GIGLI
d. Martin Brest, 2003

26 July 2009

Yes, GIGLI is jaw-droppingly bad. You watch it wondering why anyone thought any part of it was a good idea, or why, once it was in trouble, anyone thought it could be rescued by any means. Actors who aren't charming (Ben Affleck) or whose charm is at best one-dimensional (Jennifer Lopez) play characters who can't even convincingly charm each other, let alone an audience. Inane dialogue is delivered as though the words were the height of sophisticated wit, complete with pauses for audience response which are hard to imagine any audience ever needing. The major characters act contrary to their implied background arcs, while minor characters are uninflected stock roles who barely impact what little drama occurs.

In other words, GIGLI is no different from the vast majority of Hollywood films of the last few decades. Put GIGLI up against PEARL HARBOR, or the Stallone remake of GET CARTER, or THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW, or Woody Allen's CELEBRITY, and you'd be hard pressed to decide which was the more wretched experience. The question GIGLI raises isn't "why is GIGLI so bad," but "why was GIGLI singled out for being so bad from such a large field of bad films?" Yes, I understand that "the media" had "had enough" of Affleck and Lopez, prompting a "backlash." But who is to blame for that? "The media" created these people; if "the media"tires of them, why doesn't "the media" simply stop reporting on them?

Okay. Just kidding. I know why.