The smiley face symbol indicates links sent to me by site visitors

All links should open in new browser windows:

GENERAL INFORMATION ON MADONNA'S THESPIAN ACTIVITIES

Razzie Awards /Golden Raspberry Award Foundation

http://www.razzies.com/asp/directory/XcDirectory.asp

Not only have the Razzies awarded Madonna with many of their anti-Oscar like awards (called "Razzies") and voted her as "Worst Actress of the 20th Century," but they also maintain some anti-Madonna links and material on their site! Simply type Madonna's name into their "serach" feature and you'll find them!

Madonna is a Sh*tty Actress 11/15/02 (Discussion Board Post)

http://www.mrcranky.com/movies/halfpastdead/4/0.html

And a mediocre, at best, singer. She can't even convince me that she is herself. Who ever Madonna was, anyway. The word "media whore" fits her like one of those Jean Paul Guatier corsets from her "Vogue" era.

Anti-Oscars Target Britney [And Madonna]

http://entertainment.msn.com/news/article.aspx?news=114499

Excerpt:

Feb 10, 8:36 AM EST

(Associated Press) -- Voters for the Razzies, an annual spoof of the Academy Awards, have a message for Britney Spears and Madonna: Don't quit your day jobs as pop divas.

MOVIES

No reviews available for BLOODHOUNDS OF BROADWAY

But I'm sure Madonna must have sucked in it.

No reviews available for BLUE IN THE FACE

But I'm sure Madonna must have sucked in it.

Samizdata.net: Body of Evidence Review, October 22, 2002

(and overall critique of Maddy's Acting)

http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/002272.html

Excerpts:

Madonna, crap actress or what? I'm going to argue for the or what position [he concludes that she is "too scary to be a movie star," and so she'd make the perfect James Bond villian].

... I think that the problem with Madonna's desperate and desperately public quest for movie stardom is quite different. Simply, most of us don't like her. It's not that she can't convincingly portray the women she portrays in her movies. The problem is the women she portrays. These women are - because this is how lead movie acting works - based on her. And she is not what most of us think of as a nice person.

My response to this author was as follows:

I don't want to see Madonna in *any* movie.

It's an interesting premise you have about her making a good villian, since most people do not like her off screen.

However, it is my understanding that her acting in the film 'Swept Away,' where she is supposed to play an unlikeable, quasi-evil character, was *still* horrible.

For anyone who hates Madonna, do drop by my anti-Madonna site:
http://www.web.ms11.net/antimadonna/index.html
Posted by: Flea Dip on June 2, 2003 12:42 AM

 

Madonna in 'Body of Evidence'

DVD Verdict Review: Body of Evidence

http://www.dvdverdict.com/reviews/bodyevidence.shtml

Excerpts:

And then he hired Madonna (what, you've never heard Willem Dafoe sing?). Surrounding her with untold amounts of talent and polishing every piece of the sex thriller formula to a high gloss glimmer, everything seemed in place. That is, until Madonna opened her mouth to do something other than stimulate Evian bottles.

She is dull. She is lifeless. She comes across as the kind of awkward seductress you'd avoid even if she was the last non-radioactive bit of booty on a desolate post-apocalyptic planet.

... Theory #1 [as to why they cast Madonna in this film] -- It's okay, since she's [Madonna's] surrounded by others who can act

A stool sample lying in the middle of a pristine porcelain floor is appalling. A stool sample surrounded by glorious flowers from around the world is called fertilizer and is perfectly acceptable.

That is why in Body of Evidence Madonna is surrounded by Academy Award nominated actors and talented filmmakers. They all hope to trick the eye and the nose away from the miscast actresses' emotive mistakes.

Willem Dafoe, Joe Mantegna, Julianne Moore, Anne Archer, and Jurgen Prochnow all seem ready for a ripe reenactment of slick sin and sick silliness. But try as they might, they cannot elevate the vacant Vogue void above the level of interpersonal drywall.

Her [Madonna's] every line reading is racked with misplaced enunciation and awkward tone shifts, like she's testing the road mics for Bachman Turner Overdrive, not attempting a dalliance.

