I've postponed seeing this film for quite a while for obvious reasons: it's arguably the most hated film ever made, perhaps even more than "Battlefield Earth." But last night morbid curiosity finally got the best of me and I caught it on Encore.
And amazingly, astonishingly, against all odds, it's not that bad. It isn't great, it isn't even quite good, but on a scale of 1 to 10, I'd give it a 6. It's okay. It held my interest from start to finish and even had some intriguing elements that far less notorious failures have lacked.
What surprised me most was how heartfelt and engaging it was, thanks mainly to one of Ben Affleck's best performances. Turns out he's got a real flair for comedy; his half-baked Robert DeNiro impersonation is a hoot, and I have no doubt is quite intentional. The movie is built around his baffled/flummoxed/bemused/exasperated reactions to his ill-tempered boss, gorgeous lesbian watchdog, and handicapped hostage, and they're all quite believable and funny. Naturally, given the amount of vitriol that was directed at the film, I assumed that Affleck just phoned in his performance (as he's been known to do) but that's far, far from the case. He carries this film the way Tom Cruise carried "Rain Man." Of course, "Gigli" is not "Rain Man," but it's not Affleck's fault.
"Gigli" is, remarkably, a genuinely and quite intentionally funny film at times, more so than the obvious and desperate "Bringing Down the House," for instance. Affleck half-heartedly reading the toilet paper packaging in lieu of a bedtime story to pacify his child-like hostage is hysterical. So is the latter's "Baywatch" obsession and his antics with Affleck's cell phone and his "who's on first?" routine with Affleck's boiling crime boss.
Justin Bartha, as the mentally handicapped hostage, is no Dustin Hoffman, to be sure, and at times his performance makes you cringe because his level of retardation seems to fluctuate depending on the scene -- but he gets laughs. Jennifer Lopez really struggles with some of her line readings (particularly in her scene with Al Pacino; how is this the same actress who was so impressive playing a similar character in "Out of Sight"?) but she looks amazing and she gives off the necessary sexual spark to make the romantic comedy elements work.
But if only director Martin Brest had revised his script before shooting, to iron out the film's three principle flaws. One, it's so weak the way Lopez' character is introduced; I guess that's something many viewers just couldn't get past. She's clearly no tougher than Affleck is, so why is she there again? It might have been interesting if Affleck's boss had had a secret soft side, recognized his underling's loneliness and sent Lopez to try to kill two birds with one stone: "cure" Lopez of her homosexuality and play cupid. But he has no soft side; he's a two-dimensional monster, and it never makes a great deal of sense.
Second, the plot is much too thin. Christopher Walken shows up for one scene and then vanishes, never to be heard from again! This film obviously NEEDS him to stick around and keep the heat on our heroes, in addition to Affleck's boss. How a filmmaker as experienced as Martin Brest could have failed to recognize that is beyond me. I can only speculate that the studio wanted to max out the Bennifer angle and stuff in as many scenes featuring the two of them as possible, even at the expense of our greatest living character actor, not to mention the demands of the story.
Third, the film is 30 minutes too long and badly edited. There are a number of scenes that just stretch on two, three or four beats longer than they should, particularly that scene where Lopez scares off those punks with her interminable eye-gouging monologue. I'd heard that the dialogue in "Gigli" was just atrocious, but I didn't really think it was that bad, just long-winded. Had the film been edited down to a compact 90 minutes, I have little doubt that it would have received a more favorable response. There's just enough material here for a good movie, but Brest spreads it too thin.
The most interesting thing about "Gigli" is that it's kind of a tender-hearted crime flick. It's more interested in the feelings and the emotions of its characters than the violence they engage in, or refuse to engage in. The sudden killing towards the end of the film is as jarring as anything I've seen because it comes out of nowhere, and Affleck and Lopez seem authentically horrified at what they've witnessed; in most crime films, the leads would feign disinterest and play it cool - not here.
I really bought that Bartha brought out the big brother, father figure in Affleck and Lopez his sensitive, caring, feminine side. Clearly he's not cut out for his line of work, and that's what his two companions help him to realize. That is not an insignificant thing. Would that less reviled films boasted such a satisfying character arc.
