However, Rotten Tomatoes currently lists Gigli at a 7% rating, which means that 7% of the published reviews for this movie are actually positive.
How do you get a list of the lowest rated movies of all time on Rotten Tomatoes? They only seem to have links for highest-rated “best of” lists.
Hijacky question: One reviewer said that there was a scene in which it was “obvious that Pacino was not on the same set as Ben and Jen” and that his performance was stuck in via CGI.
Can anyone confirm or deny this or provide a link of any kind?
(Oh, and it was one of the reviews I read off of Rotten Tomatoes, but I read several and don’t remember which one. Sorry.)
I thought so too but I had a sudden attack of Pedant’s Disease that temporarily stifled my sense of humor.
Oh my goodness. Two films made in 2003 are #1 and #2 on the worst movie ever on the imdb.com list.
Oh my goodness. Two films made in 2003 are #1 and #2 on the worst movie ever on the imdb.com list.
Our local multiplex is showing it at 10-something and 12-something. So late shows only. Then they can use the screen earlier in the evening for a movie people will actually go to.
Oh, I see, you’ve linked to the selection of worst movies. I thought you meant it was rated the worst ever.
I’m not sure how Rotten Tomatoes works. Do they have the same number of reviews per movie? Otherwise, the percentage rankings would be meaningless. I noticed that “Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever” has 0 %. That means that zero percent of the reviews were positive, right? (Gigli has 7 %)
FYI, here in Cincinnati, they are indeed showing Gigli once a day at the big cineplexes.