Eventually, her off-center presence torpedoes the storyline to the point where locking Rebecca up for killing the old pervert seems ludicrous, but making her spend a decade in the hole for her weepy gay bashing witness stand saga is not cruel or unusual enough.

No reviews available for DANGEROUS GAME

But I'm sure Madonna must have sucked in it.

Summary of what most critics had to say about Madonna's performance in this film:

Madonna's acting was passable, if only because the character she played in the movie, "Susan," was exactly like her, so that there really wasn't any acting involved per se; Madonna essentially played herself.

The Movie [Dick Tracy] is about style, and that's why Madonna gets by. She's an element in the design . . . She's an awful actress, but she's adequate as a masochistic, two-dimensional floozy." -- David Denby, New York magazine [by way of The I Hate Madonna Handbook, by Ilene Rosnzweig, page 106]

The Filthy Critic: Die Another Day

http://www.bigempire.com/filthy/dieanotherday.html

Madonna taunts us with the title song like an $8 whore exposing a string of festering syphilis cankers. It contains such pretentious horsesh*t as her muttering “Dr. Freud, Analyze this… analyze this.” No, you stupid, overexposed hag, that's a different movie.

Can someone please tell me why she is famous when she's by all objective measures a disgusting, pigeon-throated gutter slut? And why does she get a cameo? Did the makers think the audience would be delighted to see her? The bag had to marry Guy “One Trick” Ritchie just to be in his bad movies.

The Projector Booth: Die Another Day

http://www.projectorbooth.com/movies/movie.asp?movie=832&review=1014

No, the earbleeding rape of my ears occurred during the first
few minutes of the film where my debt of bad karma from having lived a dissolute life came back to exact punishment in the form of a theme song 'sung' by Madonna.

I have an extensive vocabulary, admittedly made up mostly of swearwords and insults, but even I lack the words to describe how dire that song truly is. It's the kind of horror which stays with you for years to come. Over an hour into the film I was still thinking "jeez that was a f*cking awful song."

Adding insult to injury and pouring sulphuric acid into my
wounds, the hallowed hag of the pop charts makes what is
certainly the least necessary cameo appearance in Bond history, looking very much worse for wear.

All I can say is that either motherhood or drug addiction does not agree with Madonna, because she needs to be put in a crooked old folk's home.

Her 'acting' is at the lofty level achieved in that little known gem Shanghai Surprise.

Why, producers of Bond, why? Haven't we suffered enough? Didn't we show our loyalty to the Bond legacy by sitting through crap like the execrable last Roger Moore Bond film View to a Kill, and the "let us never speak of them again" Dalton Bond films?

Do you hate us so much that you even have to inflict Madonna onto us? You f*cking sadists.

They Make a Different Brand of Movie in Hollywood

[Die Another Day Commentary]

By Garry Maddox December 14 2002

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/12/13/1039656215208.html

Excerpts (a conversation between friends):

"What's Madonna like then?"

"She plays a lesbian dominatrix fencing instructor."

"Typecasting, eh. Is she good?"

"Halle Berry wears Revlon but Madonna looks like a walking advertisement for Botox."

"You mean, that nourishing late-night drink?" said the colleague, apparently ignorant of the latest miracle treatment for unsightly wrinkles.

"I think that's Bonox," said the writer. "Or maybe that's the lead singer of U2."

Summary of what most critics had to say about this film:

Since Madonna mostly sang in this movie and didn't do much acting, she was not as bad in this flick. Most critics said her singing voice was okay (since she had taken professional voice lessons to prepare).

Evita Review, from E! Online

http://www.eonline.com/Features/Features/Madonna2000/madonna7.html

The Role: Madonna is Evita, the stubborn little girl from the slums who slept her way to the heights of Argentinean culture and politics.

The Result: Adapted from the stage musical, Evita is a historical drama with sweeping pageantry that earned Madonna an award from the Golden Globes and a big yawn from the Oscars. The Academy didn't even grant her a nomination. Maybe it was her thin, reedy voice. Or maybe it was the way her fake front tooth and chocolate brown contact lenses glinted in the klieg lights and made her look like Star Trek's Data.

The Reel-Life Hook: Did she identify with this scheming social climber who seduced men to gain money and power, then used her style to inspire her fans for more money and power and finally turned into a sad, dominating bitch? Nahhh.

