** ...out of 240!
Rhymes with 'Really'. As in Really Bad.
bigboybhatia7 June 2004
I borrowed my friend's Gigli DVD to see if the movie was really as bad as the ratings and other comments here will indicate. The answer is yes. When the film first came out, it rocketed to number 1 on the bottom 100 list. That ranking was undeserved, as the movie does have decent technical aspects (editing, sound) relative to Manos and Future War. Its good to see Gigli settling a little further down the list. From the outset, I could tell the dialog was just horrible. It was unfunny 90% of the time, and contained useless overlong scenes. One example was the whole 'pleasing a woman' sequence where Lopez was doing Yoga on a mat while talking with Affleck. Just horrible. Jennifer Lopez has to win the award for most painfully miscast actress. She is totally unbelievable as a Lesbian girl gangster. She failed to convince me that she had ever broken the law in the past. 'I did some really bad things' -- yeah right. I would avoid this like the plague. 1/10
You must never see it.
David_Frames25 May 2005
Smug and a self-adorned cine-sophisticate, I rented out Gigli with a friend ready to scrutinise it with the benefit of my enlightened view of film. It was going to be an hilarious two hours. I'd settled down in a very comfy armchair and had poured a glass of some Austrian glug. I couldn't wait to laugh at the stupid dialogue and that ridiculous script but the joke was on us because Gigli transcends the established limit of effective urine stealing. This is because its simply so horrible that you can forget trying to make yourself look intelligent and media literate by ripping the bladder evacuate because the scale of misguided conception baffles the mind and eventually shuts it down. It's like being hit by a sack full of bricks in the face for a full 114 minutes. There's a teasing little scene with J-Lo early on when she tells a bunch of unruly kids that there's a martial arts move that can gouge out the eyes and simultaneously destroy the visual cortex meaning that not only are you rendered blind but you'll never be able to remember anything you've seen. For the Gigli viewer this is like showing Charlie and the Chocolate Factory to a hall packed with diabetics. You're left to ponder the short term agony weighed up against the long term benefit as Martin Brest's story unfolds with the principle characters of a unlikeable, emotionally and sexually retarded thug with a soft centre (a fat Affleck), a lesbian who isn't really a lesbian because you can be converted to heterosexuality by an emotionally and sexually retarded thug and an actually retarded man who was probably supposed to be a Rainman-type character who redeems Affleck's arrogant meathead but is in fact a cringe inducing, self-harm facilitating caricature of the mentally handicapped. Look, many movies look good on paper and suffer from poor execution but what's head scratching about Gigli is that it's as dire on the page as it is on screen. Broadly it's supposed to be a romantic comedy, sort of Out of Sight meets Rainman meets Whats New Pussycat? but it's stillborn as a criminal caper, devoid of anything approaching sensitivity and has some of the worst battle of the sexes banter that ever crawled onto the screen. Brest, who directed the dire 16 hour remake of Meet John Doe, Meet Joe Black, shows that when it comes to misjudging material he's peerless. His crimes here are compounded by the fact that this is his own script. That script, incidentally is a roll call of on screen horror. Witness, if you can, the Penis Vs. Vagina scene in which Affleck argues the case for the male genitals or the tear jerking moment in which the soft hearted Affleck, having given the Mentally Handicapped Brian relationship advice, looks on like a proud father as his new friends woos an Australian bombshell during the filming of a Baywatch beach party. You'll envy the man who gets his brains blown out and eaten by goldfish or the horrendous girlfriend of J-Lo, who having realised which film she's in, slits her wrists...stupidly, the wrong way. Once its all over and you sit there open mouthed you're left to (briefly) ponder why Brest did it. Did the kidnapped brother have to be disabled? Surely there must have been a more effective way of facilitating Affleck's transition from idiot to slightly more compassionate idiot? Did J-Lo have to be a Lesbian? Sure, Affleck has to have some obstacles toward getting the girl and we all like a bit of sexual tension but gay viewers must have been flabbergasted that a man who describes men and women as "the bull and the cow" and does lovable things like warmly looking vacuous and endearingly been obnoxious should persuade a woman to er, "hop over the fence". And even if Brest was blinded by his own vanity what in the name of Beverly Hills Cop persuaded Christopher Walken and Al Pacino to cameo? None of it makes any sense. The bottle of wine I had with the film was good though but by the time I regained consciousness the bit left in the bottle was undrinkable.
A Flat, Lifeless Lump of a Movie
CTS-13 January 2005
Warning: Spoilers
A truly cynical person might think that the whole J-Lo/ Ben Affleck relationship was a publicity stunt designed to help this movie along. After all, if a couple was in the midst of a passionate affair, it is reasonable to expect some on-screen chemistry between then, right? That kind of chemistry is sadly lacking in the J-Lo/ Affleck interactions.
Ms. Lopez appears to be either in over her head as far as acting ability, or realized that she was in a "take the money and run" failure; I did not buy her as the character she was supposed to be. Affleck was just leaden, although he had nothing to work with in terms of character or dialogue. He has not always been bad (I liked "Chasing Amy"), but here, his scenes crawl along at a painfully slow pace. The "retarded kid" (and that is all he deserves to be called) is playing a high-school play version of "Rain Man" with all the annoyance but none of the nuance, complexity, or charm. The less seen, the better. Forgettable cameos top the mess.
The worst thing about Gigli is the endings. Imagine a painfully bad film, where you want to sit it through to the end, just because of all the pain and suffering it has put you through ("this film is NOT going to defeat me"). You get to the end. Then, there is another ending. Then, another ending; then, an ending involving the retarded kid. Then, an ending not involving the retarded kid. Then another... You get to a point where you sincerely believe that the editor should be forbidden from ever working in film again. Along with the director and the choad who did the bizarrely inappropriate music, as well.
The colorful, in-your-face awfulness of "From Justin to Kelly" was a picnic compared to the leaden, meandering awfulness of "Gigli." And, to think of how much this film cost, for so little...
Ms. Lopez appears to be either in over her head as far as acting ability, or realized that she was in a "take the money and run" failure; I did not buy her as the character she was supposed to be. Affleck was just leaden, although he had nothing to work with in terms of character or dialogue. He has not always been bad (I liked "Chasing Amy"), but here, his scenes crawl along at a painfully slow pace. The "retarded kid" (and that is all he deserves to be called) is playing a high-school play version of "Rain Man" with all the annoyance but none of the nuance, complexity, or charm. The less seen, the better. Forgettable cameos top the mess.
