Swept Away

This was visually a very pretty movie. The color of the ocean was so BLUE and the white sand beaches were so PRISTINE. The cinematography and tableaus created were so BREATHTAKING that the only pleasure one can derive fom this mess is an appreciation of the beaches in Sardinia. But all of that does not make up for a lack of plot or mischaracterizations of the protagonists. Madonna, who gets marooned on an island with a macho Italian steortypical guy reminded me of a petulant teenager. She related to her husband and Italain macho guy as a naughty teen would. No real depth of anything. The "funny" scenes were merely embarrassing. How could Guy Ritchie make something this bad? It doesn't make any sense after seeing Snatch and Lock, Stock. IT IS STOMACH CHURNING AWFUL people! I felt queasy with the slow motion fake-tears-chasing and the accompanying vertiginous piano: ping! ping! ping! This film was a romp on the beach with adults acting acting like thirteen year old dominant/submissives. (Madonna kissing macho's foot after she submits to him - bleh.)Most of the island scenes between these two adults were filmed like a home movie with the light shining on a worn out looking Madonna: "Look at me! See how buff and pretty I am! I can do push ups and dancie dance, and see how big my biceps are?" Oh my God. This was bad. Madonna doesn't act, she just plays herself. Just because she can cry on cue doesn't mean she is an actress.

and forget this. Completely. If you really need to see Madonna act, rent "Body of Evidence", at least Willem Defoe is in that one.

In this film, while the sets are beautiful, you may want to mute the dialog. You won't miss anything. Bruce Greenwood is wasted, Jeanne Tripplehorn is a prop, and Madonna is so awful, it becomes amusing. Why they had to butcher the original film into this mess, I will never know; guess they thought it was "bankable". Madonna, as an actress, certainly is NOT.

If you rent the original film from 1979, though, you will enjoy it, and the actors in it can actually act. 1/10.

I really wanted to like this movie because the critics have been unkind

to it (to say the least)... but it was terrible. Really terrible. Badly

acted, a witless script, cack handed direction... Watching this film was

like watching a car crash- you want to look away but you keep staring

because you want to see how messy it's going to get. Well, the car is

wrecked and there are no survivors. On the plus side, the cinematography

was nice, made me want to go on holiday, if only to cleanse myself from

this unholy

It's another Madonna film: does anyone really need to know more?

The only thing worse than Madonna trying to be funny is Madonna trying to be serious.

The only thing worse than being trapped on a desert island with Madonna is being trapped on a desert island with Madonna and a film crew.

In 2002, the only thing worse than Madonna in SWEPT AWAY was Robin Williams in DEATH TO SMOOCHY.

The only thing worse than watching Madonna in any movie is trying to come up with new ways of saying she can't act.

In 1974, Lina Wertmüller brought out "Swept Away". It was a very usual film and it was an interesting parable about the class system. This movie was quite good...and rather shocking when it came to sexuality (this remake is far less explicit). And, in 2002, an unnecessary remake came out that was not so good...and fans hated it...hated it so much that it's currently #84 on IMDB's imfamous Bottom 100 list. This list consists of the lowest rated major motion pictures...ever! So is this remake that bad? Could it be?

In the original film, a spoiled rich lady is aboard a yacht and she treats the crew very badly. When she and a crew member are washed overboard, they find themselves stuck on a deserted island...and the class difference between them is sorely tested. Here, the plot is very similar though Madonna's character is even nastier and irritating...and to everyone...so much you wonder how she could have a husband and friends. I think they tried a bit too hard to make her unlikable...to the point where it seemed almost cartoonish....sort of like having Cruella de Ville aboard! Subtle, it sure ain't!

So, apart from Madonna playing the character too harhsly, what else was I not fond of in the film? Much of it is that in the original film, the story was about the couple. Here, however, it often seems to be more about Madonna. Not only does the film focus more on her, there's even a totally inappropriate and silly song and dance number...on the desert island...complete with a band!! Do I blame her for this? Not necessarily. The script was written by her husband at the time as well as directed by him. Ultimately, the blame would be Guy Ritchie's for having the part written so poorly. Oddly, the rest of the script is fine...and a lot like the original. Now I've seen several amazingly good Ritchie films...and perhaps it is just an example of why you shouldn't give your wife a starring role, as in this case he seemed to make it look more like a vanity project than a good remake. Overall, watchable and not as bad as its appearance on the Bottom 100 would suggest...but still a not especially good movie...especially because they changed the ending...thus neutering its message about class warfare! Instead, they avoided the anti-capitalist message and made the story all about love...and Wertmüller was apparently horrified that they'd done this.

By the way, casting Adriano Giannini as Giuseppi was really interesting, as his father, Giancarlo, starred in the original "Swept Away"--playing the same role (though the character's name was changed).