No reviews available for FOUR ROOMS

But I'm sure Madonna must have sucked in it.

No reviews available for GIRL 6

But I'm sure Madonna must have sucked in it.

The critics' consensus:

Madonna's presence was tolerable in this film because she was part of an ensemble with such heavyweights as Tom Hanks and Geena Davis. Working alongside competent actors made Madonona's lack of thespian skills less noticeable. I also don't think she had a lot of screen time, either.

Cassava Snotty Movie Reviews: The Next Best Thing

http://www.cassavafilms.com/revn.html

Dreadful. Again, one of those "free Paramount films" I get to see, else I would have avoided it. Madonna and Rupert Everett play best friends. He's gay, she's not, both are lonely.

...So Madonna, one of the stiffest and most uninteresting actresses ever to be placed in front of a camera, feels really bad and just wants everyone to be happy.

... Madonna looks like a sweating, leathery ghoul throughout. Joyless. Headache-inducing. Kill this movie, please.

Box Office Mojo, March 2000

(The Next Best Thing reviewed)

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/mar00.html

The Next Best Thing's title turned out to be a self-fulfilling prophecy, as Madonna's first movie in three years opened in second place with a tepid $5.87 million from 2,007 theaters. These kinds of numbers were to be expected despite the hype. An unappealing ad campaign, scathing reviews and Madonna's annoying "earth mother" persona contributed to the failure.

E! Online Review, The Next Best Thing

http://www.eonline.com/Features/Features/Madonna2000/madonna8.html

. . . Toss Will & Grace and Kramer vs. Kramer into the Cuisinart, and you'll come up with this concotion, which isn't likely to change Madonna's luck on the big screen. And what's up with that stringy hair and oily, bumpy skin? Clearly, the defused bombshell's beauty routine has faltered. Less meditiation, more exfoliation!

The FLEA DIP site review, August 2003:

I saw this on t.v. years ago, probably in the 1980s. The storyline was boring, and Madonna's attempt at acting was incredibly horrible, even worse than her performance in Who's That Girl. I've seen robots in Star Trek episodes who are more convincing than Madonna.

Above: Twiki the robot

All of Madonna's line readings were 'flat,' (as in not emotive) which made it even more difficult to let go and enjoy. Yes, "Twiki" from Buck Rogers in the 25th Century, or the robot who always exclaimed "Danger, Will Robinson!" conveyed more emotion in their readings than Madonna does.

In most movies, one is able to willingly, temporarily suspend disbelief, even in watching something fantastic and fictional like Bat Man, and pretend that the characters are real, thanks to the actors, who have you believing that they really are these character they are playing.

You find yourself willing to believe for the two hours in the theater that there really is, or could be, this multi-millionaire, Bruce Wayne guy who wears a bat suit and fights crime at night. Further, while watching the movie, I lose sight of the fact that I am watching Val Kilmer or Michael Keaton portraying Bruce Wayne.

On the other hand, while watching Madonna in Shanghai Surprise (and in her other movies, for that matter), all I could think was, "I am watching Madonna the pop singer. I am watching Madonna the pop singer struggling to act, and she's doing a miserable job of it."

I particularly was annoyed by the scene in Surprise where Madonna falls down in a mud puddle, or whatever it was, and throws a bit of a tantrum, as she makes with the pouty mouth. She was trying to be 'cute' but looked very artificial. She probably thought that the 'cutey pie, pouty look' would look good on the back of the video boxes.

Awesome in its awfulness -- Roxanne T. Mueller, Cleveland Plain Dealer

Shanghai Surprise Review from E! Online

http://www.eonline.com/Features/Features/Madonna2000/madonna2.html

The Role: A missionary nurse (Madonna) hires an international fortune-hunter/hustler (soon-to-be-ex-husband Sean Penn) to help find a cache of opium in 1937 China.

The Result: A campy catastrophe that features a bizarre premise (the nurse wants the opium for "medicinal" reasons), a squeaky-voiced leading lady and Penn imitating Ratso Rizzo.

The Reel-Life Hook: In a recent interview, Madonna claims she was railroaded into this project by Penn: "I was in such awe of him, I kind of let him make a lot of the decisions. I was so green. I didn't know what was going on, and it was not pleasant." Nor was the film.

Yeah, Madonna, blame your lousy acting on Sean Penn!

No reviews available for SHADOWS AND FOG.

But I'm sure Madonna must have sucked in it.

Madonna's Island Disaster:

Washington Post Review of Swept Away

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=style/movies/reviews&contentId=A6504-2002Oct10&notFound=true

by Desson Howe

Excerpts:

IF THERE'S any wisdom to be drawn from "Swept Away," it could be as simple as this: Madonna is as Madonna does. . .

At no point should anyone mistake this for an actual movie. This is an extended beach video that will leave no one swept away.

The movie, lambasted in Ritchie's England, is as awful as you've heard and as bad as you've imagined. The acting at the beginning borders on the laughable. Director Ritchie's street coolness – earned from his fabulous two movies, "Lock, Stock & Two Smoking Barrels" and "Snatch" – risks a little temporary tarnish.

This also marks Madonna's third film disaster in collaboration with a lover-husband, after the 1986 "Shanghai Surprise" (with Sean Penn) and the 1990 "Dick Tracy" (with Warren Beatty).

Village Voice Review of Swept Away

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0241/atkinson.php

by Michael Atkinson

Merely an indulgent vehicle for Mrs. Ritchie -- and Madonna is so spectacularly convincing as a hateful, self-absorbed, nouveau riche ogress that her character's third-act transformation is as preposterous as her overmuscled physique.

. . . Neither the tone-deaf Madonna nor Adriano Giannini, doing a superb yet bloodless riff on his dad, has more than the slipperiest grip on the scenario's satirical outlandishness.

Swept Away Review from Ruthless Reviews

http://www.ruthlessreviews.com/movie/s/sweptaway.html

Excerpts:

Somehow, this movie is as bad as everyone says. Actually, it's not "somehow," it's Madonnahow. The best thing about this film is that it's finally compelling people to see Madonna's lack of talent. You'd think that she could at least play a conceited, rich pain in the ass. If they were smart, they wouldn't have even told her they were filming a movie. "Guy! What the f*ck are all those cameras doing here?"

Swept Away, by Brandon Judell / Gay.com/

PlanetOut.com Network (October 2002)

http://uk.gay.com/article/entertainment/movies/1266

Excerpts:

Madonna has made herself over so often now, there's apparently nothing left to work with -- sort of like Michael Jackson's nose.

Above: scene from Swept Away

Here in "Swept Away," a remake of Lina Wertmuller's 1974 Marxist, art-house hit comedy, Madonna's presence is like a big black hole.

... What's worse than Madonna's face is her body. In one scene, she's riding an exercise bike. At first, you think you're looking at a gym bunny in bad Madonna drag.

Madonna's new film will not get a British release
By Hugh Davies, Entertainment Correspondent,

09/11/2002

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/11/09/nmad09.xml

Excerpts:

Madonna's first film directed by her husband Guy Ritchie, Swept Away, lived up to its title last night.

The star, who earned £36 million last year for her music, was told by Columbia Tristar that it will not be released in Britain.

Instead, the tale of a rich heiress marooned on a desert island, described by Roger Friedman, a New York critic, as "one of the biggest turkeys in history", is to go straight to video.

Carefully avoiding mention of the bad reviews in America, Columbia, owned by Sony, blamed "disappointing box office results".

In its first weekend, the film took just £250,000, in contrast to Red Dragon, the latest Hannibal Lecter feature, which made more than £11 million.

The box office gross is barely £377,000, meaning that Sony will have to write off most of the £7 million cost. USA Today tipped the film as a contender for a Razzie or Golden Raspberry - the "anti-Oscar" awards given to the year's worst films.

The film's failure has apparently not deterred Madonna. She is said to be writing an autobiographical comedy for her next screen appearance.

Her film Shanghai Surprise, made with first husband Sean Penn, sank George Harrison's HandMade Films. Who's That Girl? and Body of Evidence were also flops.

. . . However, the Washington Post said Swept Away was "as bad as you've imagined" with "laughable" acting

Guy's Folly, From The Age

(Review of Swept Away)

http://www.theage.com.au/text/articles/2002/11/19/1037682015443.htm

November 2002, By Brett Thomas

Excerpt:

In a movie career, if that's the right phrase for it, spanning two decades, Madonna has proved one thing: she can't act.

