Movie Review Of ' Gigli '

Postby MegMeg112 » Sun Aug 03, 2003 12:53 am

Movie Reviews: 'Gigli'


As of Thursday, Gigli, the film with the worst buzz of the year, was also the worst reviewed, according to the Rotten Tomatoes website (http://www.rottentomatoes.com). Of 42 reviews cited on the website, mostly from lesser-known critics, the film hadn't received better than a poor rating from a single one. Today the major critics are chiming in. Joe Morgenstern in the Wall Street Journal calls it "the worst movie ... of our admittedly young century. More stupefying follies may come, but it's impossible to imagine how they'll beat this one for staggering idiocy, fatuousness or pretension." The word "disaster" crops up in a number of reviews. In fact, it crops up in the very first line of Jami Bernard's in the New York Daily News: "Gigli is a disaster," she writes. "It's a dull disaster," writes Ty Burr in the Boston Globe. "It is a disaster of spectacular proportions," comments Eleanor Ringel Gillespie in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.Other critics take turns parsing the verb "to stink" while still others employ the noun "stinker." "This movie would stink even without its big-ticket stars," comments Manohla Dargis in the Los Angeles Times. Similarly, Jonathan Foreman comments in the New York Post: "It isn't the fault of Ben Affleck or Jennifer Lopez ... that Gigli is such a stinker." Stephen Hunter mounts a stack of pejorative adjectives into a single sentence to describe the movie: "It's enervated, torpid, slack, dreary and, oh yes, nasty, brutish and long." One of the nicest things being said about the film is that it is merely bad. It's "not the crime against humanity it's been rumored to be," notes Charles Taylor of the online Salon magazine. Jan Stuart in Newsday relates, "Pundits in the men's room line after the movie wanted to tar Gigli as 'the first Showgirls of the 21st century, ' but it's only intermittently as awful as that." Mark Caro in the Chicago Tribune calls it "less incompetent than bewildering." A.O. Scott in the New York Times dismisses it as a "hopelessly misconceived exercise in celebrity self-worship, which opens to nationwide ridicule today." Roger Ebert in the Chicago Sun-Times even has some nice things to say about it, writing that "although it doesn't quite work, maybe the movie is worth seeing for some scenes that are really very good." And in fact, the film actually receives an enthusiastic review from Amy Dawes of Variety, who calls it "fun to watch" and goes on to praise it for relying "on dialogue and character creation rather than slam-bang action."
User avatar
MegMeg112
Supreme Member
 
Posts: 1459
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm
Location: WA

Postby MegMeg112 » Mon Aug 04, 2003 1:05 am

heh, now i wanna kinda see it to see how bad it is!
User avatar
MegMeg112
Supreme Member
 
Posts: 1459
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm
Location: WA

Postby HeyBaby102 » Mon Aug 04, 2003 4:55 pm

Gigli debuted #8 on the boxoffice with 3.8 million! That is a bomb! LOL. Jho thought she could own the movie screen with Affleck on her arms....she was wrong! LOL!
:lol:
User avatar
HeyBaby102
Newbie
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2002 1:16 am

Postby MegMeg112 » Tue Aug 05, 2003 12:33 am

haha, i know!! i heard their chemistry was really bad, and i was surprised being that they are engaged but whatever!!
User avatar
MegMeg112
Supreme Member
 
Posts: 1459
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm
Location: WA

Postby AngelOfMusic » Tue Aug 05, 2003 10:17 am

and they have another movie coming out together called jersey girl and the test audiences are already saying that it is terrible too! man does anyone like them or are they really just that bad together?
User avatar
AngelOfMusic
Abstracts Royalty
 
Posts: 6108
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2000 7:22 pm

Postby MegMeg112 » Wed Aug 06, 2003 12:17 am

hehe, i don't know!! Maybe they are good "offscreen" but onscreen they must not be!! Which is weird, cuz you'd think since they are engaged that they'd have a natural chemistry together, but who knows?!
User avatar
MegMeg112
Supreme Member
 
Posts: 1459
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm
Location: WA

Postby beftek » Thu Aug 14, 2003 3:43 pm

You know, I don't think they're really in love. If they were they wouldn't put their love out there for the press to ruin. They were asking for it. It's called a 'private life' for a reason. I honestly still beleive this was a publicity stunt. They saturated us with their cute little story making sure that everyone realized that Jen fell in love with Ben after her divorce with Chris Judd. That their love was all innocent and romantic like a move. Oh, and then it was a movie. This should anger movie-goers and fans of theirs. They're basically telling you [the public] that you're so stupid and frivilous that you'll buy into anything they sell and say. I'm glad that it didn't work. Now they have to dissolve the mess that they made. Now even a break up will probably not help them with Jersey Girl. It's over. . .
User avatar
beftek
Newbie
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2003 3:13 pm

Postby Smirnoff » Tue Oct 07, 2003 8:18 am

Seems like she's having her own little "Glitter" moment :lol: :lol: ......what goes around... :lol:
User avatar
Smirnoff
Newbie
 
Posts: 29
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2002 10:10 am


Return to Jennifer Lopez

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron