Gigli - it's really not *that* bad

[George vader]

My God! Has a recent release received such awfull reviews. (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/Gigli-1124237/reviews.php)
A reviewer in today's Times was saying that US audiences were flocking to the wrong comedy last weekend (American Pie),
Gigli (what an awful title) was far more, unintentionally, amusing!!

[Boink!]

Loads of classic quotes there:

"I fought the urge to punch someone once it finally ended."
-- Jon Popick, PLANET SICK-BOY

:lol:

[shenbop]

I saw this recently and I really can't understand why it was slated so much.
There's some great acting in it, particularly by the handicapped kid and al pacino(not in for very long at all but great while he's there). By reading the 'turkey time' line in reviews I had no idea what the hel it was talking about but it actually makes sense when you see what it's talking about :norty:
A couple of times around the beginning it felt a bit slow and it does kind of change to a love story about halfway through and then go back to a crime drama again but overall I really enjoyed it.

I think it's just another case of journalists all just saying it's crap because a few others have so they are too scared to write a positive view for fear of losing their job or whatever. Just because critics have said it's rubbish everyone is going to assume its rubbish and avoid it without giving it a chance and thats a shame :oh-hum: (btw this also applies to other films in similar situations) I think the media wanted the film to fail even before they had seen it just because Ben and J-lo were in it.

I'm not saying it's a masterpiece or anything, it just deserves more respect than its got.

[Hamburger3]

No, It is a **** film.

You only have to see the trailer to know that. Afleck does not have the right look to play the part.


And yes I have seen it.

[stephen]

Originally posted by Hamburger3
No, It is a **** film.



But is it really hundreds of times worse than all the other bad films that get released?

[Hamburger3]

Originally posted by stephen
But is it really hundreds of times worse than all the other bad films that get released?

Not really. It is the worst film of all time as its at the bottom on the IMDB at the moment.

[HenryKrinkle]

Ben Affleck sucks the Devil's arse...he is, at this moment in time, the worst actor around! Funnily enough, I feel exactly the same about fat-ass Lopez...a match made in hell?????????

[GrossePointeJack]

Oh please! Affleck will never be as bad as Freddie Prinze Jr or whatever teen they decide is 'hot' now. He gets a lot of flack for no reason I think. Yes Gigli is a bad film, even Affleck admits that, but it certainly isn't the worst film ever made (In fact I enjoyed it more than Matrix Reloaded - which was far less entertaining than Gigli is) - there are a few 'ok' reviews going around (Roger Ebert for one, he seems to think that yes the movie is bad but it still has some good acting and some good scenes in it). The sad case is that ripping a film, and couple like this apart is the popular thing to do at the moment - They did it to Costner in WaterWorld for no other reason other than it had a big budget.

The sad truth is that if enough people say its bad then your going to be influenced by them.

[TimJBart]

I read a quote from Affleck saying that there was a "been wanting to use this insult all year" mentality used by a lot of the hacks. They think up a load of good put downs at the beginning of the year and so i think they were just glad there was a rubbish film to use them all on. I don't think it was a million times worse than any of the other rubbish the big studios have produced recently, it was just that this one was more high profile and an easy target.

[HenryKrinkle]

I haven't seen Gigli, doesn't really appeal to me to be honest, but I recently saw Sum of all Fears and Ben Affleck was shockingly bad! He has a really irritating smirk that makes me want to beat him with something heavy! He was soooooooo wrong for the part of Jack Ryan, the film wasn't the best in the series(...in fact it was the worst) and a lot of it was down to him...he is a plank!!!!!

[GrossePointeJack]

He's no worse than Harrison Ford is in the role - who in fact made the two worst Jack Ryan films. I liked Affleck in the role, even Clancy liked Affleck (Which if you listen to the commentary he comes across as a very hard man to please). But, back on the case of Gigli - if it wasn't these two actors in it then would it still get the awful reviews? Maybe not as many, it'll still be a bad film but some reviewers might be willing to see through that a bit and commend it for some of it's strengths.

[HenryKrinkle]

Harrison Ford is Jack Ryan! Do you honestly believe that Affleck could have been a marine and then a CIA operative? Would he do anything other than **** his pants if faced with an aggressive enemy?? You have to at least have an actor who can convince in the role...so don't talk such utter tosh about HF!

