SO, I was flipping through some of todds past reviews like an old scrapbook, and came across Gigli (which I still havent seen). First of all regarding the review itself, I couldnt tell if it was a joke or if was a serious review. And if it WAS a joke, was it a joke because he actually DID see the movie or because he didnt and decided to review it anyway as he indicated?

I still think its logically impossible to "review" a movie you havent bothered to see no matter how bad you believe it to be. You can do many things to a movie before you see it but review isnt one of them. Maybe I'm being a fussbucket but you couldn't review a movie you haven't viewed any more than you can rewind a tape you havent played. We have something called innocent until proven guilty in this country and I think every movie deserves a "fair trial"; I dont care if its the freakin Osama Bin Laden of movies.

That said has anyone who's seen the movie verify it was that bad? The reason I havent seen it myself is not because I've preordained it visual torture that I dont want to put myself through but because it doesnt hold enough interest for me in the first place to even bother to go find out for myself by watching it. And no the "so bad that its good" label is not good enough reason and provides not enough info about the flick for me to waste time and money. Doesnt the movie have Al Pacino and Christopher Walken in it? If you split the screen time between them shouldn't the movie be at least watchable for more than 15 seconds? And Martin Brest...okay Ill grant hes not the most mature director with the most well thought out ideas. But I thought Scent of a Woman was at the very least an enjoyable film and beautiful to look at. It got Al his oscar and the best tango dancing scene of all time. A really bad director will drag his actors down with him and that didnt happen in Brest's "scent". It did happen in that atrocious "Two for the money" though.

I've read so much bad about the movie that I am unwilling to give it the benefit of the doubt.  And like yourself I don't really  have much interest in a romantic comedy genre.  I rent out a romantic comedy if there isn't really anything else interesting in the video store that I haven't seen yet.  I'd watch Gigli (or at least acknowledge its existence, if it was on T.V.  I would probably pause while channel surfing and give it half my attention for 30 seconds, then try to find something interesting like that quasi-reality show about Scott Baio or CNN.  I'd watch Gigli it if I was stuck in an airport waiting lounge waiting for a connecting flight.

I tend to agree with you though that one should give a movie the benefit of the doubt.  And I think if you decide to review a movie you should actually see it. In saying that though I realize that I contradict myself because I've pretty much made up my mind based on anything I've read heard or seen about Gigli that it sucks majorly.  Every sane movie critic in the universe has panned it.  Meet the Spartans is on at the local theatre.  I'm not gonna dish over my hard-earned salary to see it because I've heard it is extremely bad.  So I'm judging that movie before I've ever seen it.  

...when I say "I don't need to be hit in the head with a hammer to know I don't like being hit in the head with a hammer."



Houston is a terrible, terrible city.

"I don't need to be hit in the head with a hammer to know I don't like being hit in the head with a hammer."

Having reservations about watching a bad flick (like having reservations about being "hit with a hammer" is one thing)...

..but writing a bad review for a movie you havent seen is like yelling "OW!" before the hammer even came near your head. Only the people sitting in the actual theater have the privelege of yelling boo and throwing popcorn at the screen. Sitting in front of your computer and typing a conjectural review based on a pop-culturally informed opinion dunt count..

Besides, some of us dont mind being hit in the head with a hammer. Provided we're wearing a helmet at the time and we get to hit back.

or we just like to be at the business end of hammers... either way i agree you have to watch the movie to review it... unless it is completely tongue in cheek which is something i can see Todd doing; then I can see it happening.