Camelot_2000 This notorious film was released 13 years ago and only tonight do I finally get around to watching it. The extremely bad box office earnings and the scathing reviews made it a curiosity item I felt compelled to check out. It lived up to it's reputation.Madonna does okay in the beginning as the rich and annoyingly mean woman, but her later transformation into a devoted and humble lover to the Italian sailor, wasn't convincing at all. Her performance was basically a cardboard effort and she didn't fit into the character very well. I just kept seeing her as Madonna stranded on an island with a guy and trying to act for the camera.The scene where she pretends she can't sing and dance is laughable. And how convenient is that finding a small house on a deserted island and later on a full liquor bottle that was strangely not discovered earlier on!The film does have some good qualities though, such as the beautiful scenery, but that's not enough to carry a film. The scenes on the ship seemed to go better than the ones on the island, but that's only by a small margin. Madonna's arrogant meanness on the boat got so irritating after awhile that you can't help, but wonder why she wasn't tossed overboard at the start. Everyone on that cruise, even her own husband, it seems, regarded her as an annoyance to travel with. Understandable considering all she does is complain and hurl insults.Her later romance with Giuseppe doesn't improve things. The whole love affair plays out like a corny and badly acted "Harlequin" romance film and after the ending credits role, you can't help, but feel like you just wasted your time watching it. No wonder this did so poorly at theatres. It's the type of movie where the audience will feel 'ripped off' for paying to see it. I think this movie had potential, but it misfired instead. Beautiful scenery though.

James Hitchcock Madonna's career in the cinema is a strange one. One could easily dismiss films like this one and "Body of Evidence" as the vanity projects of a conceited pop diva who can't act for toffee but imagines that her ability to belt out a hit tune automatically qualifies her as the next Meryl Streep or Helen Mirren. (And there are indeed several other pop divas who are labouring under that particular delusion). And yet there is more to Madge's career than that. She is also capable of giving perfectly creditable performances in decent films like "Desperately Seeking Susan", "Who's That Girl?" and "A League of Their Own", and was particularly good in "Evita". Which makes it all the more frustrating when something as bad as "Swept Away" comes along. When I saw the film I assumed it was a rip-off of the successful eighties screwball comedy "Overboard". The main character in "Overboard" (played by Goldie Hawn) is called Joanna Stayton; here she is Amber Leighton. I wondered whether the Stayton/Leighton rhyme was a deliberate hint by the scriptwriter that the earlier film was his inspiration. Both Joanna and Amber are the spoilt and bitchy trophy-wives of wealthy businessmen. Both women go for a cruise aboard a luxury yacht, in the course of which they manage to alienate a working-class man (here a sailor named Giuseppe) by their arrogant and unreasonable behaviour. In both cases the tables are turned by a sudden stroke of fortune, meaning that the man now has the upper hand, allowing him to take revenge on his former tormentor. And (these being romantic comedies) in both cases the ill-matched couple end up falling in love. Since seeing the film, however, I have learnt that it is a remake of a 1974 Italian film of the same name. (At least it had the same name in English; the original Italian title was the less snappy "Travolti da un Insolito Destino nell'Azzurro Mare d'Agosto"). Adriano Giannini, who plays Amber's lover here, is the son of the actor who played the equivalent role in 1974. Nevertheless, I still feel that comparisons between "Swept Away" and "Overboard" are illuminating, because the films, despite their similarity in theme, are very different in tone and quality, "Overboard" being far superior. Part of the reason is the way the lead characters are played. Yes, Joanna is a prize bitch, but Goldie Hawn never forgets that she is acting in a comedy and plays her with an appropriate lightness of touch, preparing us for the transformation in the later scenes when Joanna's more human side begins to come through so that, psychologically, we can accept the romance which develops between her and Kurt Russell's character. (Logically, of course, the plot of "Overboard" is quite implausible, but screwball comedies enjoy a certain immunity from the laws of logic). Madonna, however, appears not to understand the difference between comedy and serious drama, playing Amber with a fierce earnestness far more appropriate to the latter, so that, whereas Joanna is amusingly nasty, Amber is merely hateful. In the later scenes we can never accept her as a person capable of love or affection. Beyond being the son of a famous father, Giannini has few qualifications for his role. His English is not good and he speaks his lines as though he had learnt them phonetically, without any real understanding. His main technique for expressing emotion is to rely upon a single expression, a farouche scowl, presumably indicating his discontent at his treatment by Amber. Giuseppe, incidentally, is a Communist, something which indicates how much Hollywood politics have changed since the Cold War ended. In any American film made before 1989, except perhaps Beatty's "Reds", "Communist" generally meant "fanatical enemy of democracy". In this film it means something romantically exotic and thrillingly dangerous, like some fierce but beautiful beast of prey. The film is also badly directed (by Madonna's then husband, Guy Ritchie). It does not flow smoothly and it is visually unattractive to look at, being bathed in a harsh, glaring light. Its main flaw, however, is neither the acting nor the direction but its objectionable world view. When Amber is shipwrecked on a deserted island with Giuseppe, he realises that she is unable to find food for herself and that his skills as a fisherman now give him the upper hand. He takes advantage of their situation not only to humiliate her but also to abuse her physically and on one occasion sexually assaults her. In real life these two would probably have ended up murdering one another, but this is Hollywood, not real life, and they end up falling passionately in love. To call this misogynistic view of the relationship between the sexes "objectionable" would be an understatement. Even "Neanderthal" seems inadequate, given that Neanderthal women were by all accounts hefty creatures, built like the proverbial brick outhouse and doubtless unwilling to stand for any nonsense from their menfolk. The critical and commercial failure of "Swept Away" finally put an end to the Material Girl's acting career. She could afford to shrug off the controversy aroused by "Body of Evidence"- a bad film, certainly, but by no means as bad as this one- on the basis of "there's no such thing as bad publicity", but when bad publicity turns to public ridicule even a confirmed attention junkie like Madonna must realise it's time to call it a day. The film swept the board at the 2002 Golden Raspberry Awards, including (inter alia) "Worst Picture", "Worst Actress" for Madge and "Worst Director" for Ritchie. (Giannini unaccountably missed out on "Worst Actor"). Never have those raspberries been so well-deserved. 1/10, only the fifth film out of more than a thousand to which I have given the minimum mark.