So why does this film have a microscopic 2.2 rating at IMDb? Perhaps people are reviewing Affleck's and Lopez' over-publicized, failed romance instead of the film - beats the heck out of me.
And amazingly, astonishingly, against all odds, it's not that bad. It isn't great, it isn't even quite good, but on a scale of 1 to 10, I'd give it a 6. It's okay. It held my interest from start to finish and even had some intriguing elements that far less notorious failures have lacked.
What surprised me most was how heartfelt and engaging it was, thanks mainly to one of Ben Affleck's best performances. Turns out he's got a real flair for comedy; his half-baked Robert DeNiro impersonation is a hoot, and I have no doubt is quite intentional. The movie is built around his baffled/flummoxed/bemused/exasperated reactions to his ill-tempered boss, gorgeous lesbian watchdog, and handicapped hostage, and they're all quite believable and funny. Naturally, given the amount of vitriol that was directed at the film, I assumed that Affleck just phoned in his performance (as he's been known to do) but that's far, far from the case. He carries this film the way Tom Cruise carried "Rain Man." Of course, "Gigli" is not "Rain Man," but it's not Affleck's fault.
"Gigli" is, remarkably, a genuinely and quite intentionally funny film at times, more so than the obvious and desperate "Bringing Down the House," for instance. Affleck half-heartedly reading the toilet paper packaging in lieu of a bedtime story to pacify his child-like hostage is hysterical. So is the latter's "Baywatch" obsession and his antics with Affleck's cell phone and his "who's on first?" routine with Affleck's boiling crime boss.
Justin Bartha, as the mentally handicapped hostage, is no Dustin Hoffman, to be sure, and at times his performance makes you cringe because his level of retardation seems to fluctuate depending on the scene -- but he gets laughs. Jennifer Lopez really struggles with some of her line readings (particularly in her scene with Al Pacino; how is this the same actress who was so impressive playing a similar character in "Out of Sight"?) but she looks amazing and she gives off the necessary sexual spark to make the romantic comedy elements work.
But if only director Martin Brest had revised his script before shooting, to iron out the film's three principle flaws. One, it's so weak the way Lopez' character is introduced; I guess that's something many viewers just couldn't get past. She's clearly no tougher than Affleck is, so why is she there again? It might have been interesting if Affleck's boss had had a secret soft side, recognized his underling's loneliness and sent Lopez to try to kill two birds with one stone: "cure" Lopez of her homosexuality and play cupid. But he has no soft side; he's a two-dimensional monster, and it never makes a great deal of sense.
Second, the plot is much too thin. Christopher Walken shows up for one scene and then vanishes, never to be heard from again! This film obviously NEEDS him to stick around and keep the heat on our heroes, in addition to Affleck's boss. How a filmmaker as experienced as Martin Brest could have failed to recognize that is beyond me. I can only speculate that the studio wanted to max out the Bennifer angle and stuff in as many scenes featuring the two of them as possible, even at the expense of our greatest living character actor, not to mention the demands of the story.
Third, the film is 30 minutes too long and badly edited. There are a number of scenes that just stretch on two, three or four beats longer than they should, particularly that scene where Lopez scares off those punks with her interminable eye-gouging monologue. I'd heard that the dialogue in "Gigli" was just atrocious, but I didn't really think it was that bad, just long-winded. Had the film been edited down to a compact 90 minutes, I have little doubt that it would have received a more favorable response. There's just enough material here for a good movie, but Brest spreads it too thin.
The most interesting thing about "Gigli" is that it's kind of a tender-hearted crime flick. It's more interested in the feelings and the emotions of its characters than the violence they engage in, or refuse to engage in. The sudden killing towards the end of the film is as jarring as anything I've seen because it comes out of nowhere, and Affleck and Lopez seem authentically horrified at what they've witnessed; in most crime films, the leads would feign disinterest and play it cool - not here.
I really bought that Bartha brought out the big brother, father figure in Affleck and Lopez his sensitive, caring, feminine side. Clearly he's not cut out for his line of work, and that's what his two companions help him to realize. That is not an insignificant thing. Would that less reviled films boasted such a satisfying character arc.
So why does this film have a microscopic 2.2 rating at IMDb? Perhaps people are reviewing Affleck's and Lopez' over-publicized, failed romance instead of the film - beats the heck out of me.