Shanghai Surprise (1986) User Reviews

"It stinks so bad I can't think"....Sean Penn in "Shanghai Surprise"

[planktonrules · 2/10 · 19 May 2019]

Back in the 1980s, "Shanghai Surprise" was a notorious stinker...a film EVERYONE seemed to hate. And, with a score of 3.1, it's obvious that even today many people hated the film....and with good reason.

The story is a confusing mess. A missionary girl (??) (Madonna) seeks the help of a ne'er do well (Sean Penn) to locate some jewels or opium (they never seem sure WHICH they are seeking) in China in 1937. All sorts of bad people try to kill them and along the way they take time to have sex (which is quite strange for a missionary who just met this guy).

So why did I hate the film? There were many reasons and the most obvious is Madonna. Her performance mostly consists of her shrieking and whining...to the point where you wonder who, if anyone, would find her character anything other than 100% annoying and hateful. It was much like her poor performance in "Swept Away"...but even worse and more grating. Second, the script was inept....with lots of story elements that simply didn't fit together...such as the missionary girl who boinks the hero AND spends much of the film trying to find opium. What sort of religious mission is this she's running? Our Lady of Perpetual Whining, perhaps?! Third, having the ultimate treasure being opium suggests the 'heroes' want to get rich by selling horribly dangerous drugs...which seems anything other than heroic....and so it's hard to like or care about them. Fourth, the direction was poor and many re-shoots SHOULD have been made (such as any time Madonna opened her mouth). Overall, a painful vanity project with several songs by, of all people, George Harrison! Odd and not enjoyable....just grating.

Dreary, dreadful romantic comedy

[GrammarCub · 2/10 · 25 May 1999]

"Shanghai Surprise" is an idiotic, out-of-date, poorly-acted, campy action film that wants to be a romantic comedy. Madonna, in her second starring role, had about enough acting talent at this point as a doll. Unfortunately, the doll in this movie comes off looking better than she does.

Madonna, playing a missionary (!) nurse (!!) for a Shanghai mission, is in search of opium (!!!) for medicinal purposes (!!?!!) approaches Sean Penn, an American soldier-of-fortune type who happens to speak Chinese. Penn and Madonna, who were married at the time this film were made, are obviously uncomfortable with the material and do little to justify the film's existence. Penn mugs his way through and attempts to crach a few weak jokes, while Madonna stamps her foot and places her hands on her hips as she squeaks (yes, she squeaks, and you must hear it to believe it) in frustration.

The plot is absolutely ridiculous -- Madonna and Sean Penn chasing after a mysterious cargo of opium known as "Faraday's Flowers" (incidentally, the name of the book this movie is based on) must run from a Chinese gangster with porcelain hands, have a romantic interlude with an Imperial concubine, teach baseball skills to another Chinese gangster, and (boy, aren't we surprised) sleep together to seal a deal.

This movie, like "Mommie Dearest" or "Plan Nine From Outer Space" has immense camp value because it's so deliciously awful. Utterly predictable, insipid, and full of instantly forgettable lines, this movie is the equivalent of the yellow stuff they stick on your nachos at the movie theatres -- it's not really good enough to be real cheese, but it's much cheaper and tastes pretty much the same anyway. This movie isn't even cheesy enough to be cheesy.

Avoid "Shanghai Surprise" unless, like me, you like Madonna WAY too much or if you're just a fan of bad movies.

Career nadir for both Sean Penn and Madonna

[gridoon2024 · 3/10 · 16 April 2020]

Penn is miscast and Madonna has a straight, subdued, do-gooder role that's a big conceptual mistake - it saps her of energy and fun. Excruciatingly dull and dreary - even the location shooting in Hong Kong cannot save it. * out of 4.

It's actually much worse than you've heard--and that's the only surprise

[moonspinner55 · 1/10 · 23 April 2007]

In 1938 China, a pretty but prim missionary needs to find a hidden stash of smuggled opium (for medicinal purposes!) and attempts to recruit the help of a ratty-looking con-man; his latest get-rich-quick scheme is glow-in-the-dark ties! After an OK opening (without Sean Penn and Madonna), this falls completely apart, weighed down by lethargic attempts at screwball comedy and no chemistry whatsoever between the leads (then a married couple). Based on Tony Kenrick's novel "Faraday's Flowers" (a better title), this failure from George Harrison's HandMade Films must have been a devastating blow to the ex-Beatle, who also executive produced, co-wrote the score and wrote and performed the songs (which are heavy on the camp-Asian allure). Just getting through the picture is a chore, and everything about it seems eternally misjudged. NO STARS from ****

"Gigli" for the 1980's!

[CTS-1 · 1/10 · 14 November 2003]

OK. So someone took an A-list actor and his famous singer/ part time kind of-sort of actress wife and decided that the movie would be carried on the weight of the names alone. Substitute "fiancee" for wife and one has Gigli.

But it is not- it is Shanghai Surprise, possibly the most ill-conceived movie of the 1980's (and yes, I have seen "Hobgoblins.")

This movie has no redeeming qualities whatsoever. Ridiculous plot, painfully bad acting (Madonna as a missionary? She didn't buy it either, so she says her lines in a flat tone which just screams "get me out of this costume and get me my check"), cinematography worthy of an old episode of "Fantasy Island," lame ending.

If, by some chance, you stumble across a copy of this in an unused corner of your local video rental store, call your local hazardous waste disposal hotline- do not rent it.

But do not forget that this horror exists. Some people forgot- and thus "Gigli" was born.

Possibly the Worst Film I have Ever Seen (And I've Seen a Lot of Bad Movies Over the Years.)

[boingo_the_clown · 1/10 · 28 January 2006]

The IMDb advises that I should say ...

*Warning Spoilers Follow*.

... but there is no way to spoil this movie, because it is already spoiled to the point of being compost, and is ready to be spread out on the fields.

It has been almost 20 years since my girlfriend of the time, an obsessive Madonna fan, talked me into seeing this piece of trash, and I still go to bed at night praying to God that I can somehow get that two hours of my life back. This is not one of those movies that is so bad it is good. This is one of those movies that is so bad it actually slingshots right around past good and right back to bad again.

Madonna stars as a missionary (I know this is a leap of faith folks, but I am *not* kidding!), who teams up with Sean Penn (her then husband) to search for "Faraday's Flowers", a cache of opium balls she hopes can be used as a pain killer for wounded troops. From about this point on, the movie takes on a rhythm that more or less goes "1, 2, 3, plot twist, 1, 2, 3, plot twist, 1, 2, 3, plot twist, and so on", as the duo of Penn and Penn bounce around randomly from one ridiculous situation to another with plenty of plot twists, but absolutely no plot evident to be twisted. In the mean time, they are being chased by a corrupt official with prosthetic hands (He lost his real hands from opening a booby trapped money belt called a "shanghai surprise", which is what the movie is supposedly named after. This seems appropriate to me, seeing how I had lost my money from watching this booby trapped movie.).

You may wonder why it is that I am able to remember so much about a movie I haven't seen in almost 20 years. To that I can only say one thing ...

... emotional scarring.

This movie is that bad folks! I have seen a lot of bad movies in my time, but this one rules as the unchallenged chief god in my pantheon of stinkers. It makes Ed Wood's movies look like Academy Award winning material. It even makes the worst of the worst of the flash animation that I have seen over the last six years on the net look good. I would eagerly gnaw my foot off to escape from this movie.

If, for some reason, you are ever unfortunate enough to find a copy of this little "gem" on the shelf of your local video store, the only thing I can recommend is that you slowly and carefully turn yourself around, then run, run! RUN!!!!!, and immediately seek psychiatric counseling so as to avoid any possible post traumatic stress syndrome you may suffer from exposure to this movie.

