pmark23
Veteran
Occasionally I watched "the worst" films just to see what bad filmmaking looks like, and I finally finished watching this the other day. It took a while because I had to sneak it in whenever nobody else was around less I got caught.
However this was a surprise. I was expecting a REAL disaster, but it was competently made and acted. The cinematography while not outstanding was more than competent. Madonna was well-cast as an aging stuck-up NY ***** and played the role appropriately.
Why was this film so horribly panned that it was not only pulled from the theates, but pulled from DVD rentals as well?
My theory is that (A) Madonna acting looks like Madonna acting. She's not a great actress, not a terrible actress, but you know it's Madonna and you can't help thinking "This is Madonna being angry" "This is Madonna crying", etc. Distracting.
(B) It doesn't look like a Guy Ritchie movie. Some parts do (like the scenes with the cooks in the galley), but mostly you're thinking of how much this doesn't look like a Guy Ritchie movie while watching it. Distracting.
(C) It doesn't have an upbeat Hollywood ending. For me this is a good thing but I can understand why audiences didn't like it.
(D) It's missing the rape scene which should have been obligatory. They get close to doing it, but copped out. Boo! I was half expecting it to be over the top, but sadly, no Madonna squicking here.
And finally (E) the film itself can't get over the baggage of the attached stars. If the same film was cast differently it would may have even been released.
So I think that if any conclusion can be made of this film, it's that Madonna it simply too big for a subtle film story.
Coming next, a semiotic analysis of "The Hottie and the Nottie" (just kidding -- I tried but never made it to the ending.)
However this was a surprise. I was expecting a REAL disaster, but it was competently made and acted. The cinematography while not outstanding was more than competent. Madonna was well-cast as an aging stuck-up NY ***** and played the role appropriately.
Why was this film so horribly panned that it was not only pulled from the theates, but pulled from DVD rentals as well?
My theory is that (A) Madonna acting looks like Madonna acting. She's not a great actress, not a terrible actress, but you know it's Madonna and you can't help thinking "This is Madonna being angry" "This is Madonna crying", etc. Distracting.
(B) It doesn't look like a Guy Ritchie movie. Some parts do (like the scenes with the cooks in the galley), but mostly you're thinking of how much this doesn't look like a Guy Ritchie movie while watching it. Distracting.
(C) It doesn't have an upbeat Hollywood ending. For me this is a good thing but I can understand why audiences didn't like it.
(D) It's missing the rape scene which should have been obligatory. They get close to doing it, but copped out. Boo! I was half expecting it to be over the top, but sadly, no Madonna squicking here.
And finally (E) the film itself can't get over the baggage of the attached stars. If the same film was cast differently it would may have even been released.
So I think that if any conclusion can be made of this film, it's that Madonna it simply too big for a subtle film story.
Coming next, a semiotic analysis of "The Hottie and the Nottie" (just kidding -- I tried but never made it to the ending.)
