Gigli is ordered to kidnap the psychologically challenged younger brother of a powerful federal prosecutor. When plans go awry, Gigli's boss sends in Ricki, a gorgeous free-spirited female gangster who has her own set of orders to assist with the kidnapping. But Gigli begins falling for the decidedly unavailable Ricki, which could be a hazard to his occupation.

The film is a comedy, crime, romance film, and also violent story about how a criminal lesbian, a tough-guy hit-man with a heart of gold, and a man of mental Came to be challenged through a hostage best friends. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Gigli torrent reviews

Deyen S (nl) wrote: Couldn't even watch it

Sanjay K (ru) wrote: Things to look out: 3d effects, screenplay, story, amazing performance by every cast & melodious songs. Things might not like: not scary enough, feels little lengthy....

Noname (ag) wrote: First i thought this would be another low bad budget movie like many other similar movies. Martin have made some great ones and very bad ones and this one is somewhere in the middle. There are some decent actors aswell so its worth a closer look in my opinion. Overall a well made comedy..

Veronique R (us) wrote: Trs beau film qui fait du bien quand on a le spleen. Pas lu le livre de E-E Schmidt...

Mel V (ag) wrote: To start with the obvious, the acting wasn't great. The male lead wasn't too bad, but the girl... yee. The story is interesting, yet very, very disorganized. Things just keep happening and the characters react in such a way that seems very... unhuman? I dunno. A roomful of doctors (and that psychologist in particular, where on earth she'd get her degree? Miskatonic U? jeez...) taking it at face-value that there's an angry spirit in the hospital doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Even in a movie in which we're actually talking about spirits to begin with. And that Aztec music, really, it was driving me nuts. So all in all, it had a few good scenes, but was mostly just a jumble of wtf. 5.5/10, the extra .5 of a point goes to the pretty boy.

Ryan H (nl) wrote: Director Peter Greenaway becomes himself the hero of his previous triumph, The Belly of an Architect with Nightwatching, a film about the creation of Rembrandt's infamous portrait of a wealthy Dutch militia. In Architect, Greenaway constructs the story of an American architect planning an exhibition in Rome on the works of an obscure French enlightenment-era architect. The American, played wonderfully by Brian Dennehy obsesses over the works and life of Etienne-Louis Boulle, writing him postcards constantly. His obsession is also over his own sickness, and as the title implies, his belly. In Nightwatching, Greenaway, the painting enthusiast obsesses over Rembrandt (especially considering along with Nightwatching, he also made the documentary Rembrandt's J'accuse about the mysteries surrounding the painting, which I have yet to watch). In the movie, Rembrandt is persuaded to paint the portrait by his wife against his will. When plots and conspiracies begin to spring up amongst the men of the militia, including one mysterious death, illegitimate children in an orphanage/brothel, and mysterious disappearances, Rembrandt decides to pursue the project as a means of exposing the militia as the actors they are. Rembrandt's private life gets thrown into turmoil along the way when his wife falls ill after a troubled pregnancy. Eventually, the painting is completed and Rembrandt is left alone to watch his life fall to pieces. If you are at all familiar with Greenaway's work, the film's look will not be a surprise at all. Greenaway despises the mainstream's reliance on a novel structure in film making; instead granting primacy to the visuals over the narrative. However, like Architect, Night Watching is rather straightforward by his standards (as opposed to the impossible to follow but undoubted masterpiece The Draughtsman's Contract). His frames are very much constructed like the frames of a painting. Never is anything implied, it is always on screen, though possibly only in allusion. Greenaway first and foremost is a producer of images, and as such, has made some of the most visually spectacular films I've ever seen. Even lesser works like 8 1/2 Women are still visually marvelous, even if otherwise unimpressive. Also a trademark of Greenaway's work is the pacing. It essentially moves as fast as the average painting. But with so much to be seen, this is never really a hindrance (though bits of the last hour do drag a bit longer than need be). It's masterfully constructed, resulting in an almost Oedipal tragedy by the conclusion. There is only one issue I can raise with this film, and I'm sure it can be easily explained on thematic grounds. Rembrandt's painting The Night Watch is not a night scene at all, as has been well noted. The painting has darkened over time from what was originally a day setting. Why Greenaway, who undoubtedly knows this, chose to use the painting as it appears now, as opposed to as it must have appeared when new is a bit perplexing. However, given the thematic emphasis Greenaway places on Rembrandt's frequent searching, often on his roof staring blankly into the night's sky, it seems obvious that this wasn't a simple mistake, but rather a calculated decision. Whether or not the painting is a night scene doesn't actually matter to the movie; the night scene that appears at present better serves motifs found in the film, and thus is the more fitting version for the film. I don't think I would consider this Greenaway's best work. It would be hard for any director to top a film like his 1988 work of art, The Cook, The Thief, His Wife and Her Lover. However, I feel this film does come close. The drama is more human than in most of Greenaway's works. The characters actually resemble characters as would appear in movies, as opposed to his usual bias toward creating characters as they would appear in paintings. Yet the film is still made with careful magnificence that only Greenaway seems capable. I can't think of another director who can even make some of his worst films look so amazingly good. Luckily, this is not one of his worst films. Now if only someone could convince Greenaway to make a film about Velazquez.

Brandon S (ca) wrote: Palpable tension and paranoia are what keeps the scares coming rather than jump scares and gore. It's a creative take on the haunted house genre, and, even though I watched it in broad daylight, it still scared the crap out of me. I loved this dark and paranoid masterwork. This movie is sorely unappreciated.

Rob V (jp) wrote: A great movie driven by sharp dialog and wonderful acting. Welcome to the big screen, Will Smith.

Allan C (mx) wrote: Dull and not very funny 80s sex comedy. I'd actually never seen this film before because I remember hearing how terrible it was, so I never did bother to check it out back in my video store clerk days. I probably should have stood by the prior decision. The film does get credit for being an 80s sex comedy that has female leads, Lea Thompson and Victoria Jackson, chasing the opposite sex, instead of the usual male leads chasing after the opposite sex. However, it really doesn't really use that in any sort of way that makes the humor unique or especially interesting (as compared to say the more recent HBO series "Girls"). I do like Lea Thompson and that did help the film, though I've never really cared for Victoria Jackson and her more recent turn as a Tea Party birther has made her all the more grating. The film does have other familiar 80s faces including Andrew Dice Clay, Mary Gross, Bruce Abbott, and Steve Oedekerk, but this film really doesn't have much entertainment value to speak of.

Andrew B (mx) wrote: i wanna see it again...'so happy together'

Sgt C (mx) wrote: (39%)A hugely forgettable post Vietnam war prisoner action movie from Cannon that sits in the shadow of the much more effective Rambo: first blood 2. Overall there's very little to actually enjoy here as we've seen all this has to offer before only done much better, while Chuck isn't as totally badass as he usually is, and the writing is poor at best. It's not an awful watch, but hardly worth tracking down, or paying more than a few buttons for the privilege.

Alexander C (nl) wrote: Will have to watch this one. Not necassarily good or bad. Will see. Want to watch!