I give this movie a 1, but that is only because IMDb will not let me input negative numbers.

Horrifying

[yesyouam · 1/10 · 26 February 2006]

I think I made it through about half of this movie. The acting was horrible. The plot was non-existent. The editing was awful. It seemed like they just took a bunch of scenes and put them together in random order.

This movie filled me with so many questions: Why is Penn dressed in '80s-style clothing? What is going on? Was Madonna's crotch shot in that first chase scene intentional? What is motivating these characters? How did Sean Penn go on to have a successful career after this film? Will I ever regain that piece of soul I just lost? Why? Why? Why?

My wife and I tried to watch this film tonight and it made us physically ill. If only I could unsee this film. I'm going to cry in the dark for the next few hours.

25 years later: it's mellowed with age

[Eric-1226 · 31 July 2011]

The thought struck me recently that this movie was unfavorably received by critics and audiences alike at the time of its release (1986) because of the celebrity status of the two leading stars - Madonna and Sean Penn. But, if you watch the movie today, some twenty five years later, and if you are able to put the hype and the celebrity status of those two stars out of your mind, then, the movie doesn't seem so bad. In fact, it's actually a pretty good escapist adventure romp along the lines of an Indiana Jones movie.

I watched this movie for the first time just recently, as I was scared away from viewing it all those many years prior, simply because of all the negative hype surrounding it - the hype that said it was a real stinker. But I actually found it to be a pretty engrossing story, with a nicely done cinematography that oozed a colorful, exotic, sometimes even enchanting Oriental atmosphere that was hard to dismiss. Some of the shots, as filmed, were... beautiful! So don't let 1980's critics scare you away: this movie is worth a shot, and if you can mentally distill the two leads down to just being a guy and a girl from 1930's America thrust into an adventure escapade set in a faraway exotic locale, then you just might enjoy this movie for what it was meant to be: pure escapist entertainment.

Not perfect, but then again, NOT the stinker it has been made out to be.

not even good enough to qualify as laughably bad

[mjneu59 · 1/10 · 2 January 2011]

Tinsel town's (then) favorite bride and groom consummated their marriage with this abysmal comedy adventure, an aborted Indiana Jones rip-off set in (of all places) romantic China during the Japanese occupation. The project was obviously an excuse for a paid honeymoon abroad, but no amount of fun and games could possibly validate such an insult to the intelligence, which would have us accept Sean Penn as a romantic hero and Madonna as the chaste and innocent daughter of a local missionary, a joke of bad casting even her most loyal fans would have trouble defending (she can't play the role, at any rate). Ex-Beatle George Harrison obviously saw the film as an opportunity to peddle some forgettable songs, and using his producer's credit he was able to put his distinctive warble in every other scene. Bottom line: life is too short to waste even 90 minutes of it watching indulgent crap like this.

unbearably awful

[westpac · 2/10 · 3 June 2003]

Who thought this up? It must have looked brilliant when they got Sean and Madonna in the same movie. Unfortunately Sean goes through the whole movie looking like a kid pretending he's in a movie and Madonna as usual just plays herself, badly. Nothing to see here, move along folks...

The worst lead actress performance in a major American release EVER

[tonyblass · 1/10 · 17 August 2008]

There is no reason to struggle with justifications, nor to reach for words to describe such an amateurish, hackneyed, stilted, banal ... well, there I go. Just suffice to it say that it is completely understandable why the talented Mr. Penn reportedly chose to stay drunk for every shooting day of this miserable, limp, pointless ... you see where I'm going. However bad you remember it to be, you must re-see it to believe it. Madonna is the worst American actress of all time without peer. The only thing she's done on film that is worth seeing is Evita (a music video) and "Desperately Seeking Susan" (in which she has little dialog and rolls her eyes a lot).

I liked it!