The worst thing about Gigli is the endings. Imagine a painfully bad film, where you want to sit it through to the end, just because of all the pain and suffering it has put you through ("this film is NOT going to defeat me"). You get to the end. Then, there is another ending. Then, another ending; then, an ending involving the retarded kid. Then, an ending not involving the retarded kid. Then another... You get to a point where you sincerely believe that the editor should be forbidden from ever working in film again. Along with the director and the choad who did the bizarrely inappropriate music, as well.
The colorful, in-your-face awfulness of "From Justin to Kelly" was a picnic compared to the leaden, meandering awfulness of "Gigli." And, to think of how much this film cost, for so little...
Suffered from Ben and J-Lo backlash and isn't as bad as many say, but is still an ill-formed, poorly judged shambles
bob the moo15 February 2004
Larry Gigli is a hired thug for the mob in LA. When he is put on a job to kidnap the brother of the Federal DA, he takes the mentally handicapped Brian to his flat with the intention of the DA dropping charges against his boss. Later he is joined by another contractor, Ricki, who Louis has put with him to make sure he doesn't f**k the job up. His amorous approaches towards her are rejected when she tells him she is a lesbian, but the two have bigger problems with the job itself.
I rented this film because I had read all the harsh reviews, both professional and on this site, that just ripped into it and seemed to have more personal vendettas against the stars rather than objective points to make about the film. With this in mind I decided that I would have to check it out myself; I have no personal feelings about Lopez and Affleck - their relationship is not something I have had rammed down my throat as I don't read the gossips mags and my paper of choice is the Times, where they get rather limited coverage. Without this fatigue I was able to view the film as it came to me rather than seething with cruel and clever put downs even before the film started (as some critics clearly did).
However, the critics were mostly right, even if they overreacted to the extreme. The film starts reasonably well and you can see the potential, or at least you can see what they were thinking when the film was being put together. Sadly, as the film continues, the thin strands holding it together are slowly unravelling until almost nothing is left of value. Some of it works well; how many times have the audience embraced a comic crime caper with hit men in the lead roles? Here the film does have some of that type of humour (particularly in the jokes about Gigli's masculinity) but the music used to set the tone begins to grate after a while because there is nothing to support it, and everything else is flawed.
The main plot is so very full of holes and stupid plot devices that it is difficult to be involved by it. For a crime comedy, the plot doesn't need to be perfect - but it needs to be good enough so that it doesn't take away from the film, here it is so weak that it damages the film at it's core. The other side of the plot is the romance, and it is absurd! I'm sure if I were a lesbian that I would be offended by the `I'll turn her' approach of the film, but I'm not so I'll leave that for others to debate. However the romance between the two is unrealistic and uninvolving, the lesbian thing just makes it worse.
The characters themselves are poor. Neither Gigli or Ricki ever seem like killers - in fact even a hint of violence and they look terrified and out of their depth. His personality seems to change to whatever the scene requires (one moment impatient, the next sensitive, the next angry) while Ricki is just sweetness and light. Affleck and Lopez must take almost all the blame for this, their performances are as misjudged and lacking as the script. Affleck is actually not that bad - he is willing to send himself up, it is the jumping script that makes him appear to be all over the place. Lopez is awful; someone who has done this crime comedy style movie before should have been much better but she acts like she is in a simpering rom-com. What is surprising is just how little chemistry the two have considering they are a couple now; they just don't do the job at all.
Bartha gives a dumb Rain Man impression to the point where I kept expecting him to say `I'm an excellent driver'. His character is just a joke and I even wished for Lopez to come onto the screen whenever he was on - at least I could just stare at her body and ignore him! The two main cameos are actually very good but unfortunately serve to show up the rest of the film. Walken is good but his character appears and disappears without reason, Pacino is much better simply because he does his menacing `woo-ha' thing and is very effective.
Overall this is not the `worst film ever made', those who tell you that have clearly have a limited viewing experience; many of the reviews were made harsher by the back lash against the whole Bennifer thing. However that's not to say they are wrong - only overly harsh. The film is poorly judged in almost every aspect and is too hard to enjoy as a result. Has about 3 good moments in it, but it is an overwhelming shambles.
I rented this film because I had read all the harsh reviews, both professional and on this site, that just ripped into it and seemed to have more personal vendettas against the stars rather than objective points to make about the film. With this in mind I decided that I would have to check it out myself; I have no personal feelings about Lopez and Affleck - their relationship is not something I have had rammed down my throat as I don't read the gossips mags and my paper of choice is the Times, where they get rather limited coverage. Without this fatigue I was able to view the film as it came to me rather than seething with cruel and clever put downs even before the film started (as some critics clearly did).
However, the critics were mostly right, even if they overreacted to the extreme. The film starts reasonably well and you can see the potential, or at least you can see what they were thinking when the film was being put together. Sadly, as the film continues, the thin strands holding it together are slowly unravelling until almost nothing is left of value. Some of it works well; how many times have the audience embraced a comic crime caper with hit men in the lead roles? Here the film does have some of that type of humour (particularly in the jokes about Gigli's masculinity) but the music used to set the tone begins to grate after a while because there is nothing to support it, and everything else is flawed.
The main plot is so very full of holes and stupid plot devices that it is difficult to be involved by it. For a crime comedy, the plot doesn't need to be perfect - but it needs to be good enough so that it doesn't take away from the film, here it is so weak that it damages the film at it's core. The other side of the plot is the romance, and it is absurd! I'm sure if I were a lesbian that I would be offended by the `I'll turn her' approach of the film, but I'm not so I'll leave that for others to debate. However the romance between the two is unrealistic and uninvolving, the lesbian thing just makes it worse.
The characters themselves are poor. Neither Gigli or Ricki ever seem like killers - in fact even a hint of violence and they look terrified and out of their depth. His personality seems to change to whatever the scene requires (one moment impatient, the next sensitive, the next angry) while Ricki is just sweetness and light. Affleck and Lopez must take almost all the blame for this, their performances are as misjudged and lacking as the script. Affleck is actually not that bad - he is willing to send himself up, it is the jumping script that makes him appear to be all over the place. Lopez is awful; someone who has done this crime comedy style movie before should have been much better but she acts like she is in a simpering rom-com. What is surprising is just how little chemistry the two have considering they are a couple now; they just don't do the job at all.
