Learn more Shop now Learn more Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Learn More Shop now Shop now Learn more Shop Fire Shop Kindle Learn More Shop now Fitbit

Customer Reviews

2.7 out of 5 stars
2.7 out of 5 stars
Format: DVD|Change
Price:£2.74+ Free shipping with Amazon Prime

There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.

on 14 February 2010
Absolutely the worst film I have ever seen.

So why did I watch it? I am a Pacino fan who has seen and owns nearly every single moment of him on film. Except this, for seven years. But finally I gave in. My word I wish I hadn't. Even the few minutes with Pacino can do nothing to salvage the other 90 minutes of train-wreck cinema.

I cannot begin to defend this. The four-star reviews on here are surely the result of dares.

Avoid at all costs.
11 Comment| 6 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 7 May 2004
Firstly I'd like to admit that the only reason for watching this film was to see how bad Gigli really is. If that is so ridiculous then it can't match the absurdity of the 'plot' this film has. An unfunny comedy is always going to be a hard slog, but one that aims jokes at people with learning difficulties? Please, Mr Brest, what has happened since the glory days of Beverly Hills Cop and Scent of a Woman? I notice you're the writer AND director so you are directly to blame.
There is no real problem with the look of the film or the acting - J-Lo and Ben Affleck act well enough, just that not much is required for them to do. I hope the poor chap given the role as the disabled character wasn't given an oscar prospect. No matter how convincing his performance was, it was lost in amongst the offensive script and power of the 2 off-screen-lover stars.
Having watched, in agony, Pearl Harbour, I can understand why Ben Affleck may have got mixed up in it (Mr Affleck, did you read the script or was it all a surprise?), but J-Lo? When your other half agrees to play a character who comically throws a disabled person into a wall and continuously verbally abuses him, surely alarm bells should be ringing.
Who persuaded who to star in this? I'm sure that Al Pacino and Christopher Walken were victims of deception here - were they given the rest of the script or just that for their cameos? May be Al Pacino crossed Martin Brest on-set of Scent of a Woman and Brest spent the following 10years scheming to make him look ridiculous? If that be the case, it worked. How was this film pitched?
The only way I can describe it is a cross between 'Rain Man' and 'See no Evil, Hear no Evil', then tossing in a kidknapping and a lesbian. Someone must have blagged it like a good'un or the panel were very sick-minded people with a disregard for their studio's money and it's audience.
Having watched the film, I just wanted a director's commentary to explain a) why Martin Brest wrote it; b) why it was funded; c) TO EXPLAIN THE PLOT. The script is so shot through with holes that all that remains to remember is J-Lo posing and stretching to awkward-looking positions whilst talking about why she is a lesbian(appreciated) and Ben Affleck bullying some disabled bloke in the name of comedy. I believe there is a plot involving the disabled bloke being a federal officer's brother and a kidknapping to pervert the course of justice but it's possible I read that somewhere.
I know - I knew the score before watching it, so I'm not going to demand compensation for wasting 2hrs of my life, yada-yada, but to anyone who hasn't heard the score on this, please note it is UTTER RUBBISH - The actors try their best but it's either all ab-libbed or the script doctor was out of the office. Even Blockbuster said they had to get rid of their copies because no one wanted it.
0Comment| 14 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 12 March 2004
That fact that I had to rate this film with at least one star makes Gigli sound better than it is!
I admit my only reason for watching this film was to see what all the fuss was about, but I did so with an open, objective point-of-view. However, only 5 minutes into the film, it soon became quite clear why the film was pulled from cinemas after only 4 days;
Affleck and Lopez's characters are, at best, ambiguous - unbelievable nice and very difficult to imagine them even taking candy from a child. Neither pull off the bad guy image in the slightest (can't believe that guy in the restaurant fell for J-Lo's 'menacing' Samuel L Jackson-esque 'threat'.
As for the subject of a mentally-handicapped character, all I can say is, if that's how much being kidnapped and held to ransom improves someone's condition, maybe J-Lo and Affleck are in the wrong job! (answers on a postcard...)
All this is without mention of the pitiful acting 'chemistry', dismal script, single camera-angle, lighting(!).
What's worse is the appearances of Christopher Walken and Al Pacino - guys what were you thinking?! Even their attempts to rescue the acting fall, sadly, by the wayside.
All this said, I recomend this film to everyone as after this, you'll have a clear definition of a BAD film, a benchmark by which to judge everything else!
Oh and I'm not even going into the final scene with the kid dancing at the Beach party, oh dear...
0Comment| 5 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 20 August 2014
Terrible from start to finish and worth watching for that reason alone. The scenes are edited in the most weirdly disjointed fashion, the character motivations are utterly unbelievable, the dialogue is terrible, the acting is poor, the sets are cheap, the casting is bad, characters appear in set up scenes only to never be seen again (Christopher Walken). The palette is god awful with whoever passed as the art director going for a mainly green and duck eggs blue theme through most of the film despite it being shot in California, which makes for some very muddy and dismal looking scenes. It also seems there was no budget for props as all the scenes have a horrible 'bare' feeling to them.

If you didn't use superstar actors this film could easily have been made for under a million dollars, yet somehow they managed to spend upward of $50m on it. Someone somewhere was skimming something.

The entire plot of this movie (the parts worth keeping) would constitute a 20 minute subplot in a really good gangster flick.

Worth watching just to compare to good movies. Affleck is so much better than this and has done other great works. J Lo has not but ultimately it's not her fault either. Bad script, acting and direction. Even Pacino couldn't save it with the one good scene in the movie.
0Comment| 2 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 25 November 2015
love this film, don't understand why anyone doesn't
0Comment| One person found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 24 May 2015
disappointing - not worth even worth a watch if the TV is no good. no wonder it was a flop
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 9 May 2015
Good film
0Comment| One person found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 21 June 2016
Two great actors one terrible film.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 19 July 2015
0Comment| One person found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 1 June 2005
well i rented this because i wanted to know if it was as bad as everyone said. Everyone was right. I should have realised that if Jennifer Never-Makes-a-Good-Movie Lopez and Ben Career-Down-The-Toilet Affleck were in it it would be total trash. The script is rubbish, the plot is just boring, and they cant act. Only get this if you want to have a good laugh, a laugh at the trashiness of it that is. No wonder they split up soon after, they obviously couldnt stand the humiliation and the turd reviews this movie was getting. Avoid, avoid, avoid.
0Comment| 6 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse

Customers also viewed these items


Need customer service? Click here

Sponsored Links

  (What is this?)