[JohnHowardReid · 8/10 · 27 May 2015]

I'm really surprised by the extremely negative reviews and poor box- office results for this expensively made and -- to my mind -- quite entertaining movie. Admittedly, I thought the violence a bit overdone, but the characters seem to weather all the storms with surprisingly little pain. Perhaps there were also too many twists in the narrative, but it certainly kept moving at an admirably fast clip. Production values are absolutely superb. Perhaps Madonna is not always photographed to her advantage, but you can't look luscious all the time, and I thought that she and Penn delivered quite charismatic performances. The support cast was great too.And the wonderful music score from George Harrison was an added delight. And I've no complaints whatever with my Artisan DVD. I thought it was perfect. In all, 93 fast-moving, adventurous minutes.

'Swept Away' syndrome first made its appearance 16 years earlier...

[Howlin Wolf · 6/10 · 7 March 2005]

... "Lets vilify a film out of all proportion just because it's a project of Madonna and her beau"... "Shanghai Surprise" is a better film than "Swept Away", and even (whisper it) 'quite good'...

Yes, you read me right...

Had it been decided to make it without a married couple, this would've been released to little fanfare and been the quaint favourite of a select few. As it was; in 1986 everyone and their dog seemed desperate to put a spanner in the works of the 'Poison Penns' nuptials, and their intended target was starkly visible... If one is actually intelligent enough to assess it sans 'scandal mag' hysteria, it's an innocuous enough concoction. Interesting sets, a quirky character or two, 'screwball' situations... Sean Penn should've been intelligent enough to pass on what's essentially "Raiders of The Lost Ark"'s more 'insipid' step-child; but hey, he was *in love* at the time, so cut 'im some slack... ! 'Love' - the same sickness that prompted most of Madonna's other career mis-steps, as well; (Unless she fell in love with a crew-member, there's NO excuse for "Who's That Girl"... ) and she's out of her depth, here. Sean knows it too, which is why he looks uncomfortable most of the time, but he's still professional enough to wring one or two chuckles from his unscrupulous character - that's as staple in this genre as an 'ill-timed avalanche', BTW - albeit in a manner that still allows the likes of Michael Douglas to sleep safe in his bed.

The awkward pairing we're given though even adds to the fun, although presumably that WASN'T part of the producers' 'grand plan'... Remember how, in 'Temple of Doom', lots of people said the Kate Capshaw character was annoying? Well, so is Madonna here, I guess; it's just this time I don't think it was scripted that way... ! Still, it works effectively enough, as each time Sean gets exasperated with her, so do we the viewers... !

Apparently all that's needed to draw the ire of millions is one main star who's better than the material, and one who's worse... Which is which in the case of "Gigli"... ?! I haven't seen that one yet; but if it gets attacked for the same mean-spirited motives as this, then I'm actually quite looking forward to it... ! When movie stars get hitched, it's been proved that all they're doing is doubling the amount of criticism that gets thrown their way.

EDIT - It must be said, some two months later, that "Gigli" IS almost as bad as reputed... There's still nothing of the like to be wary of here, though... !

Even by Madonna standards this is bad.

[hugoruneofbrentford · 1/10 · 12 April 2021]

I can't think of a single thing to recommend about this turgid load of old codswallop.

I can't even imagine who they thought this would appeal to.

Madonna can't act the film has zero intrigue, suspense, or involvement. Not a single character is engaging. The entire film can only be compared to a mild migraine that you can't wait to be over.

It ain't Indiana Jones

[Blueghost · 1 September 2003]

If nothing else this film has heart. I remember years ago all the hype that was injected into this film aimed at adolescent girls (i.e. Madonna fans), with the angle being that they would get to see the then infamous couple of Penn and Madonna frolic on the big silver screen.

Well, it didn't take a rocket scientist to know where this film was headed. Like with all films when the hype exceeds previously good, yet unhyped, films you know something's up.

