Everyone else is talking about the tidal wave of negativity surrounding Martin Brest's Gigli, so I figured I might as well chime in with a few comments of my own. Have I seen the movie? No. Am I going to? No, but I may check it out on video just because it's supposed to be so phenominally bad. I'm sure many others will take the same approach, as a bad movie can really only be fun when viewed at home, although some of the reviews are saying the thing is so dull it's not even good for a decent laugh.

While it's clear that Gigli provides little insight of its own creation, what the coverage surrounding the film over the past week or so has revealed is how similar the entertainment media is to a large group of high school students. Do you remember back in high school when a guy from one clique starting dating a girl from another clique and then everyone started trashing them behind their backs and eventually to their faces? Well, if it hasn't already happened to them before, I'm sure Jen and Ben can now relate.


Making a bad movie is one thing - and I don't need to see the film to be sure of that being the case - but I think the press may have stepped over the line in trashing a Hollywood couple simply because there was nothing much else to write about for a few days. Yes, they're both rich and attractive and perhaps come off as too arrogant or self-congratulatory for their own good at times (I still cringe whenever I think of J.Lo's music video for "Jenny From the Block"), but to be honest I'm far more repulsed by the way they're being ripped apart for something as frivolous as a shitty flick. In the end, most of the hatred towards the film should be cast upon Martin Brest (who also gave us the long-winded Meet Joe Black), not the actors he directed.

On the other end of the spectrum are the critics that decided to go against the grain, perhaps to counteract those who have been overly harsh towards Gigli and its stars. The most notable was Roger Ebert, who somehow found a way in his heart to give the film 2 1/2 stars, which means he liked it more than both Erin Brockovich and Fight Club. I know he works harder than just about any other person in the business and reviews an unbelievable amount of movies every year, but clearly he needs to step back and get some overall perspective. I haven't seen the film so it'd be unfair of me to suggest it's inconceivable to find something of value in Gigli, although I will say he seems to be handing out a lot of free passes lately. To his credit, Ebert does back up his grade by acknowledging that tucked within all of the bad parts there are a few solid moments that make it worth watching. In his opinion, anyway.

Posted August 04, 2003 | link