...if you like Affleck's Ryan portrayal, it kinda explains why you are defending this apparent turkey fest :lol:

[shenbop]

Originally posted by HenryKrinkle
...if you like Affleck's Ryan portrayal, it kinda explains why you are defending this apparent turkey fest :lol: [/B]

This is the kind of thing i'm talking about (and i'm not trying to have a go at you for saying this because everyone including me does it) but you admitted you haven't seen it yet have labelled it as a turkey and have decided that you think its bad before you have even seen it, and therefore wont go and see it. You've been told it's bad and therefore assume that it is.
My posts may seem like I'm i'm coming across as some weird Gigli loving freak :nuts: but i'm not, it's neither really good nor really bad, it's average, it's just one of those films i'm a bit entertained by but will easily be forgotten.
And I agree with GrossePointeJack; I found it much more entertaining than Matrix reloaded which I found extremely dull. I also agree that for some unknown reason there seems to be a hatred for Aflleck, and it's not because of his acting, people just seem to have this image of him in their head as some pretty boy or something so get outraged when he gets the part of daredevil etc.

read a quote from Affleck saying that there was a "been wanting to use this insult all year" mentality used by a lot of the hacks. They think up a load of good put downs at the beginning of the year and so i think they were just glad there was a rubbish film to use them all on. I don't think it was a million times worse than any of the other rubbish the big studios have produced recently, it was just that this one was more high profile and an easy target.

Completely agree :thumbs: . Thats what i've been trying to say but not been able to get it out properly.

[HenryKrinkle]

Originally posted by shenbop
This is the kind of thing i'm talking about (and i'm not trying to have a go at you for saying this because everyone including me does it) but you admitted you haven't seen it yet have labelled it as a turkey and have decided that you think its bad before you have even seen it, and therefore wont go and see it. You've been told it's bad and therefore assume that it is.
My posts may seem like I'm i'm coming across as some weird Gigli loving freak :nuts: but i'm not, it's neither really good nor really bad, it's average, it's just one of those films i'm a bit entertained by but will easily be forgotten.
And I agree with GrossePointeJack; I found it much more entertaining than Matrix reloaded which I found extremely dull. I also agree that for some unknown reason there seems to be a hatred for Aflleck, and it's not because of his acting, people just seem to have this image of him in their head as some pretty boy or something so get outraged when he gets the part of daredevil etc.

...I said it is an apparent turkey. I can, like most people, only pre judge a movie on reviews and my own opinions of the stars of the film in question. I completely agree with you that you shouldn't decry a film before seeing it for yourself...I remember a particularly heated one about Pearl Harbour a while back...and if I had a lot of time for the actors in this film then I would certainly hold off my judgement until seeing it. But, I have seen a few Lopez films...Angel Eyes, The Cell, Anaconda etc...in all of them she was crap IMO! I have also seen a few Affleck films...Armageddon, Pearl Harbour, Sum of all Fears, Daredevil, Good Will Hunting...in all of them he was crap IMO!

...therefore, I feel I would not like this film in any way...and the negative reviews do nothing to sway me the other way. Life is far too short to waste on crap films...and I have watched a ton over the years...you have to have your own way of filtration :)

...if you like it mate, good on 'yer, I'm sure there's plenty I rate that you consider rubbish :thumbs:

[shenbop]

I agree with what you just said :thumbs: (apart from I liked daredevil :help: :D )

[gooseUK]

Originally posted by HenryKrinkle
Harrison Ford is Jack Ryan!

I don't want to turn this into a Jack Ryan thread but... why does everyone seem to forget Alec Baldwin? I still think his was the most interesting and believable performance as Ryan. Ford is to stoic for me sometimes, and dull. And I actually liked Affleck in The Sum... And Daredevil too.

And J-Blow is a pretty good actress if she tries: Out Of Sight. She just seems more interested in marketing herself, flashing her bling-bling and raking in the dosh.

But back to Gigli 'pronoucned Really blahhh...' I'm pretty intrigued about seeing this movie. It really does sound Bad-But-In-An-Entertaining-Way, kind of like Showgirls. It's that old morbid fascination of watching a train wreck in motion.

