ONE OF THE WORST MOVIES I'VE EVER SEEN!

Rating: Null/10 (14 June 2002)

Having seen this. I can honestly say it has certainly been my misfortune getting to see this stale movie. I say `stale' because the movie itself doesn't teach us anything at all. What do we learn about this movie after its ending? Do we learn that love for a `ridiculous football game' is everything in life? This movie is centered on a football game, which makes most people who like this movie fool themselves and enjoy Mr. Cruise's and Cuba Gooding's failed performances without realizing how bad and shallow they are. The plot of this movie is certainly flawed because of the uninteresting language used throughout the movie and lack of qualities to make us enjoy this. The people who don't like it, including myself lose interest after it begins; the story is so uninteresting and simple, since it's only about a football game and a love story, which make us uncomfortable every minute in the course of this movie.
Cameron Crowe did his best to bring us one of the most ridiculous and over-rated movies ever made. I'm not ashamed to say that "Jerry Maguire" is one the worst movies I have ever seen. I know what I say. I have seen lots of bad movies. No offense, but if I think carefully I'd be pretty sure it's probably worse, since it's extremely over-rated and unpleasantly acted. One of the reasons why it's that way, is that many reviewers surprisingly gave it a good score and the Academy had the nerve to give it about 5 Oscar nominations, unfortunately including both best performance by an actor in a leading role and best performance by an actor in a supporting role. Added to that, best screenplay, best picture, etc (I don't want to remember all the nominations it received, since it makes me sick) how could the Academy give an Oscar to Cuba Gooding for best supporting actor? Could they not see how shallow and overdramatic it was? He thinks he's an excellent actor and that his performance in this mess was fascinating, but it wasn't at all. It seemed to me that he overacted too much, whenever he cried, he did it in a so fictitious way, that instead of making me feel what his character was supposed to feel, he made me laugh at his `supposed' wistful feelings, which obviously he didn't make moving at all. If you want to see an amazing and moving performance, watch Martin Donovan's performance in `The Portrait of a Lady', who should have won the academy award for best supporting actor in 1996, but sadly he didn't even get a nomination. He portrays the main character's sickly cousin and he does it amazingly, look at his facial expressions, the way he coughed truly made me think he was dying. I don't understand why the Academy couldn't see his riveting performance and instead of seeing it, gave a nod to Cuba's failed performance, who felt the king of the world when he won it. Perhaps he thought that showing himself naked in `Jerry Maguire' could give him the coveted statuette, painfully he was right! Anyway I don't dislike him, I'm just saying that his performance in this movie wasn't that great to be an academy award winner. He gave a better performance in `Men of Honor'; I'd have enjoyed seeing him win an Oscar for this performance instead of wining it in this mess of movie.

What a shame! It's the worst best picture nominee ever! At least other very bad movies I've seen, haven't been nominated for best movie, which makes me a little bit glad. Anyway my concern is how it could receive about 6 nods for academy awards. There were amazing movies in 1996 like `The Portrait of a Lady' and `The Crucible', which should have been nominated for best picture, but they grievously didn't. How could this? At least they both received two Oscar nominations, which are something to be proud of, no nominations would be worse. I always ask myself: How could The Academy think that this ridiculous and sappy movie could have been better than `The Portrait of a Lady' released in the same year? How could Jane Campion's masterpiece be under-rated? How could it get academy award nominations for best screenplay and best picture? The plot of Jerry Maguire is horribly made and not recommendable at all. This is not what movies should be like! This movie should have shown a subtle or a different dialogue, which would have made it worth watching, but the dialogue in this movie is boring, bothersome, slow, pretentious, isn't it?? The whole movie was about Jerry Maguire's lovers and an uninteresting football game. Every character in this movie is so annoying because they only talk about this game. Seriously all they do is to talk about this.
Let's analyze Mr. Cruise's performance, if you see it closely, you'll find out that he gives a very disappointing performance, since he doesn't care what the viewers think of him, look at his expressions, he thinks he's interesting and funny, but he isn't, instead he's annoying and his shallow performance is totally obvious. No offense, but he needs to be taught by his beautiful ex wife Nicole Kidman who gave a pitch perfect emotionally devastating performance in `The portrait of a lady' as well as her magnificent co-star Barbara Hershey. He doesn't really make his performance plausible because every word he says in this movie seems to be a lie, it seems like he memorized the whole script without thinking about the deepness of his character. For instance we see that he tries to help Gooding's character, but he helps him without feeling the character himself. He only talks to everybody without interest and the deepness that his character probably requires. I don't have anything against Mr. Cruise; however I don't think it's one of his best performances to date. I'm sure he was better in `Magnolia', which also earned him an Oscar nomination and a golden globe. I was just shocked to see him getting an Oscar nomination for best actor in a leading role for this movie. I have seen some of Tom Cruise's movies and I think some of them are fairly good; nevertheless, they weren't as horrible as this one. I think Tom Cruise is a good actor, but as a leading actor in this movie, Mr. Cruise leaves too much to be desired!
I don't really like comedy romantic movies like this one. It only shows how a man quits his job and falls in love. This plot makes me consider it so romantic, pointless, sappy and extremely ridiculous; All the scenes in `Jerry Maguire' aren't worth watching, they only show love for an insipid football game and love for uninteresting people like Renne Zellweger who hopefully gave a better performance in `Bridget Jones's Diary'. She thinks she's so tender and sweet in this movie, probably she is in real life, but to me her character in this movie only makes me somewhat upset, because it is annoying since she's only led by Jerry Maguire to carry out a gushy love story. It's very sad that it got so many accolades. The accolades that many interesting and under-rated movies should have got in 1996.
It's worth watching if you like mediocre, romantic and comedy movies. I bet you'll not regret it. Otherwise don't watch it, because it's highly unlike you'll enjoy it.
Overall, TWO THUMBS DOWN!! This is one of the worst movies I've ever seen. It has truly been simple, uninteresting and gushy. I respect Cameron Crowe as a director, I know he's a distinguished filmmaker, but I have to say that `Almost Famous' and `Jerry Maguire' are indeed over-rated and so pointless that don't make me excited about seeing his further movies.
It's a sorrow that many people loved it. You should try seeing powerful and interesting stories that do teach us something for our lives, not like `Jerry Maguire' that fooled lots of people and especially the Academy with its fake charming, didn't it? I hope nobody is offended by the possible objectionable content of my review. I just needed to say what I felt about this horrible movie; by the way I'm rather glad I'm not the only one who thinks this is a horrible romantic movie, some of my friends disliked it as much as I did, and I could see why. 2/10