IMDb > Swept Away (2002) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Swept Away
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
Overview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
Promotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Swept Away More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 22:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]
Index 215 reviews in total 

112 out of 175 people found the following review useful:

Swept aside...

Author: Merwyn Grote (majikstl@aol.com) from St. Louis, Missouri
6 March 2004

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

83 out of 127 people found the following review useful:

Why does the woman even bother anymore...?

1/10
Author: bronty (johnloveskw@gmail.com) from Key West, FL, US
14 January 2004

I almost saw this at an actual movie theatre (an art-house theatre, no less!) but couldn't make it there in the one whole week it played, but yesterday I finally saw it on cable and...well...I wasn't disappointed, that's for sure! Madonna has done it again: YET ANOTHER BOMB! When will this woman learn? When will the studios learn? (Or perhaps they already have, since this film was largely dumped, with little fanfare and deadly word-of-mouth.) One would hope that being directed by her talented husband, who's created some interesting and/or terribly entertaining work, would bring out the same quality Madonna showed in "Desperately Seeking Susan"; alas, it just isn't meant to be, for here she is, at her very worst: singularly convinced of her own greatness, the smugness permeating every frame she's in, made all the more unbearable by her wavering faux-British accent, an accent that only underscores the fact that her speaking voice is immature in quality and not especially pleasant. This may sound unnecessarily cruel but LISTEN to the woman, and LOOK at her films of, say, the past decade: like a latter-day Bette Davis, there is an unmistakable brittleness to not only her carriage but to her very face and body, which here, despite the warm photography displayed throughout the film (perhaps its only saving grace), are done no favors. To her credit, the entire affair is so misbegotten that one wonders if the world's greatest actress on her best day could do anything with this mess. No one involved escapes unharmed: Bruce Greenwood actually seems pained to be on-screen, though poor Jeanne Tripplehorn seems to carry herself as if she's actually in something good, which had me thinking all the while, "Denial ain't just a river in Egypt!" Adriano Giannini, son of Giancarlo Giannini, star of the Italian original, "Swept Away...", is, like his father before him, immensely attractive, and isn't altogether bad (despite winning a Razzie nomination for "Worst Actor"), but, like almost everything else about this production, it all comes back to Madonna, on whose shoulders rest the blame. Why her? Why not her husband, director Guy Ritchie? Just who do YOU think was behind this remake? What actress wouldn't want nearly every shot of a movie to be centered on her, with only a relative nobody sharing the screen? Oh sure, Ritchie deserves some blame: surely he - or someone - ANYONE! - should have, and could have, taken his lead aside and insisted on something bordering on ACTUAL FEELING in her line readings (for her performance is so wooden it's a surprise the rest of the cast didn't get splinters), or at least display a semblance of warmth...but she seems resistant to be anything but a cinematic black hole. Above and beyond anything else, this is strictly a vanity project for its star so she is ultimately accountable for it. A film like this, an "Odd Couple"-ish, war of the classes, should be light and fun, with leads who can bounce off one another with witty, even romantic, dialogue, for what else can a film whose plot involves two disparate people stranded, really be? Honestly, I don't think anyone involved knew exactly the tone they were trying for; it succeeds neither as comedy (I defy you to laugh even once) or romance (Madonna's ice-princess routine precludes ANY chemistry). It's not even bad enough for us bad-movie lovers to enjoy. A real shame...

Was the above review useful to you?

62 out of 87 people found the following review useful:

terrible

1/10
Author: jack-310 from UK
19 May 2003

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

Was the above review useful to you?

55 out of 84 people found the following review useful:

Swept away by the awfulness

Author: pattay72 from usa
10 April 2004

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

24 out of 32 people found the following review useful:

Rent the Lina Wertmuller original...

1/10
Author: MarieGabrielle from United States
20 September 2006

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

24 out of 32 people found the following review useful:

Ignore the reviews from Plants

1/10
Author: KelticKarma from Ireland
14 October 2002

I had the (mis)fortune to see this film at a showing in the US. Having reluctantly sat through the entire abysmal thing, I am shocked to have seen so many good reviews here on IMDB.

The original film was a turkey, but an interesting one. It fitted into that early seventies, post 1969 revolution thing; this film just stinks of....... , well, nothing really. It's that bad.