Bartha gives a dumb Rain Man impression to the point where I kept expecting him to say `I'm an excellent driver'. His character is just a joke and I even wished for Lopez to come onto the screen whenever he was on - at least I could just stare at her body and ignore him! The two main cameos are actually very good but unfortunately serve to show up the rest of the film. Walken is good but his character appears and disappears without reason, Pacino is much better simply because he does his menacing `woo-ha' thing and is very effective.
Overall this is not the `worst film ever made', those who tell you that have clearly have a limited viewing experience; many of the reviews were made harsher by the back lash against the whole Bennifer thing. However that's not to say they are wrong - only overly harsh. The film is poorly judged in almost every aspect and is too hard to enjoy as a result. Has about 3 good moments in it, but it is an overwhelming shambles.
hello?
CrowServoNelson8 April 2004
Can anyone locate a plot for this movie? I won't bother spoiling anything for you because wel...there isn't anything to spoil. Absolutely nothing happens in this movie! Thank god I only watched it with my friends as a joke to add to a school project.
Let's just say there are a lot of lines that bring this movie down a lot. I'm sure all the late night hosts have already summed these up in one way or another. I was lost after the first ten minutes, and it's hard to get through the first five! My advice to you is...if you want to see a movie that is at least remotely watchable...AVOID this one. For the love of God!!
Let's just say there are a lot of lines that bring this movie down a lot. I'm sure all the late night hosts have already summed these up in one way or another. I was lost after the first ten minutes, and it's hard to get through the first five! My advice to you is...if you want to see a movie that is at least remotely watchable...AVOID this one. For the love of God!!
I love this movie
renatalimaesanto15 September 2021
Like a Greatest Hits Album.....
neal2zod18 April 2005
You know how you get a Greatest Hits Album and there's a handful of good songs, the ones you know and love, and then the rest are stinkers? Filler just put there to pad out the time? That's basically like Gigli, a movie that's not particularly good as a whole, but has some knockout individual scenes.
First off, let's be honest...it's not as bad as we've been led to believe. Look at the message board - more and more people are admitting "it's not that bad". Not exactly praise, but considering SO many people voted this into the Bottom 100 (it's at #29 when I wrote this), I think it's safe to say most of those were just padded votes, mainly from people who wanted to hate this movie and hated the whole "Bennifer" thing. Ebert gave it mild thumbs down and said he was deluged with hate mail complaining how he didn't hate it ENOUGH. Gimme a break.
OK, the plot is awful. No bones about that. In case you don't know, here it is: A mafia hit-man kidnap's a DA's retarded brother so the case won't go to trial. He's a notorious screwup, so the mob sends a 2nd hit-man, who's a lesbian and looks like a supermodel, to make sure Hit-man #1 doesn't screw up. They sit around an apartment, talking and debating. Random people show up and they have to hide the retarded kid. Every once in a while they go out for Mexican (in a convertible with the top down!!) What in the world?? And this was supposed to be a big summer movie? I suspect writer/director Martin Brest came up for the storyline in a dream and for some reason thought it was a good idea. It's not. Watching this movie is akin to having an annoying roommate who keeps changing the channel between Rain Man, Prizzi's Honor, Chasing Amy, a failed sitcom about hit men, and any play with one set and no budget.
Why do I kinda like this movie then? Same reason I dig Brest's Beverly Hills Cop - there's scenes in here that are to die for. I remember as a kid, i'd rewind scenes in Beverly Hills Cop over and over again, because I thought they were the funniest things ever. Same here. There's at least 3 or 4 awesome scenes, and about 5 good ones as well. The rest is filler.
Witness: The "rip that tears the past". The speech in front of the mirror. The yoga scene. "Turkey time. Gobble Gobble." "The Baywatch." The Tabasco sauce. The morgue. The plastic knife. The "sweet hetero-lingus". Christopher Walken, showing more fire in 3 minutes than he has in YEARS, talking about ice cream and Marie Callendar's pies. Pacino's scene. Yes, he's YELLING again. He's playing a mobster again. So what? Now name another recent movie with that many rewind-worthy scenes. I can't either.
Jennifer Lopez is sexy in this movie. Anyone who says she's not is lying. Ben Affleck is not. Nor is he supposed to be. People who say he's trying to be "sexy and dangerous" missed the point somewhere. He's doing a riff on Andrew Dice Clay, plain and simple. He knows he's acting like a buffoon. Anyone who likes him on SNL should like him here.
Everyone should see this movie at least once. You'll have a good time. Even if you're watching it to see how bad it is, you won't be disappointed. No, I wouldn't want to sit through the whole movie again. It's too long and i honestly can't remember what the hell happened at the end. But movies like this are why DVD was invented.
First off, let's be honest...it's not as bad as we've been led to believe. Look at the message board - more and more people are admitting "it's not that bad". Not exactly praise, but considering SO many people voted this into the Bottom 100 (it's at #29 when I wrote this), I think it's safe to say most of those were just padded votes, mainly from people who wanted to hate this movie and hated the whole "Bennifer" thing. Ebert gave it mild thumbs down and said he was deluged with hate mail complaining how he didn't hate it ENOUGH. Gimme a break.
OK, the plot is awful. No bones about that. In case you don't know, here it is: A mafia hit-man kidnap's a DA's retarded brother so the case won't go to trial. He's a notorious screwup, so the mob sends a 2nd hit-man, who's a lesbian and looks like a supermodel, to make sure Hit-man #1 doesn't screw up. They sit around an apartment, talking and debating. Random people show up and they have to hide the retarded kid. Every once in a while they go out for Mexican (in a convertible with the top down!!) What in the world?? And this was supposed to be a big summer movie? I suspect writer/director Martin Brest came up for the storyline in a dream and for some reason thought it was a good idea. It's not. Watching this movie is akin to having an annoying roommate who keeps changing the channel between Rain Man, Prizzi's Honor, Chasing Amy, a failed sitcom about hit men, and any play with one set and no budget.
Why do I kinda like this movie then? Same reason I dig Brest's Beverly Hills Cop - there's scenes in here that are to die for. I remember as a kid, i'd rewind scenes in Beverly Hills Cop over and over again, because I thought they were the funniest things ever. Same here. There's at least 3 or 4 awesome scenes, and about 5 good ones as well. The rest is filler.