And the yoga scene I've heard about sounds good
:norty:

[190]

All I want to know is whether J-Lo gets her baps out or not? :norty:

[Ol' Blue Eyes]

Er... I liked this. It's one of the more enjoyable Hollywood films I've seen recently and I'd have to rate it over The Italian Job and Calandar Girls to name but two. I was expecting a dumb action comedy but no, it's a fun, adult character piece. There's certainly things wrong with it - it's long and it seems a little too scripted - but it beggars belief that anyone thought it was the worst film of the summer, let alone all time (according to the IMDB). I really can't believe I saw the same film. :confused:

DVD Times review here (http://www.dvdtimes.co.uk/content.php?contentid=5690)

PS - Sadly no, Ms Lopez does not get her baps out but she does talk about why she loves vaginas in a sexy voice while doing areobics in a tight outfit.

[danielzavitz]

i thought it was appaling, i was ready not to hate it, i love affleck - ok mainly due to my kevin smith infatuation, but changing lanes proved he can do the business away frp, the portly bearded one - and i don't give a crap about who's he's marrying or how popular she is, but god this was awful. whoever thought of making a 130minute comedy with one joke was clearly an idiot. i swear the only time i laughed was when affleck was checking himself out in the mirror.
as someone who's lived with an autistic relative for their entire life i can say that the kid really did research his role, there were so many things he did that wer horribly familiar, which made it all the worse that his performance of his well researched routine was so bloody awful, he didn't convince for a second, he knew exactly what he had to do but couldn't come close to hitting the mark. also i found his repeated use as little more than a comedy foil quite offensive, trying to make jokes at the expense of the 'retard' really wasn't funny, i know afflecks character was supposed to be an ass but he managed it so nastily it was the only convincing part of his performance. what al paciino and christopher walken were playing at i don't know, i can see why they got on board, martin brest can produce fantastic results and midnight run must be one of my all time favorites, but they stank up the screen. it's not often you can say pacino is bad, over the top - certainly, but just plain rubbish, a very rare thing indeed.
gigli isn't the worst film of all time, it probably isn't even the worst film of the year, but it is certainly awful, and with this much talent involved it is by far the biggest screw up, i'm sure the test screening prompted reshoots didn't help, but the script sucked, the casting was ridiculous, and brest must have had some kind of collapse since his heyday.
despite all that, with some wok on the script, and some time spent on casting people who were right for the roles not right for the expected box office, gigli could have worked. stop making fun of the retard, just make lopez's character a woman who didn't want to sleep with affleck rather than a lesbian, and remove all the blatant stupidity (even the worlds worst hitman would know you can still fingerprint a corpse) and a half decent film could have been made. as it is, gigli will go down in history, not just for its critical reacton - in 20 years people are still going to know this sucked.

interesting fact - that shampoo commercial we've all been seeing affleck in recently, he got paid a cool million for it, and it's not allowed to be shown in the US. see, he's not really an idiot.

despite my opinions though :P good review kevin, if you liked it you liked it (though it makes me worry about you :) ) and it was certainly well written.

[Michael Brooke]

Originally posted by GrossePointeJack
The sad truth is that if enough people say its bad then your going to be influenced by them.

And Isaac Newton's third law of motion then comes into play as large numbers of people then decide that it's a towering masterpiece - just look at the number of people who voted it 10 on the IMDB!

I normally find the IMDB scores very useful, but I'm highly suspicious of these ones, not least because it's clear from the comments that a great many people have been voting it 1 or 10 without having seen it.

[GrossePointeJack]

Well none of those scores were me by the way.

I still stand by what I said, It is a bad film, no question about it, but it's nowhere near as bad as say, Matrix Reloaded, Underworld or even Hollywood Homicide which is without a doubt the worst film released this year. It has some good scenes and good performances, if anyone is to blame then it should be Martin Brest - but then no-one happens to mention that in their reviews do they?

Oh, and Ford isn't Jack Ryan - He is boring as are the films. Alec Baldwin is a different matter. And I can't picture Ford being a Marine either, he looks far more suited to a desk job. Baldwin on the other hand looks like he's been in the marines, plus he's excellent in the role. So I can talk all the tosh I want about Ford - just because he was Indiana Jones doesn't mean he's a god among screen actors.

[Michael Brooke]

In case anyone's missed this, <I>Gigli</I> is coming off everywhere in Britain tonight, having grossed an average of £200 per screen.