Imagine a badly done perfume commercial - see what I mean ?

Madonna never could act, and has been an embarrassment on the big screen for years. She looks worse and worse with every one of those years, increasingly coming to resemble a skinned meerkat.

Guy Ritchie, who has built his "reputation" on Lock Stock, could never direct either - his movies are shallow, badly cut, fashion shows. He doesn't disappoint here either; he wisely cast his wife as the star of this debacle.

Please people, take little heed of the good reviews this movie has received from other posters below. They are quite obviously business plants.

Don't encourage Ritchie to humiliate himself further by giving him money.

Was the above review useful to you?

46 out of 77 people found the following review useful:

Madonna's "acting" is still a joke!

1/10
Author: tmolthan from USA
15 October 2002

No doubt, when Madonna and Guy Ritchie married, it was because they both thought it would help their movie careers. If you've been through the ordeal of watching "Swept Away," then you know at that level it was a match made in hell. After nearly 20 years of trying to become a respected actress (or "octress" as she might have pronounced it in "The Next Best Thing"), she still can't get out of herself long enough to turn in a performance that anyone with taste could even call decent. And that's the thing that makes people dislike her so much on the screen: that gut feeling that her ego is so inflated that it prevents her from being able to just let go and connect with her audience. If there's any justice in this universe, she just blew her last chance.

Was the above review useful to you?

11 out of 12 people found the following review useful:

Rather insipid if you ask me

1/10
Author: TheLittleSongbird from United Kingdom
8 October 2011

I watched Swept Away having little else to do, and part of me wished I had read a magazine or an opera DVD instead. Swept Away has few, if any at all, redeeming qualities at all, and there were times where I wished I could turn off the television but reminded myself that is not a fair way to judge a movie.

Guy Ritchie's direction for starters is very unimaginative, and the camera work and editing don't have any real charm to them, the camera work is not amateurish as such but shows nothing out of the ordinary, and the editing could've been smoother at times.

The script is very hackneyed, the comedic elements are forced and the romantic elements sappy. Also it has the feel of a bad 70s TV drama. The concept has been done to death but that wasn't necessarily a turn off, but the pace is turgid and the story itself doesn't have any interest at all.

Likewise with the characters. They don't feel like characters or real people at all, just overdone caricatures. Jeanne Tripplehorn gets the worst of it, and her overdone performance suffers from it. Madonna only so far has impressed me in Evita, but her performance here is lifeless and disengaged here.

Only two things have any real spark. One is the striking scenery and the other is the earthy charm of Adrianno Giannini. However these two are not enough to salvage the movie from being an insipid bore. All in all, not recommended. 1/10 Bethany Cox

Was the above review useful to you?

19 out of 28 people found the following review useful:

Worst film ever made.

1/10
Author: LegolasGreenleaf
25 November 2002

I don't know what some of you are smoking, but i suspect it's potent.

To call Swept Away awful would be an insult to the very concept of terribleness. The acting is hideous and i'm not picking on Madonna here, we all know she's useless, but someone should have warned everyone else that her ailment is contagious. My back literally hurts from cringing so much at poorly delivered lines. The editing is so sloppy, it beggars description. The photography and composition (which in this era, competence should be a GIVEN for any film with a budget) are astonishingly inept, even the lighting is horrid and unnatural looking. These are BASIC elements of filmmaking, if you can't get them right, you should seek another line of work. It's as contrived as a grade 3 production of Snow White, except nowhere near as well made or interesting.

The original film by Lina Wertmueller is a wonderful satire and metaphor, superbly acted and written, featuring breathtaking visuals - you can practically taste the sea salt and feel the windswept sand in your hair. The sexual tension feels real and immediate...those of you who found Guy Ritchie's version deplorable, should see it, it really is one of the landmarks of world cinema.

Those of you who thought the remake is some kind of masterpiece should have your heads examined.

Was the above review useful to you?

10 out of 11 people found the following review useful:

Even by Madonna's standards, this film is horrifyingly bad...

1/10
Author: DJRMewzique from Canada
11 March 2012

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.

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 1 of 22:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]

Add another review


Related Links

Plot summary Ratings Awards
External reviews Parents Guide Official site
Plot keywords Main details Your user reviews
Your vote history