Thats all I have to say.
-
pacobestline — 18 years ago(August 28, 2007 12:40 PM)
I couldn't agree more. Been a member of the boards and a big movie fan, but for the first time I felt the need to share my great dissapointment, not to mention the respect I had for Mr. Richie until now that is down the sink. It is not Madonna who spoiled the movie, she was excellent in the role of a spoiled unhappy pain in the ass (in spite of the fact that she could have made a little more effort to make herself more naughty and charmingly bad, then a plain unfunny nuisance), but it was the terrible screenwright and direction, isn't it unbeliveable?? It's almost like the man we saw produce some of the genuine and funniest movies from the island, the jewels with soul and humor go become a zombie. I wish he had a drink in a pub with lads or watch Only Fools and Horses occasionally to get a grip back.
-
mnozarova — 12 years ago(March 22, 2014 08:01 AM)
Considering how the original film is, I think this one was in a really, really weird way good. The original is extremely campy, and while it was out of standards at its time, today it
s just unbelievably strange. This remake has the same feel as the original but in a time when this feel is almost offending. When you think about it, it makes perfect sense that Guy Ritchie would decide to do such a film - is there a better way to raise hell after releasing Lock Stock and Snatch and listening to Hollywood critics say things like "very british"? I think this film is an ultimate fk you to general idea of good sense and in that its bloody brilliant. Noone could do better in creating a situation where you can sit back and laugh your ass off while watching millions of people being all offended and
not realizing that`s exactly what you wanted
.
People get offended when clearly presented with something they cannot understand and there is absolutely nothing to understand in this movie, so - pure win. It all boils down to the fact that Ritchie can do anything he wants
including
insane decisions and this is exactly that and nothing else. -
anthonylinsell — 18 years ago(February 16, 2008 10:10 AM)
I watched Four Rooms last week and that was definately one of the worst films i've ever seen. Swept Away however was fine, maybe because I was expecting something truly awful but it really wasn't bad. It just goes to show you can't really trust reviewers to make a fair judgment as they will always bring their preconceptions to the table. Their are far worse actresses than Madonna and I guess because everyone gives her such a hard time it makes her work that much harder.
-
takiko-1 — 17 years ago(February 15, 2009 02:45 PM)
It just goes to show you can't really trust reviewers to make a fair judgment as they will always bring their preconceptions to the table. <
At the same time, critics have to "waste" or "spend" their time watching every terrible movie out there. Like Ebert and Roper are hoping that the movie is good, because they won't get back the two or three hours they spent in the theatre watching it. And when From Justin to Kelly came out, the studio refused to screen the movie to the critics so they paid to see it and the part that Roper was partly annoyed about is when the public spends ticket money on a movie and can't get it back when it's terrible. -
killdawabbittn — 15 years ago(May 17, 2010 06:24 PM)
"Like Ebert and Roper are hoping that the movie is good, because they won't get back the two or three hours they spent in the theatre watching it."
BooHoo. What an awful job sitting in a movie theater stuffing your face with popcorn and getting paid to do so. Those are probably the only two or three hours they had to 'work' each day. -
lyricaldon — 15 years ago(May 11, 2010 07:59 AM)
I really did enjoy Swept Away. When I watched it years ago I had not checked out any of the reviews on this, so did not have a bias viewpoint towards it. I however really did enjoy this film, I thought it was an amazingly well made piece.
This is all I have to say on the matter.
:@ :<3