To put this in perspective, when I managed a cinema less than <U>ten times</u> that was considered worrying – and that was a decade ago!

[Dan]

How much did it get in total for all cinemas this week Michael?

[Tob]

Originally posted by dp2
How much did it get in total for all cinemas this week Michael?

I read less than the latest Rugrats movie that has already been out for 8 weeks.

[Michael Brooke]

Originally posted by dp2
How much did it get in total for all cinemas this week Michael?

The final figure isn't in yet (as the week isn't finished), but its three-day gross was £15,000 across 75 screens.

Given that it's coming off everywhere today, it's unlikely the final UK gross will be much more than £20,000, which won't even cover print costs, let alone marketing and other expenses

[Ol' Blue Eyes]

Are studios sometimes legally obligated to open films theatrically? I ask because I've seen several films like this over the last few years that never stood a chance of making much money and were given only the most half-hearted, token releases. I'm thinking of The Master Of Disguise, I'll Be There, Stealing Harvard, Half Past Dead, Extreme Ops - films most people reading this won't even have been aware got released. The logical thing would have been to send them straight to video and given the cost of the prints and even a small marketing campaign, I wonder why they bother with a 1 week release? Maybe some producers or stars don't want to be associated with a film that goes straight to video and insist on some sort of cinema run? If ever a film was completely doomed by advance publicity, it was this one.

[Dan]

I can't believe they're going ahead with the DVD, how much money is that likely to cost them to do that?:confused:

[jonathan.e]

Originally posted by Ol' Blue Eyes
Are studios sometimes legally obligated to open films theatrically?

Yes, but also the distributors view it as a good way to generate interest for the video/DVD release which in the case of Gigli will follow in short order. You only have to look at the cinema "chosen" for it’s London West End showing, the Odeon Mezzanine, home of the postage stamp sized screens to realise it was discarded and rightly so.

[Michael Brooke]

Originally posted by jonathan.e
Yes, but also the distributors view it as a good way to generate interest for the video/DVD release which in the case of Gigli will follow in short order. You only have to look at the cinema "chosen" for it’s London West End showing, the Odeon Mezzanine, home of the postage stamp sized screens to realise it was discarded and rightly so.

If a film opens at the Odeon Mezzanine, it's probably a contractual obligation job. If it's an exclusive, it definitely is!

But you're absolutely right - even the lowliest theatrical release will get more press coverage and media attention than a straight-to-video release, and <I>Gigli</I> was probably worth a gamble given the huge amount of publicity that Ben'n'Jen have been getting lately: it might have had morbid curiosity value, though the figures suggest otherwise.

[McD]

If any film since Heaven's Gate deserves a public inquiry into 'what went wrong' it's definitely Gigli! A budget of $54 million before advertising and a $5 million domestic take. Oh, and quite possibly the worst reviews of all time, possibly the worst general reputation of all time (already!), and the lowest current IMDB score for any movie! Heads will roll. And someone's bound to write a book.

Then you actually watch the thing and the plot immediately thickens. Everyone in Hollywood stumping up cash for movies should view this and figure it out. Perhaps they could justify the trip on the belief that it might be 'so bad it's good.' It isn't. Neither is it unintentionally funny, a phrase that many are attaching to the film. Or if it is then you might as well say the same of Spinal Tap and Dumb And Dumber! The film is obviously a comedy.

It's a completely off-the-wall script which I would never have expected from Brest. No nudity, but still described as 'pornographic' by the person I saw it with. A romcom which plays all sorts of games with the genre. A script which feels constantly spontaneous (often confused with made-up-on-the-spot). And two enjoyable performances which, or so the critics would have you believe, are amongst the worst of all time.

I remember reading an interview with Barry Sonnenfield where he talked about meeting Warren Beatty for the lead in Get Shorty. Beatty eventually declined the role saying he was far too good looking to play a character so far down the gangster food chain. To be fair, Affleck has the same problem here. Not only is he far better looking than his 'boss' (who should probably have been cast as much older), he's also practically a foot taller and far more intimidating. But without playing his character as a knucklehead deluxe I thought Affleck slowly earned his part as a low rank hoodlum. Lopez is good too, and the piece is really a three-hander with Justin Bharta excellent as the 'half-wit' they kidnap.