Flea Dip review:

Truth or Dare, also know as In Bed With Madonna: It was an excuse for Madonna to indulge her ego and act like a whore on screen. That pretty much sums it up.

E! Online Review of Who's That Girl,

from the "Why Madonna's Movies Tank" Series

http://www.eonline.com/Features/Features/Madonna2000/madonna3.html

The Role: Madonna plays Nikki Finn, a helium-voiced hussy who manipulates a hapless lawyer (Griffin Dunne) to clear her name of a murder charge.

The Result: It's not easy to do a screwball comedy, as this flick proves. Madonna sports a black beauty mark--whatever happened to that?--and a Joisey accent.

The Reel-Life Hook: She looks as if she's brought her own wardrobe to the set: black leather biker jacket, crinoline mini-tutus, striped tights and spike-heeled biker boots. She also sings four songs on the soundtrack, including her hit "Causing a Commotion." It doesn't help.

STAGE

SPEED THE PLOW (1988)

Madonna was the weakest thing in it. -- David Richards, The Washington Post, [by way of The I Hate Madonna Handbook, page 105]

She moves as if she were operated by a remote control unit several cities away -- Dennis Cunningham [by way of The I Hate Madonna Handbook, page 105]

Up For Grabs, from London Online Review

http://www.onlinereviewlondon.com/reviews/grabs.html

. . . in David Williamson's 'Up For Grabs' and Madonna in the lead role deepens the uneasiness still further. Here is one of the richest and most influential women in the world, but despite her catchy tunes and slick videos is she a true artist?

For all her fame and success this material girl is just that, yet still strives to be taken seriously as an actress. Can she overcome her status and make us believe that we're in the presence of art? The simple answer is 'no'. Before she even opens her mouth the audience roars, she acknowledges (her first mistake) and it's clear that we're the willing participants in the machine that creates Madonna the icon, but not Madonna the actress.

As the play unfolds it becomes increasingly difficult to accept her as Loren: a naïve, desperate art dealer who is forced to play three bidders off against each other to secure an overpriced $20 million for a Pollock.

Her marriage and career depend on it, and she'll go to any lengths (including lesbian sex and an encounter with a giant dildo) to secure the price. But she doesn't convince. It's not that she's terrible; she has a child-like and endearing quality with a quiet little voice, but these do not an actress make.

Her failings are magnified by the rest of the brilliant cast. Tom Irwin is particularly strong as her psychiatrist husband, Gerry. Megan Dodds plays Mindy, the dot.com millionaire and potential bidder with warmth and vulnerability and Sian Thomas as Dawn, the corporate bidder with a taste for revenge is laugh-out-loud funny.

It's difficult not to compare Madonna with the rest of the cast (she sets herself up for it) and the real actors all possess something that she can only strive for a belief in and commitment to their role. They live in and inhabit their characters, making them full and real people, whilst Loren is one-dimensional. Mrs Ritchie, not so much expressing herself, but play-acting.

Madonna UK Stage Debut Hits Hitch, CNN UK

http://www.cnn.com/2002/SHOWBIZ/Arts/04/29/madonna.stage/

Tabloid newspaper speculation has so far centred on the alleged prima donna behaviour of the world's most famous female pop star.

Madonna was said to have demanded a raised stage to stop fans rushing her, staff were told not to make eye contact with her and cast members were firmly told not to use her nickname in Britain, "Madge."

Madonna Desperately Seeking Thumbs Up,

From E! Online

http://www.eonline.com/News/Items/0,1,10000,00.html

by Josh Grossberg
May 24, 2002

Excerpts:

Just call her the "Mechanical Girl."

At least that seems to be the consensus of British theater critics when it comes to Madonna's London stage debut Thursday night in Up for Grabs by Australian playwright David Williamson.

Though Madonna elicited wild applause from a packed house that included her hubby, Guy Ritchie. . . the reviewers in the Wyndham Theater weren't so kind.

... Madonna plays a SoHo art dealer who does whatever it takes to sell a $20 million Jackson Pollock painting, including strapping on a dildo in one scene to please a potential investor. Another scene features her smooching a female prospective client who happens to be bisexual.

. . . Now Madonna has drawn thumbs down from reviews on both sides of the Atlantic. Her last stage appearance, in David Mamet's Broadway production of Speed the Plow in 1988, was widely panned. . .

This article has several snippets of bad reviews from various newspapers and web sites for Madonna's "acting" in this play, so do check it out!

Up For Grabs Review from BBC News

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/audiovideo/programmes/newsnight/review/2012087.stm

Excerpts (from a panel of critics who were asked to review 'Up For Grabs') -- boo hiss to critic Bonnie Greer who is a bit on the sympathetic side concerning Madonna:

MARK LAWSON:
Madonna in Up For Grabs. Obviously she greatly wants to be a stage actress. Is she?

MIRANDA SAWYER:
No. She is acted off the stage. . .

JOHN CAREY:
It made a curious evening in the theatre. The play seemed to be forgotten. The audience was very strange, bellowing with pleasure whenever she said anysthing, so that she seemed to be apart from the rest of the actors, who just dropped in to the play occasionally.

She seemed wooden, her delivery was very flat. She couldn't make you believe what you had to believe. She had to make you believe she was young, penniless, and loved looking at great art. You didn't believe any of those things.

Miranda said it's a bad play. It's not very good, but it would have been better with a young, vulnerable person who could act that part. She couldn't act it.

[On a scene where Madonna is supposed to throw a book on a table]:

MIRANDA SAWYER:
Yes. She [Madonna's character] has to have an argument with her husband, and she threw her book down. It missed obviously where it was meant to go. It was meant to land on top of the table. It fell to the floor. You could see her looking in panic.

Well, don't just stand there...

(A Review of Up For Grabs by The Observer)

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,6903,722188,00.html

Susannah Clapp, Sunday May 26, 2002

Excerpts:

Madonna gives a weirdly immobile performance in her West End debut...

Most of the film stars who have lately taken to the London stage have been better - more powerful, more subtle, more intricate - than expected. Not Madonna.

She supplies lots of pointy elbow-work and an occasional sinuous shoulder-roll - as if she were performing in a pop video - but not a single gesture that illuminates her faint, inexpressive voice.

. . . [the director has]. . . produced a dull piece of installation art, with Madonna in the vicinity of a big grey dildo, and Madonna submitting happily to a snog from a woman. . .

Review of Up For Grabs, by Ian Shuttleworth

http://www.cix.co.uk/~shutters/reviews/02113.htm

Excerpts:

What you want to know is, what's Madonna like in the main role?

The answer is: not very good either. Lacking technical skills (especially in her vocal delivery), she expends much more effort in looking as if she's doing acting than she does in actually getting inside the character.

TELEVISION

Anythingbut.com: Pimping Her New CD

[Madonna's Wil and Grace television appearance]

http://anythingbut.com/archive/2003_04_08.html

Excerpts:

How Will & Grace Nabbed Madonna

Madonna's April 24 guest shot on NBC's Will & Grace caps a two-year pursuit on the part of the sitcom's coexecutive producer Tim Kaiser — a mission that involved some wishful thinking, a little behind-the-scenes diplomacy and, perhaps most importantly, a bribe no material girl could resist. "I sent a lot of flowers," Kaiser laughs. "Madonna loves English roses, so I began to send these fantastic arrangements."

The floral fawning helped Kaiser penetrate Madonna's inner circle, although, "There wasn't much interest," he notes. "I was informed Madonna didn't own a television, or know Will & Grace existed." But, crazy for the pop icon, the scribe didn't give up. "I sent tapes of appearances by Matt Damon, Michael Douglas and whatnot, and... pitched how wonderful it would be for her to come on the show."

But it wasn't until last November — shortly after her latest film, Swept Away, tanked — that the singer showed any true blue consideration. However, Madonna's manager, Caresse Henry, denies that her client saw an opportunity to justify her acting ambition in the wake of the movie's failure.

"She didn't do it to redeem herself," insists Henry, adding that the Evita star wanted a chance to "show her comedic side, because she's very funny." Another perk? The episode coincides with the April 22 release of her latest album, American Life.