morkulv_athferion This is NOT a bad movie by any stretch of the imagination. It's weird, and it's definitely pretty mediocre, but its not bad and it doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as the tripe that Uwe Boll keeps putting out, just to name an example. Beware: minor spoilers ahead! When the movie started, you can immediately notice how mediocre the acting is. The Italian accents on the boat's crew are all hammy, and none of the actors really stand out because they are all pretty much below average and stereotype characters. I have to admit; seeing this movie on television for the first time I didn't even recognize Madonna as one of the leading stars, but seeing as there are so many blond damsels like her in the acting world, you will have to excuse me.So what is this movie trying to be, exactly? A comedy, a romance, a drama? Well... To tell you the truth I still have trouble classifying Swept Away. The first thirty minutes or so, its almost as if the movie is turning into a lighthearted comedy with quirky characters and their contrasting personalities and social stature's. Basically: the first half hour makes you want to hate this flick. After the predictable plot turn where our two main characters get stranded on a deserted island, you expect the movie to turn into a Cast Away knockoff. But instead, the movie takes a complete 180 turn and what you get is this strange, but awkwardly enjoyable psychological game between the two characters.In the end, both of them are horrible people and it makes the audience question who to root for, which I think is actually pretty cool and daring. There's an obvious romance going on between them, but it's not going the way you anticipate it is going to be (not going to spoil anything).The ending leaves you thinking, not on a story level, but on an emotional level which I have mixed feelings about. The ending avoids any real cliché's, which is good, but at the same time it excludes any sense of closure and I think a lot of viewers will have trouble with that.To sum up Swept Away: is it a good movie? Not really. Although in my opinion it does come close to being good at some points, but the hammy acting is keeping it down. It's definitely worth a rent if you want a surprising fresh mix of genre's. But at the same time, this mix is also the movie's biggest downfall; it tries to combine all kinds of elements of comedy, romance and drama into this weird mishmash of one story which you can't help but admire, but as a stand alone movie it doesn't exactly work in its favor.

DJRMewzique Not for a moment did I think, as I slid the DVD into my player, that I would think this was a good film. I mean, it stars Madonna and, ten years later, even *I* had not seen it, so clearly I knew it was bad. However, I could not have prepared myself for how truly bad this film is. I mean really, really bad.About a rich woman and a migrant Italian fisherman getting stranded on a deserted island and inexplicably falling for each other, this film has absolutely no redeeming features at all. I have never heralded Madonna's acting skills, but in films like "Who's that Girl" and "Shanghai Surprise," she was not as bad as critics have made her out to be. But in this film, she did herself no favours...her performance here is absolutely the worst she has ever done. Watching made me cringe from the moment she appeared on screen to the moment the credits rolled, allowing for a sigh of relief. And, to be fair, Adriano Giannini's performance was not much better.I cannot begin to understand how in the world Guy Ritchie directed such a monumental pile of crap. And why did, Bruce Greenwood and Elizabeth Banks even sign on to appear in this? Just by reading the incredibly idiotic script, anyone associated to this film should have dropped it faster than a Kardashian's underpants at a basketball game.A monumental fail of epic proportions, even if you are a fan of Madonna, do not waste your time on this film. It made me lose any and all respect for her as an actress, despite her exquisite turn in "Evita." Ritchie would have been better off divorcing Madonna immediately than agreeing to make this ridiculous film. All copies of the film should be swept away and forgotten forever.