If the film's massive losses bring one unforgiveable fact to light, it's the extent of the film's budget. At $54 million, this is nothing short of reckless spending. The film is a cheapie, mostly interiors, no action scenes, and a tiny cast. Even at $8m each for the two leads, this should not have burst the $25m barrier. Quite honestly, if the expensive talent was working to scale with an eye on the profits, it could have come in under $5m easily! And there are a few other problems. The music is rom-com fodder and doesn't fit a film which is anything but. And the ending feels a bit tacked on (which it apparently was).

Still, it effortlessly gets a *** rating, although I'd give my own personal experience a '4' purely because of the film's reputation. It was, in many ways, an unexpected delight. It's light, breezy, funny and charming. It's definitely Martin Brest's best film in 15 years. And, for fans of Midnight Run, there is a nod at the end of Gigli. In the final scene as Affleck and Lopez find themselves in the same position as Jack Walsh and The Duke way back when, Affleck repeats Grodin's gesture and his line.

The film compares well to other recent releases. The closest in tone of recent weeks would probably be Hollywood Homicide. And Gigli ****** all over it in every department. To be honest, it ****** all over at least 50% of everything else too. Compare it to something like Underworld and it feels like an out-and-out masterpiece! The only thing comfortably superior recently was Roger Dodger.

There were eight people at my screening. All, it has to be said, seemed to have a good time. And most stayed right to the end of the credits - an effort which was paid back with a hilarious audio track. I'll probably buy it on DVD.

Things that Hollywood should consider in future...

Do not make films starring real life newlyweds or soon-to-be-weds. See Shanghai Surprise. But ignore Scooby Two.

Do not underestimate the power of the internet. The masses are actively looking for the worst film of all time and will slag you off and vote you into the ground without ever having watched you.

Do not stray a millimeter from the tried and tested formula of the 'rom-com'. Do not try to be vaguely original or off-the-wall within the genre.

Do not have a guy 'turn' a lesbian in a movie. Chances are he's already too good-looking and the audiences will hate him for it.

Do not use the word 'turkey' in your movie, even to be daring. Lazy reviewers will beat you over the head with it till both of you bleed.

Do not rely on test screenings. They can cost you $100 million on a single film. You do pointless and expensive reshoots. And word gets out that the movie might not be much cop. It's dead in the water before the premiere.

Do not cast a leading man who was the romantic star in one (or more) film directed by auteur Michael Bay. If so, chances are the mass audience enjoyed the explosions but subconsciously filed away the suspicion that every other aspect of the film was dire. Take away the loud bangs and the dodgy editing and suddenly the acting is exposed.

Do not gain laughs at the extent of the mentally ill. The critics will hate you for it and describe you as offensive. Sure, it's the same critics who didn't mind seeing it in other flicks, but it wont stop them using it if they have a vendetta against you.

Do not monkey with the title of your film. It stinks of defeat and both big budget films that did it this summer (both more than once) were box office failures (Gigli & LXG).

Do not allow your leading man to split up fisticuffs between producer and director at a film screening. The general public does not know who Joe Roth and Martin Brest are. But if Ben Affleck pulls them apart it's suddenly big news.

Do not bank on the words of wisdom ''There is no such thing as bad publicity'.

[McD]

I'm giving this an 'up', just to say that I enjoyed it even more the second time on DVD. In fact, the third time came less than 24 hours later.

Nice to see that Empire upped their one star review to two this month, saying that the horrid press was mainly down to 'media glee' - although they fail to point out that they were running 100% on that bandwagon with the original pitiful review.

I'm upping my review too - definitely four stars out of five. Wait till it ends up in the 3 for £30 offers and the like, and take a crazy chance on it, why dontcha. Some of you wont be disappointed.

[Mandrill]

When I see it cheap I'm going to pick it up...don't mind Affleck myself and I can't imagine this movie is as bad as they say.

[dagger]

Outrageous that this film has been slated so, saw it last night expecting a dog and its actually pretty good !!

Claerly its not fantastic but I would rate it about 6.5/10.
Believe me there are simply thousands of bigger turkeys than this.

[Squirrel God]

It's a little over £7 at DVDSoon at the moment :D

[McD]

Originally posted by Squirrel God
It's a little over £7 at DVDSoon at the moment :D

Total bargain - you lucky people!

I reckon the chances of it being re-released as a Spec Ed or Director's Cut are very slim indeed, so now is the time...

