Review by Douglas Reese
Gigli is not a masterpiece by any stretch of the imagination, but one thing I feel it is that hardly anybody else does is that I find it to be a great film. Hell, I'm probably one of the few that would dare to stick it on a list of the ten best films of 2003. I am not a bit confused as to why the film has received notorious acclaim as being “one of the worst films ever” because it's all too obvious why it's getting that reception. Critics loathed it with a passion, early buzz being it was horrible and slowly building to scorn upon its wide release. It's a confusing thing to grasp, especially when noted that, even if Gigli is not your thing, it certainly cannot be called unintelligent or unoriginal. And for a mainstream Hollywood film, it is certainly something that is wholly different than any other film possibly ever put in wide release by an American studio.
If anybody remembers, director Martin Brest is known for using sarcastic plot elements and human caricatures for his characters. He used both elements in 1984's Beverly Hills Cop, as well as in 1988's Midnight Run and 1992's Scent of a Woman, all three being films that got fairly positive praise. I myself may not have been particularly impressed with the latter film, but I sure can say that Brest's tongue-in-cheek presentations of the morals he tries to teach are throughly meant to be taken at a level of satire, and are so well incorporated into his films that they can almost seem transparent (as opposed to many of today's films where the themes are often easy to see from the start). For example, Ben Affleck's performance gets hate for being an over-cooked gangster stereotype, just as Jennifer Lopez's gets flack for being an overdone conventional lesbian. If you open up and view Brest's screenplay as an observation of the inner-battles with masculinity and femininity, you can see how these conventions are functioning the film as a talkative parabolic study in American society's sexual norms than an actual narrative involving two Hollywood stars falling in love through romantic comedy clichés.
“What is this film about?” That is one question most moviegoers will almost always ask themselves by default when viewing a film. (This is why the more over-used plot-driven pictures end up at the top of the box-office numbers every week.) They would no doubt be unprepared for Gigli's lack of plot, high doses of dialogue, heavy level of over-the-top characters, high tide of sexual repression concentration and the film's attentiveness to the complexities of gender roles. Would they want to spend two hours in a film where two characters talk and talk about their sexual confusions? Would they want to see a film in which the studio advertised as a romantic comedy, only to discover that the two lead characters are in no way supposed to fall in love or even have a bit of romanticized chemistry? To quote JokerXgg's negative review on Criticker.com: “it was a romantic comedy? IT WAS A ROMANTIC COMEDY!!?!?” To assure you, JokerXgg, it was obviously not supposed to be, and it is the fault of the studio for trying to cash in on the “Bennifer” craze of 2003.
On Criticker, only 10 reviewers (myself included) gave positives to Gigli out of its 541 rankings. I'd also like to mention that only 5 of those remaining ratings were average grades while the rest are scathing negatives. Some of the reviews range from “a little better than everyone says it is, but still bad” (johnshaft) to “show this in film schools.. and teach them they shouldn't make this kind of films” (cambelboy). And throughout most of these negative reviews, its all out of spite instead of critique. Reading them, I never learn why the reviewer hates the film, I just read each one as somebody trying to say the harshest comment they can: "This movie has less going for it than a deaf, dumb and blind quadrapalegic.” (baskil) And yet I fail to learn why it has less going for it.
Of course, I'm not criticizing opinions here, so please do not take me the wrong way. I'm simply studying throughout all these negatives comments for a proper answer, yet never really get to feel why the reviewer truly hates it. Most feel like they are opinions exploited rather than genuinely truthful and/or understandable. One review just upsets me, and makes me feel that there could be a plausible case that the film is just getting unfairly influenced and biased hate.
“Ok. I didn't watch this movie nor that I had planed to, but there's a reason why I ranked it. It's SO bad that I'd rather lose every eyelash than watch Gigli.” - furrisima
And this isn't the first occasion that I have come across a circumstance like this. On IMDb, about a year ago, I came across a post on the site's Film General board in which a poster aggressively claimed the film to be the worst he had ever seen, pointing out his reason that it “failed on so many levels”. Weeks later, I find a post made by the same user on the film's message board. In the post he admitted that he used to hate the film before ever actually seeing it and how, now that he has seen the film, he really liked it.
The endless spite that Gigli gets has always fascinated me. Even upon the film's release in 2003, I was among the few that actually liked it, and even today the hate seems to be going strong. However, it is very comforting to see some critics have actually admitted to enjoying the film. Roger Ebert has said the film has become better the years since he first gave the film a **1/2 star review (in which he received reader mail stating he was “stupid” and “pathetic” for giving the film such a high grade, also adding that he had “lost his mind”). Notable internet critics also have given positive word to it (most notably a very well-written and intelligent review by critic Jeremy Heilman at moviemartyr.com).
So the question going through your mind is probably: why is the film so good to you, and why do you feel you should have written a lengthy essay about it? My answer, as corny as it sounds, would be that I feel the film is very much mistreated; and that the many detractors are either not watching the film or overlooking what the film is actually trying to say. There are some flaws (the film definitely could have used a better score) but writer/director Brest never once cheats the viewer, and he stays true to the themes and motifs he examines. The film has very bold European sensibilities (as Heilman pointed out in his review), that I wouldn't be surprised if the film got positive reception had it been in the French laguage as well as absent of the preconceived hate for Ben Affleck and Jennifer Lopez. It's quite a pitiful observation, but I can't deny that I feel it's an honest one.
Comments?