Witness: The "rip that tears the past". The speech in front of the mirror. The yoga scene. "Turkey time. Gobble Gobble." "The Baywatch." The Tabasco sauce. The morgue. The plastic knife. The "sweet hetero-lingus". Christopher Walken, showing more fire in 3 minutes than he has in YEARS, talking about ice cream and Marie Callendar's pies. Pacino's scene. Yes, he's YELLING again. He's playing a mobster again. So what? Now name another recent movie with that many rewind-worthy scenes. I can't either.
Jennifer Lopez is sexy in this movie. Anyone who says she's not is lying. Ben Affleck is not. Nor is he supposed to be. People who say he's trying to be "sexy and dangerous" missed the point somewhere. He's doing a riff on Andrew Dice Clay, plain and simple. He knows he's acting like a buffoon. Anyone who likes him on SNL should like him here.
Everyone should see this movie at least once. You'll have a good time. Even if you're watching it to see how bad it is, you won't be disappointed. No, I wouldn't want to sit through the whole movie again. It's too long and i honestly can't remember what the hell happened at the end. But movies like this are why DVD was invented.
This movie is really not that bad
testiculos22 October 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I don't quite understand why this movie is rated so low. No, it's not a "good movie", no it doesn't have anything going for it as art or political commentary, no it does not make you think. But it's not particularly annoying and has quite a few entertaining scenes. The actor that plays the mentally different young man is quite good. I didn't get the impression that any of these characters or their motivations couldn't exist although the scenes with Walken and Pacino doing their standard character acting seemed thrown in just to have them in the film, especially the former.
By the way I don't particularly like Affleck and rather dislike J-Lo. In this they weren't so bad. Pick it up when it comes out on "One Dollar DVDs."
It's no "Sex Lives Of The Potato Men" (a truly great vulgar comedy) but I don't regret watching it from start to finish.
By the way I don't particularly like Affleck and rather dislike J-Lo. In this they weren't so bad. Pick it up when it comes out on "One Dollar DVDs."
It's no "Sex Lives Of The Potato Men" (a truly great vulgar comedy) but I don't regret watching it from start to finish.
J-Lo and Ben: 2 of the most laughable characters ever
MLDinTN10 June 2004
J-Lo and Ben were badly miscast as gangsters in this. Neither is believable.
We are supposed to believe Ricki (J-LO) is a gangster and mean just because she says so. She does absolutely nothing to make her seem dangerous. But, then it gets even funnier when she shows up in a crop top shirt, letting it all show, only to announce she's gay. What! J-Lo is just too famous for anyone to see her as gay, not to mention, she never acts like it in the film.
As for Ben, he's really bad too. He's uses this horrible accent and swears a lot. I guess that means we are supposed to believe he's a tough gangster from New York because of this. He doesn't have the stomach to cut off a finger and he lets a guy that owes money only pay half. No muscle man would act like such a wuss.
Then we get the mentally challenged guy that plays some role with the plot, but I'm not sure what because the plot never made sense to me. I never got the whole point of kidnapping the guy. Then there are the very bad dialogue scenes that have been mentioned many times. What was the writer thinking and how could Bennifer say those lines without laughing. And I still don't get why a lesbian would give that yoga speech to a guy in such a seductive way. So unbelievable.
The only thing that made me laugh was Gigli reading to the retarded guy. He read what's on tabasco sauce bottle and charmin toilet paper.
FINAL VERDICT: Gobble, gobble says it all. Overall bad acting and writing. But I have seen worse movies. I only recommend it for those who feel compelled to see J-Lo looking really hot for a couple of hours.
We are supposed to believe Ricki (J-LO) is a gangster and mean just because she says so. She does absolutely nothing to make her seem dangerous. But, then it gets even funnier when she shows up in a crop top shirt, letting it all show, only to announce she's gay. What! J-Lo is just too famous for anyone to see her as gay, not to mention, she never acts like it in the film.
As for Ben, he's really bad too. He's uses this horrible accent and swears a lot. I guess that means we are supposed to believe he's a tough gangster from New York because of this. He doesn't have the stomach to cut off a finger and he lets a guy that owes money only pay half. No muscle man would act like such a wuss.
Then we get the mentally challenged guy that plays some role with the plot, but I'm not sure what because the plot never made sense to me. I never got the whole point of kidnapping the guy. Then there are the very bad dialogue scenes that have been mentioned many times. What was the writer thinking and how could Bennifer say those lines without laughing. And I still don't get why a lesbian would give that yoga speech to a guy in such a seductive way. So unbelievable.
The only thing that made me laugh was Gigli reading to the retarded guy. He read what's on tabasco sauce bottle and charmin toilet paper.
FINAL VERDICT: Gobble, gobble says it all. Overall bad acting and writing. But I have seen worse movies. I only recommend it for those who feel compelled to see J-Lo looking really hot for a couple of hours.
Now Playing at Hell's Multiplex...
The_Guy_In_The_Back3 November 2006
How much does this movie suck? Words fail me. I took a date to this movie. She didn't like me afterward. You don't watch this movie. You ENDURE this thing, like an abscessed tooth. The most extensive vocabulary in the universe could not find words to describe the putridity of this film, but I will try.
Let's see: The characters are unbelievable. The plot is a goof. The subplots are thin at best. Afleck looks like he's been hit over the head with a two by four. And what do you say about the acting talent of his fat butt leading lady? Only that in her case, "acting talent" is an oxymoron, like "civilized divorce".
I don't know what I find the most revolting. The fact that this bomb cost 54 million, yes, kiddies, I said MILLION, dollars to make, or that some studio geek OKAYED it?! Afleck is a good actor. He's got some range, and a flair for comedy. But he walks around like a zombie. Perhaps this is how one looks when dying of embarrassment on film. Lopez must have some sort of, ahem, skills. She does seem to torture one male after another in her personal life. But she is a marginal singer, at best, and an ABYSMAL actress.
Up until now, I thought the worst movie of all time was that Sybil Shepard horror, "At Long Last Love". That puppy kept the top spot for a long time on my list. But this complete disaster makes it look like "Casablanca".
I'm a Catholic, so naturally I believe in Hell. I now have another reason to live a good life and not end up there. This odious waste of time you will not get back has got to be the number one film in Hell's Multiplex. If they'd used this thing in "A Clockwork Orange", Malcom McDowell would have been selling Bibles in about ten minutes.
NEVER watch this film! It has NO redeeming moments! You will want to chug anti-freeze before the first half hour has D...R...A...G...G...E...D on by. On a scale of One to Ten, I give this a 12 Barf Bag rating. It's a wonder to me that mobs did not storm the theaters with torches for robbing them of nine bucks to see this mess.
The only good thing you could do with this movie is to take every copy and give them all to really poor people who have no heat so they can burn them to stay warm this winter. Oh, and the DVD's make very nice coasters, too.
Let's see: The characters are unbelievable. The plot is a goof. The subplots are thin at best. Afleck looks like he's been hit over the head with a two by four. And what do you say about the acting talent of his fat butt leading lady? Only that in her case, "acting talent" is an oxymoron, like "civilized divorce".
I don't know what I find the most revolting. The fact that this bomb cost 54 million, yes, kiddies, I said MILLION, dollars to make, or that some studio geek OKAYED it?! Afleck is a good actor. He's got some range, and a flair for comedy. But he walks around like a zombie. Perhaps this is how one looks when dying of embarrassment on film. Lopez must have some sort of, ahem, skills. She does seem to torture one male after another in her personal life. But she is a marginal singer, at best, and an ABYSMAL actress.
Up until now, I thought the worst movie of all time was that Sybil Shepard horror, "At Long Last Love". That puppy kept the top spot for a long time on my list. But this complete disaster makes it look like "Casablanca".
I'm a Catholic, so naturally I believe in Hell. I now have another reason to live a good life and not end up there. This odious waste of time you will not get back has got to be the number one film in Hell's Multiplex. If they'd used this thing in "A Clockwork Orange", Malcom McDowell would have been selling Bibles in about ten minutes.
NEVER watch this film! It has NO redeeming moments! You will want to chug anti-freeze before the first half hour has D...R...A...G...G...E...D on by. On a scale of One to Ten, I give this a 12 Barf Bag rating. It's a wonder to me that mobs did not storm the theaters with torches for robbing them of nine bucks to see this mess.
The only good thing you could do with this movie is to take every copy and give them all to really poor people who have no heat so they can burn them to stay warm this winter. Oh, and the DVD's make very nice coasters, too.
Not as bad as word of mouth
Denver534 August 2004
I watched Gigli because I wanted to see how bad it was, and found myself surprised that it was decent. I think the whole Bennifer thing caused some kind of mass hysteria and people have ripped Gigli for reasons that don't have much to do with the movie.
It WAS tiresome, in some ways. The Rain Main guy was just a rip-off. And Affleck's gangster was not believable at all (how did a guy as sensitive as he is ever get this tough guy rep? The movie never says). JLo was surprising good. And the script about a hot lesbian gangster and a dumb male gangster wasn't bad. Well, the ending was bad. I mean, after calling the cops and telling them where the "lost" brother is, JLo and Ben hang around at the scene for a long, long time.
Pacino is excellent. Wish he was in it more. Walken was very good, but a weird character who never shows up again.
It seemed like the major problem with Gigli wasn't the acting or the script, but the way it was edited. It had the nut of a good movie, but somehow didn't pull it off. So I gave it a 5. Honestly, it wasn't Ishtar, or even Fahrenheit 9/11.
It WAS tiresome, in some ways. The Rain Main guy was just a rip-off. And Affleck's gangster was not believable at all (how did a guy as sensitive as he is ever get this tough guy rep? The movie never says). JLo was surprising good. And the script about a hot lesbian gangster and a dumb male gangster wasn't bad. Well, the ending was bad. I mean, after calling the cops and telling them where the "lost" brother is, JLo and Ben hang around at the scene for a long, long time.
Pacino is excellent. Wish he was in it more. Walken was very good, but a weird character who never shows up again.
It seemed like the major problem with Gigli wasn't the acting or the script, but the way it was edited. It had the nut of a good movie, but somehow didn't pull it off. So I gave it a 5. Honestly, it wasn't Ishtar, or even Fahrenheit 9/11.
Really, really bad
TheLittleSongbird16 February 2011
I will give some credit where it's due, I don't think Gigli is the worst movie ever made. However, that is very faint credit, it is still a terrible movie with few redeeming features.
The cinematography is rather shoddy and the lighting is considerably dull. Neither do anything to compliment some decent surroundings, while the music is just bizarre and badly placed. The direction starts off inept and never recovers, while the script is just cringe-worthy with some lines verging on the really cheesy side, none of the characters are likable or well written and the story is full of plot holes and unnecessary scenes.
The acting in general is terrible. Ben Affleck is rather stiff and uncomfortable, but he is nothing compared to the terror that is Jennifer Lopez. And it doesn't help that there is absolutely no chemistry whatsoever between them. And how great actors such as Christopher Walken and Al Pacino signed up for this film I shall never know. Actually, they weren't too bad, Walken's character was just poorly explored but he did what he could. Pacino fared much better, and he is the sole saving grace of an otherwise dismal picture.
All in all, it is really, really bad but not the worst movie I have seen. 1/10 Bethany Cox
The cinematography is rather shoddy and the lighting is considerably dull. Neither do anything to compliment some decent surroundings, while the music is just bizarre and badly placed. The direction starts off inept and never recovers, while the script is just cringe-worthy with some lines verging on the really cheesy side, none of the characters are likable or well written and the story is full of plot holes and unnecessary scenes.
The acting in general is terrible. Ben Affleck is rather stiff and uncomfortable, but he is nothing compared to the terror that is Jennifer Lopez. And it doesn't help that there is absolutely no chemistry whatsoever between them. And how great actors such as Christopher Walken and Al Pacino signed up for this film I shall never know. Actually, they weren't too bad, Walken's character was just poorly explored but he did what he could. Pacino fared much better, and he is the sole saving grace of an otherwise dismal picture.
All in all, it is really, really bad but not the worst movie I have seen. 1/10 Bethany Cox
I might have even liked it if Jennifer Lopez wasn't in it.
absinthechinadoll4 July 2019
I hate to give any film such a low rating, but basically anything Jennifer Lopez is playing in gets several stars knocked off, if not just a flat out ZERO. ANY movie is ruined by the mere inclusion of Lopez. She can't act and can't sing. I have no idea what people see in her.
Awful
laura_lee_t26 July 2019
GIGLI RHYMES WITH REALLY...REALLY AVERAGE
umassjsp7 March 2004
My wife is a JLo fan (I bought her the JLo perfume last year and scored big points) and she rented this DVD. My genre is more from the Animal House and Old School section of the store but I had to watch this. Movie was not real bad and was strictly average (5 rating) compared to the other drivel coming out of Hollywood, Mexico. If you are into "star gazing" you will like watching JLo and Pacino. Affleck is a native of my home state but in this film he obviously watched every Sopranos DVD and tried without success to be James Gandolfini. Scenes with the mentally challenged kid are tedious and uncomfortable but the reading of the Tabasco sauce bottle was pretty clever. Some of the movies critics love like As Good As It Gets are much worse than this. Again I reiterate a solid 5.
I've seen worse.
FeverDog18 March 2004
I rented GIGLI to see if it's really as bad its reputation, and, guess what, it's not. Yes, it's slow, boring, and overlong, and Bennifer are entirely unconvincing as mobsters, but the movie's not completely worthless. Bennifer do have some on-screen chemistry, and there are a few cute moments. The infamous "gobble gobble" scene is fun if you disregard the probability of a lesbian acting in such a way (see also CHASING AMY), and I also enjoyed penis/vagina debate. And Rain Boy's moment on the beach was sweet, unlikely as it may be.
But the movie just drones on and on, the music is incongruous with what it's supporting on screen, the plot is uninvolving, and and the outta-nowhere cameos by Al Pacino, Lainie Kazan, and Christopher Walken stop the movie cold. But Ben takes his shirt off, revealing a buff bod and some nice tats. See? The movie's not entirely without merit.
Now and then the media pounce on a movie that begs to be trashed but isn't nearly as bad as they say. (The SWEPT AWAY remake was a previous whipping boy, and while indeed a bad movie, it was better than other Madonna movies like THE NEXT BEST THING and BODY OF EVIDENCE.) GIGLI is not a good movie, but not an insufferable one like, for example, GLITTER. It's not even the worst movie I've seen so far this year (that would be VAN WILDER), but it's also not one I'll sit through again.
But the movie just drones on and on, the music is incongruous with what it's supporting on screen, the plot is uninvolving, and and the outta-nowhere cameos by Al Pacino, Lainie Kazan, and Christopher Walken stop the movie cold. But Ben takes his shirt off, revealing a buff bod and some nice tats. See? The movie's not entirely without merit.
Now and then the media pounce on a movie that begs to be trashed but isn't nearly as bad as they say. (The SWEPT AWAY remake was a previous whipping boy, and while indeed a bad movie, it was better than other Madonna movies like THE NEXT BEST THING and BODY OF EVIDENCE.) GIGLI is not a good movie, but not an insufferable one like, for example, GLITTER. It's not even the worst movie I've seen so far this year (that would be VAN WILDER), but it's also not one I'll sit through again.
i thought it was pretty good
cheerific_babe24696 November 2005
I actually thought this movie was pretty good. I was flipping through the channels and it caught my attention. So it must have been pretty good. I didn't think the acting was all that bad and ya know they do what the directors tell them to do! But over all i actually did like this movie...but i didn't see the beginning so i will have to watch it again. I really liked how after they were driving in the car J Lo kinda gave it and gave Ben what he wanted. I mean even if she was a lesbian. I was really umm i don't know the word intrigued by her little spiel when she was on the yoga mat and they were discussing which is the better of the two sexes. In a way, i would never give up penis...but he speech did sort of somewhat make sense. I would never be a lesbian but I'm sure the lesbians out there may agree with her statements made. Personally, i would recommend going to see it because i thought it was a nice movie.
The review that will make my entire career questionable
StevePulaski7 November 2013
I would love to view writer/director Martin Brest's original version of Gigli, which was said to be a black comedy with very offbeat humor and no romantic subplot at all. I would also love to have seen how that film would've fared amongst critics rather than the one that was released to the public. During its release, I find the film's extremely poor reception and disastrous box office performance unsurprising. The gossip about the relationship between Ben Affleck and Jennifer Lopez was overexposed, obsessive drivel and tabloids raced to the neverending finish line of publishing nonsensical articles about the couple and bedazzled them beyond recognition. This was one of the key things that led to Ben Affleck's negative public persona and made it irreparable until he adopted a directorial career in 2007.
Viewing Gigli a decade later, when news of Affleck and Lopez's relationship has long past faded into obscurity, the film is nowhere near as bad as people have said. In fact, it's a farcry from the worst film I've seen this year. I'd go as far as to call it somewhat enjoyable in the regard that it's always amusing in the way the characters interact with one another and the way the actors handle the absurd material they've been handed. However, in the long run, I prefer to view Gigli as a product and discuss its impact on its actors along with how its time of release greatly affected its reception.
But this will be explored later on. The film revolves around Larry Gigli (pronounced Jee-lee), played by Ben Affleck, a second-rate mobster who is hired by his crime boss (Lenny Venito) to kidnap the mentally-challenged brother of a federal prosecutor to prevent the imprisonment of a New York mob boss. In addition, a woman by the name of "Ricki" (Jennifer Lopez), a dominant lesbian, is hired by Gigli's crime boss to keep an eye on him to make sure he doesn't screw this job up. It is a screenplay obligation that Gigli and Ricki eventually become attracted to one another, despite their differing sexual orientations.
It's no surprise why the film was panned, seeing as casting both Affleck and Lopez in a romantic comedy as their heavily-documented marriage was approaching seemed to be nothing more than a tabloid-sponsored film catering to the same people that inhabit the checkout lines of grocery stores with several of the magazines on the conveyor belt. However, Affleck isn't the one giving the bad performance. His pseudo-tough guy appearance is intentional, something I hope people understood when the film was released and understand now. If anybody's performance should be criticized, it's Jennifer Lopez, who gives a wooden, wholly unbelievable performance as an attractive lesbian, who still finds it amusing and fun to flirt with a heterosexual male just to revert to the "I'm a lesbian" line. Her role is as contrived as they come, even with ten years of age.