[Squirrel God]

Originally posted by McD
Total bargain - you lucky people!
I'm waiting for it to hit £4 ;) :lol:

[ryonhilluk]

Originally posted by dagger
Outrageous that this film has been slated so, saw it last night expecting a dog and its actually pretty good !!

:eek:

[dagger]

ok so I fancy Jlo - what of it :-)

[McD]

I suppose it was inevitable... but Gigli has swept the board at this year's Razzies. Six awards inc Worst Actor and Actress (both in the best leading roles of their career, imho), worst film, worst screen couple, worst screenplay, worst director.

I think this could be a year where the big Razzie winner is a more enjoyable film than the best Oscar winner! We shall see...

[Paul490]

I've just seen Gigli. It's certainly not ghastly but it does have some serious issues. The mentally ill guy made me cringe throughout most of it. Ben Affleck can't act but Jennifer Lopez did an average but bearable job. Christopher Walken's cameo was pretty good.

Gigli is not worth purchasing. Rent it if you like this genre or you're a fan of Lopez or Affleck. Otherwise don't bother. Mediocre.

[Squirrel God]

It's certainly nowhere near being the worst film I've ever seen. The script is reasonable enough (with the exception of a few lines/scenes) and it does have a few funny moments.

The key problem, I thought, was in the casting. It relies on a small cast in a small number of locations to deliver a lot of dialogue, and to pull that off, you really need actors that can light up the screen and deliver first-rate performances with real conviction.

Ironically, I found J-Lo to be the only one delivering a half-decent performance! She provides a somewhat believable character with some emotion. Everyone else suffers from being horribly miscast. Lenny Venito, Al Pacino and Christopher Walken are the worst, particularly Walken, who may as well have delivered his lines through the power of mime. Ben Affleck is just about passable as the screw-up gangster of the title, but it's just madness thinking that he could ever play a gangster in the first place. It's never going to be the right role for him.

Overall, I think Gigli is a good idea packaged into an average film that never really comes to life, but passes the time adequately enough. As average films do.

http://www.btinternet.com/~squirrel.god/files/5stars.png

Who's with me? :D

[utero]

You know a film's bad when even Walken can't save it

[sleep4ever]

Not me

Fairly high on the list of films I'll never watch again

[Aretak]

It really is quite disappointing when you finally get to see it, considering the "worst of all time" reputation that seems to hang around its neck (though I'm sure all involved are very thankful to Uwe Boll for getting into the movie-making business :D). It's not a good film, but it's no-where near as bad as people pretend it is.

[hookbeak]

it's one of those films that people love to say how bad it is - even though they have never seen it. This kind of bandwaggon jumping annoys me.

It's certainly not great though

[SIMON ADEBISI]

I laughed the whole way through it. Affleck should have retired in utter shame after it.

[McD]

Not great perhaps, but a very good film which would have been much better without the reshoots, etc, allegedly done by a panicky studio. I defended it to the hilt here (http://www.thedvdforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=214429&page=2&pp=20&highlight=brest+roth+affleck) and haven't changed my mind since.

[Squirrel God]

Not great perhaps, but a very good film which would have been much better without the reshoots, etc, allegedly done by a panicky studio. I defended it to the hilt here (http://www.thedvdforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=214429&page=2&pp=20&highlight=brest+roth+affleck) and haven't changed my mind since.

I did a search for 'Gigli' in thread titles only and that thread didn't show up!

I think you liked it way more than anyone really should!

[McD]

I did a search for 'Gigli' in thread titles only and that thread didn't show up!

I think you liked it way more than anyone really should!

It didn't show up for me either, which is very odd. You can see how I found it by looking at the link (thankfully I could remember the post so easy to find via a few names).

The film is far more sophisticated than people give it credit for. Has anyone who has seen it worked out why the 'half-wit' starts singing a rap tune in a morgue (other than the comedy value)? There's a reason - it's all in there.

[Alan b]

Threads merged.

[James45]

Watched it last night and yes it was bad, yes Affleck was annoying but J-Lo looked great, there was not a moment in that film where I didn't want to bone her into unconciousness.

I felt sure the film was actually directed by the Farrelly Bros though.

[SIMON ADEBISI]

Even during the gobble gobble scene :lol: