Afternoon:
7°c
Treasury Chief Secretary Danny Alexander and Cabinet Office minister Francis Maude have written to all government departments asking them to examine their reward structures amid anger over payouts at RBS
More...
Madonna's new movie panned
By James Langton and Hugh Dougherty, Evening Standard Last updated at 00:00am on 11.10.02
It is the film the world has been waiting to see. Madonna, one of the world's biggest stars, appearing on screen directed by her husband Guy Ritchie, should have been an explosive box-office combination.
But Swept Away may now be on its way to becoming a Hollywood flop on the scale of Kevin Costner's Water World or Mariah Carey's notorious Glitter.
American critics, finally allowed to see the film the day before it is released in the US, were universally scathing.
The film studio had done its best to keep it under wraps to the very last minute, with rumours sweeping Hollywood that the film was a guaranteed flop.
Today the US critics fulfilled the Hollywood rumour mill's prediction, describing Swept Away in terms ranging from "tawdry" and "boring" to "good only for a few titters", with one warning: "At no point, should anyone mistake this for an actual movie."
A remake of a Seventies art-house satire on class war and feminism, the film tells the story of an American " rich bitch" played by Madonna, who makes life miserable for the lowly Italian crew member of the yacht in which she is cruising the Aegean.
But when the couple are accidentally stranded, the Italian "rough trade" sailor, played by Adriano Giannini, forces her to beg for help to survive until they become lovers.
The Washington Post and New York Times, America's two most influential papers, vied to be the most scathing about the production.
The film "is as awful as you've heard," said the Washington Post, "and as bad as you've imagined".
The acting is "laughable", says the paper, noting it follows similar disasters with first husband Sean Penn in Shanghai Surprise and former lover Warren Beatty in Dick Tracy.
The New York Times offered its verdict as "soggy and superfluous", saying the dialogue was "leaden" and the love scenes "mechanical".It adds: "There is no credible feeling here, no comedy, no eroticism."
The Los Angeles Times described Madonna's relationship with her on-screen lover as "a rough trade Punch and Judy act".
Director Ritchie may be in even deeper trouble with his wife for how she appears on screen than for the critical panning. The Los Angeles-Times noticed that Madonna is no longer in the first flush of youth, describing her appearance as "unflattering", while the Los Angeles Weekly noticed "lighting that emphasises every line and sag".
Rolling Stone magazine said: " Audiences are likely to be slack-jawed. It's the movie that's a shipwreck."
Reviews in two San Francisco papers called it "glazed with a tawdry B-movie scum" and "cheap, overwrought, unbelievable and good only for a few titters".
Television reviewers have been equally dismissive. CNN's critic warned viewers to "stay away from Swept Away", while respected film internet site Reel.com said it "might be the biggest husband and wife disaster since John and Bo Derek made the ridiculous Bolero".
The best that
anyone could find to say was in Entertainment Weekly, which said the film is the first time since her debut in Desperately Seeking Susan that "Madonna doesn't suck as an actress" or her line-reading "doesn't clatter like broken plates".
In the wake of such reviews, the tempestuous relationship which Ritchie and Madonna have admitted to may be about to erupt in another of their verbal battles.