The most challenging role of the film easily belongs to Justin Bartha (who later made himself a name in The Hangover franchise), playing the mentally-handicapped brother. His performance ranges from senseless exploitation to somewhat heartfelt and believable. It all depends on what writer Brest feels like detailing at the specific time. Once in a great while, we'll see his charming innocence come through. At other times, we'll see him sing a rendition of Sir Mix a Lot's "Baby Got Back" and do a little wincing.
The other thing to note is the film's use of music, which seems largely out of place. Consider the scene where Gigli, Ricki, and the prosecutor's brother are eating lunch and bouncy pop music plays, somewhat indicating a sex scene or a scene of seduction. The music is entirely out of place and provides an odd shift in tone. Scenes like this are rather frequent in Gigli and the jarring tonal shift is hard not to notice when it's something as quietly but noticeably abrupt as misplaced-music.
On to the legacy Gigli has left. Many people involved with the making of the film felt some kind of rough, turbulent backlash on their careers once the picture was released. It took poor Affleck, as stated, years to rebound into a marketable, respectable name, and if it wasn't for stupendous directorial efforts such as Gone Baby Gone, The Town, and Argo, his name would likely still inspire sneers and eye-rolls. Jennifer Lopez never really got back on her acting feet after this film, and became somewhat of a faded pop singer who had little to offer.
But the one person that seemed to be affected the most is director Martin Brest, who made films like Meet Joe Black and Midnight Run long before this picture. Gigli is the last film he ever made and has disbanded into something of a recluse since. He has given no interviews since its release, has not participated in any film projects, and has left his whereabouts to be nothing more than a thought in a person's mind. After the studio debacle with the film's plot and creative differences, he has vanished into unknown obscurity, with no plans to direct or participate in any film again.
It would definitely seem that people were too quick to label Gigli as one of the worst films ever made. It's definitely a rocky picture, very uneven, structured very peculiarly thanks to rewrites, and features performances that range from mediocre to above average. However, it's an entertaining piece of work, if one can accept the challenge of ignoring its horribly low ratings and criticisms it has garnered over the years. This is the kind of film I'll be judged for tolerating and, if that's the case, so be it. I got a handful of films at the top of my head that may make even the most hardened-Gigli hater reconsider their opinion.
Viewing Gigli a decade later, when news of Affleck and Lopez's relationship has long past faded into obscurity, the film is nowhere near as bad as people have said. In fact, it's a farcry from the worst film I've seen this year. I'd go as far as to call it somewhat enjoyable in the regard that it's always amusing in the way the characters interact with one another and the way the actors handle the absurd material they've been handed. However, in the long run, I prefer to view Gigli as a product and discuss its impact on its actors along with how its time of release greatly affected its reception.
But this will be explored later on. The film revolves around Larry Gigli (pronounced Jee-lee), played by Ben Affleck, a second-rate mobster who is hired by his crime boss (Lenny Venito) to kidnap the mentally-challenged brother of a federal prosecutor to prevent the imprisonment of a New York mob boss. In addition, a woman by the name of "Ricki" (Jennifer Lopez), a dominant lesbian, is hired by Gigli's crime boss to keep an eye on him to make sure he doesn't screw this job up. It is a screenplay obligation that Gigli and Ricki eventually become attracted to one another, despite their differing sexual orientations.
It's no surprise why the film was panned, seeing as casting both Affleck and Lopez in a romantic comedy as their heavily-documented marriage was approaching seemed to be nothing more than a tabloid-sponsored film catering to the same people that inhabit the checkout lines of grocery stores with several of the magazines on the conveyor belt. However, Affleck isn't the one giving the bad performance. His pseudo-tough guy appearance is intentional, something I hope people understood when the film was released and understand now. If anybody's performance should be criticized, it's Jennifer Lopez, who gives a wooden, wholly unbelievable performance as an attractive lesbian, who still finds it amusing and fun to flirt with a heterosexual male just to revert to the "I'm a lesbian" line. Her role is as contrived as they come, even with ten years of age.
The most challenging role of the film easily belongs to Justin Bartha (who later made himself a name in The Hangover franchise), playing the mentally-handicapped brother. His performance ranges from senseless exploitation to somewhat heartfelt and believable. It all depends on what writer Brest feels like detailing at the specific time. Once in a great while, we'll see his charming innocence come through. At other times, we'll see him sing a rendition of Sir Mix a Lot's "Baby Got Back" and do a little wincing.
The other thing to note is the film's use of music, which seems largely out of place. Consider the scene where Gigli, Ricki, and the prosecutor's brother are eating lunch and bouncy pop music plays, somewhat indicating a sex scene or a scene of seduction. The music is entirely out of place and provides an odd shift in tone. Scenes like this are rather frequent in Gigli and the jarring tonal shift is hard not to notice when it's something as quietly but noticeably abrupt as misplaced-music.
On to the legacy Gigli has left. Many people involved with the making of the film felt some kind of rough, turbulent backlash on their careers once the picture was released. It took poor Affleck, as stated, years to rebound into a marketable, respectable name, and if it wasn't for stupendous directorial efforts such as Gone Baby Gone, The Town, and Argo, his name would likely still inspire sneers and eye-rolls. Jennifer Lopez never really got back on her acting feet after this film, and became somewhat of a faded pop singer who had little to offer.
But the one person that seemed to be affected the most is director Martin Brest, who made films like Meet Joe Black and Midnight Run long before this picture. Gigli is the last film he ever made and has disbanded into something of a recluse since. He has given no interviews since its release, has not participated in any film projects, and has left his whereabouts to be nothing more than a thought in a person's mind. After the studio debacle with the film's plot and creative differences, he has vanished into unknown obscurity, with no plans to direct or participate in any film again.
It would definitely seem that people were too quick to label Gigli as one of the worst films ever made. It's definitely a rocky picture, very uneven, structured very peculiarly thanks to rewrites, and features performances that range from mediocre to above average. However, it's an entertaining piece of work, if one can accept the challenge of ignoring its horribly low ratings and criticisms it has garnered over the years. This is the kind of film I'll be judged for tolerating and, if that's the case, so be it. I got a handful of films at the top of my head that may make even the most hardened-Gigli hater reconsider their opinion.
I'm not giggling. In fact I'm crying. Why must Hollywood subject us to this kind of crap?
duffyboy6669 June 2005
Fact: A film where an overexposed celebrity couple that star together as a double act will always become a vanity project. Fact: Vanity projects in modern cinema simply do not work. Fact: Vanity projects bomb at the box office. Fact: Most of them include pop stars. And fact: Pretty much all of them absolutely suck.
So imagine how I must have felt when I heard that Jennifer Lopez and Ben Affleck, were chosen to play in a role in a film that tries to rip off The Godfather. At first I though it was just a sick joke. However I was wrong and soon enough, Gigli was released.
Now the critics gave Gigli an absolute slaughtering, the kind of panning that generates a kind of curiosity. "Is it REALLY that bad?". And of course with Gigli it's all justified. Gigli is the kind of embarrassment that people ought to should be hung upside down for. It's a truly appalling film.
So why am I the latest person to give this film an absolute bashing? Because I've seen it, and from my personal view it deserves it. In other words, I watched this piece of crap so that you don't have to. And here's a low down of what I ended up watching for my £5.
Firstly, The Direction. Martin Brest (The same man behind Beverly Hills Cop and Midnght Run) is behind this movie, so talk about a guy with no excuse! It's difficult to understand what he was smoking when he gave the go ahead for this disaster, which goes wrong in so many ways that you can barely keep count of them. He's allowed the film to be completely shapeless. From The Plot, The Cast right down to the small and unimaginative scenes, it can only be described as an awful messy blot on his copybook.
Secondly you have the cast themselves. Now we already know that Jennifer Lopez has modelled herself on Madonna's woeful pictures from day one, but Affleck (normally competent)is in way over his head. And worse still, veterans like Al Pacino and Christopher Walken turn in some very poor cameos. It's painful to think the lead in Scarface is being now bogged down in this commercial vanity fair guff.
Then the story. Affleck, plays Larry Gigli, a dim bulb of a mob enforcer. Gigli has kidnapped mental patient Brian (Justin Bartha, doing Rain Man), the kid brother of a federal prosecutor, to keep mob boss Starkman (Al Pacino) from going to jail. Don't ask how. Know only that mob girl Ricki (Lopez), a lesbian with a suicidal girlfriend, has been sent in to make sure Gigli doesn't screw up. Lopez treats the role like a photo shoot, doing yoga exercises in Gigli's apartment and ruminating on why it's more erotic to kiss a vagina than a penis. I wish, I truly wish I was making this up.
But then comes the dialogue. Welcome to hell. The dialogue enters "Manos The Hands Of Fate" territory in terms of sheer awfulness. Here's what I like to call the Three Crown Jewells in terms of this movies atrocious script.
1) "Turkey Time! Gobble Gobble" During a bedroom scene! WHAT THE HELL?!
2) "Mooooo" A cow noise that Larry uses to seduce his partner? We are still on planet earth aren't we?
3) "It's more erotic to kiss a vagina than a penis." STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT!
Gigli will stand for years to come as an example of how not to produce a love story movie. Gigli isn't even in the Freddy Got Fingred realm where it's so bad it's good. It's in the painful excruciatingly bad, almost like puncture wounds being inflicted in the cinema area.
Manos The Hands Of Fate, may still be the worst movie of all time but it has got some powerful competition from Gigli. Oh and by the way, Gigli, rhymes with really. As in Gigli, Gigli bad. And one more thing, there's more than a dozen worse movies worse than this? Do us a favour!
Don't Watch This Film.
So imagine how I must have felt when I heard that Jennifer Lopez and Ben Affleck, were chosen to play in a role in a film that tries to rip off The Godfather. At first I though it was just a sick joke. However I was wrong and soon enough, Gigli was released.
Now the critics gave Gigli an absolute slaughtering, the kind of panning that generates a kind of curiosity. "Is it REALLY that bad?". And of course with Gigli it's all justified. Gigli is the kind of embarrassment that people ought to should be hung upside down for. It's a truly appalling film.
So why am I the latest person to give this film an absolute bashing? Because I've seen it, and from my personal view it deserves it. In other words, I watched this piece of crap so that you don't have to. And here's a low down of what I ended up watching for my £5.
Firstly, The Direction. Martin Brest (The same man behind Beverly Hills Cop and Midnght Run) is behind this movie, so talk about a guy with no excuse! It's difficult to understand what he was smoking when he gave the go ahead for this disaster, which goes wrong in so many ways that you can barely keep count of them. He's allowed the film to be completely shapeless. From The Plot, The Cast right down to the small and unimaginative scenes, it can only be described as an awful messy blot on his copybook.
Secondly you have the cast themselves. Now we already know that Jennifer Lopez has modelled herself on Madonna's woeful pictures from day one, but Affleck (normally competent)is in way over his head. And worse still, veterans like Al Pacino and Christopher Walken turn in some very poor cameos. It's painful to think the lead in Scarface is being now bogged down in this commercial vanity fair guff.
Then the story. Affleck, plays Larry Gigli, a dim bulb of a mob enforcer. Gigli has kidnapped mental patient Brian (Justin Bartha, doing Rain Man), the kid brother of a federal prosecutor, to keep mob boss Starkman (Al Pacino) from going to jail. Don't ask how. Know only that mob girl Ricki (Lopez), a lesbian with a suicidal girlfriend, has been sent in to make sure Gigli doesn't screw up. Lopez treats the role like a photo shoot, doing yoga exercises in Gigli's apartment and ruminating on why it's more erotic to kiss a vagina than a penis. I wish, I truly wish I was making this up.
But then comes the dialogue. Welcome to hell. The dialogue enters "Manos The Hands Of Fate" territory in terms of sheer awfulness. Here's what I like to call the Three Crown Jewells in terms of this movies atrocious script.
1) "Turkey Time! Gobble Gobble" During a bedroom scene! WHAT THE HELL?!
2) "Mooooo" A cow noise that Larry uses to seduce his partner? We are still on planet earth aren't we?
3) "It's more erotic to kiss a vagina than a penis." STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT!
Gigli will stand for years to come as an example of how not to produce a love story movie. Gigli isn't even in the Freddy Got Fingred realm where it's so bad it's good. It's in the painful excruciatingly bad, almost like puncture wounds being inflicted in the cinema area.
Manos The Hands Of Fate, may still be the worst movie of all time but it has got some powerful competition from Gigli. Oh and by the way, Gigli, rhymes with really. As in Gigli, Gigli bad. And one more thing, there's more than a dozen worse movies worse than this? Do us a favour!
Don't Watch This Film.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
