MovieChat Forums > Swept Away (2002) Discussion > Worst film ever made.

Worst film ever made.

posted 22 years ago by LegolasGreenleaf
109 replies | jump to latest

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.

[–] fembot 19 years ago

It is ridiculous for you to compare Madonna's career to the Beatles' - they made records for only 7 years and Madonna has been cranking them out for 20. You can't possibly believe that they wouldn't have gotten any more hits had they stayed together longer.
Besides, the Beatles wrote/sang/recorded GREAT songs - they BROKE UP 35 years ago and they are STILL selling millions of records.
That said, I would like to comment on "Swept Away" - I watched it because I am a fan of Guy Ritchie and IN SPITE of Madonna's presence - and also because I heard it was so incredibly bad. I thought it had to be the longest movie ever made, and was quite shocked to find out it is only 89 minutes! I know watching it took years off my life.
It was a terrible idea to remake a great film - it always is - but this one wasn't even so-bad-it's-good or laughably-bad - it was just BORING, BORING, BORING.
(For so-bad-it's-good I recommend "Can't Stop The Music" or "Disco Godfather")

[–] fembot 19 years ago

Sorry, when I said "you" I was referring to madonno83's post from 2 years ago.
I've been busy...

[–] drinking_wigga 19 years ago

I think you'll find this is the worst film ever made...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0266747/

JeBus it was so so soo bad!

[–] twilliams76 19 years ago

I haven't seen Marci X so I can't judge it. I actually did see Swept Away as soon as it came out on DVD and was surprised by it. I honestly don't see how people who have actually watched it can say it is the worst film EVER unless they have only seen about 20 or so in their entire lives. While it is not a great more or even a good movie, it is not as bad as everybody has said it is. I, too, am so sick of people saying a movie is bad because it has been labeled that way. I saw Gigli, and it was awful. So much worse than this one. I think American Wedding was ten times worse than this. Blair Witch 2 was terrible beyond words. I would venture to say that half of the votes on this movie are from people that haven't even seen it -- I love when a movie gets like over 500 Fs/1s although the movie never made a penny in theaters and made even less from rentals and has aired like twice on television in four years.

[–] sljones44 19 years ago

What's interesting is that why hasnt Madonna done a biopic? Or had a biopic done of herself? She could actually then see how her career has developed and she could have the spotlight she craves. It's been about 20 years since she broke out in 85'. She's a classic performer/entertainer/businesswoman. Arguably the first DIVA of the MTV generation.

[–] smartalec-j 19 years ago

There is at least In Bed With Madonna, which is a 1991 film, but it seems a reality show like the Osborne family

Sometimes I think back of Swept Away and all these posts
This isn't a good or bad movie, although it wouldn't be difficult for someone just a little brighter than Ritchie to find someone acting better then Giannini or madonna
But the thing is: why should Ritchie be ever bothered anyway ?
And the striking aspect: this is a film made by a BRITISH director for God's sake.
Normally it should get distributed in his country, it's hard to explain "the" otherwise
Good or bad it could be, in any other country it would have been sold in any possible way, especially given the size of the celebrity couple involved , and if after a little while it would turn into a flop then be it.
But in the UK this cannot be done. It is better to let such a film go straight to video for then trying to trash the American Wife, being essential to maintain untouched the alleged Merits and even more important the Pride of the British One (nonsense, really)
Quite illuminating story, in showing what the British are like

[–] bora_puppy 19 years ago

i dont get why everyone keep saying giannini or/and madonna was awfull :S
am i the only one who thinks they were great?
madonna was OKEY but giannini was AWSOME..
their love seemed so real..

[–] sinless77 19 years ago

Worst Movie Ever? You must live a very sheltered life. Four words for you: "Manos, The Hands Of Fate". Watch the unedited version (not the mst3k copy) and then talk about worst films ever.

[–] ace_erath 19 years ago

actually, that's five words

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] crowerag 19 years ago

Madonna was never a diva.

She is a filthy mosquito which has been indulged.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] suiladmellon 19 years ago

Madonna SUCKS big time. She´s old, fat, and to stupid to know what acting is. B!itch.

[–] jonbg 19 years ago

No, definitely not the worst film ever made. Plenty of holes, some cringy moments, but actually plenty of charm, a couple of laughs and actually moving in parts.

Madonna is simply not cut anything like the critical slack other actresses get. There are parts of the script that would be equally creaky in any other actor's hands, but in some parts, she's pretty good, and when she's playing herself, notably the dream sequence and montages, she does things no other actress can do. And that's be Madonna.

[–] challengerduluc 19 years ago

yeah it was,it was fecking awful - i was zapping between that, some overacted bbc forensics nonsense and george clooney looking perturbed in solaris - it was all pretty crummy but this movie was SHOCKING

God knows where you saw any charm

[–] MelodyNelson 19 years ago

I agree, It is the worse movie ever...Madonna is awfull it was like watching a train crash, when you though it couldn't be worse it was, she's hideous, if she wasn't famous and her husband the director she woudn't be cast for a primary school play.

The movie is beyond everything I've seen in terms of bad, i've seen home videos more exciting and well directed than this one. I still can't believe this movie was actually made. It's an insult to everyone's intelligence that someone actually put money on this.

[–] ghandissandals 19 years ago

How did Guy Ritchie ever even become a director? Since I watched the film last night, I have actually been left feeling........distressed. It is demonstrative of everything that is wrong with many films today. It is a love story with no heart. Structurally, Guy Ritchie does not understand filmmaking. Whatever the ending of the original entails, his own 'narrative' climaxe is incredibly cheap. Look at Brief Encounter...two lovers (with genuinely tangible chemistry) are constantly on the enemy's (read: reality's) territory, which not only adds tension to their precious, furtive moments together, but also creates a slow-burning meloncholy that is still gut wrenching when the inevitable finally happens. To place bitter brackets around a soft centre of goo seems irreplacably crude. Guy Ritchie clearly has no regard for previous examples of this kind of filmmaking, because he is too arrogant to think he can learn anything from others. His subsequent hollow self-effacement does not convince, and if he truly was sorry for this dire waste of money - which actually means something to some people outside of their stupid celebrity snow globe - then he would retire from filmmaking altogether and commit to some charity work until he has some dignity to speak of.