The word that best depicts Guy Ritchie’s adaptation of Swept Under is “grievous.” The word that best portrays Madonna’s endeavor to play Amber Leighton is “appalling.” The word that best portrays my choice to see this film is “appalling.”
Don’t imagine it any other way: Swept Under is a terrible film. No measure of fragrance splashed on television show groups of onlookers by Madonna and her spouse can take out the stench of disappointment radiating from this movie. In any case, it is not, as has been recommended by various pundits, one of the most exceedingly terrible movies ever. (Metaphor Alert!!) truth be told, it’s not by any means one of the most exceedingly bad movies of the year. Swept Under turns out positively when contrasted with any semblance of Rollerball and Serving Sara. It charges the most noticeably awful when appeared differently in relation to the first Swept Under, the disputable 1974 exertion that earned essayist/chief Lina Wertmuller a Best Director Oscar Nomination.