The story itself isn't bad. It's kind of hackneyed at points, but that's its genre, and for what the film is it works after a fashion. There're only two real problems with this film;

1) Madonna's then acting capabilities. It's not bad for a performer who's more used to singing and dancing, and it's unfair to expect anything more from her, but her acting talent then was what it was; lacking. Let's face it, she's a better singer and dancer than an actress, and this comes from a man who is not one of her fans.

2)The second problem is the actual filming and execution of this film. The storie's there, the acting's there (Madonna not withstanding), and so forth, but there's little in the way of coverage or good cinematography. It's passing. It gets the job done. But the shots are those of a low budget flick. I believe there was a real opportunity to create atmosphere with good camera direction, but the focus of the film wasn't art so much as it was to capitalize on the then Madonna-Penn phenomenon (the film itself was riding the coat tails of Indiana Jones and The High Road to China films).

And that last part is really too bad, because this film could've been much more. At least when I saw it on HBO years ago the print I saw then was clear, corrected, crisp and otherwise very viewable. Today I had a gander at the recently released DVD, and it looks like the owners of the property took an old 16mm broadcast print and had some fly by night tranfer company encode it on a DVD master; complete with a couple of scratches on grainy film stock.

In short, if you didn't like it the first time, then don't bother with the DVD because it's even worse. If you got a spare evening, and your friend loaned you the disk, or it's available at the library, then give it a look, but don't expect too much.

Madonna, Madonna, you are not Sharon Stone.

[zvezdochkapetrova · 2/10 · 5 January 2019]

For some reason, Madonna thought that midway through the 1980s it'd be a good idea to bring back slapstick AND film noir. Why couldn't she leave well enough alone?! Madonna is a great singer, but a really poor actress.

i love madonna, but this must be her worst movie...

[maddylover · 3/10 · 13 February 2002]

As you can see by the name in my email adress, i am a huge fan of madonna, but in this movie she performs her worst acting.... I personally think it's because of the cooperation between husband and wife (madonna and sean penn). In the past this combination of husband and wife playing together in the same movie has to end in a bad trip! Examples: Bruce willis & Demi Moore, Nicole Kidman & Tom Cruise, i am sure you can name one couple for yourself who are acting in a movie, but the acting isn't worth the movie.....

I liked it!

[lhemje · 5/10 · 13 March 2014]

OK, it's not a classic, not every movie is, but if you just want to see a tongue-in-cheek romantic comedy you could do worse.

The music of George Harrison helps and I, for one, kinda' liked this unpretentious little movie.

Not many movies were being made about China in 1986 and being set in 1938 during the Japanese occupation adds some historic appeal.

The plot, although unbelievable, is not really predictable and some of the supporting characters are interesting to say the least.

If you want to see a "great movie" then watch something else but if you like a fun movie with a few twists and turns then Shanghai Surprise might be just right.

Fun, but needed more action scenes

[Wuchakk · 5/10 · 31 January 2013]

Everyone knows "Shanghai Surprise" (1986), starring Sean Penn and Madonna when they were still very young, is regarded as one of the worst films ever made. Don't believe it. I'm not saying it's a good film, but it's certainly not one of the worst ever made.

People complain about the film and the acting as if it was supposed to be a serious drama when, in fact, it's a goofy romantic-comedy adventure a la "High Road to China" or "Romancing the Stone", but with way more talk and less action. I'd also compare it to "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom" but the Indiana Jones films are in a whole different league.

Like I said, people complain about, say, Madonna's acting, but she strikes the right note for a semi-goofy romantic-comedy/adventure. It's low camp all the way. What other approach can you expect in this type of movie?

The highlights are seeing Madonna and Sean when they were so young (not that I'm a fan of either), as well as George Harrison's original songs, the Hong Kong locations, a good Bond-parody villain and the amusing shenanigans throughout.

If "Shanghai Surprise" had added two or three great action sequences the movie would have been better received. As it is, there are NO great action scenes. There are quite a few scenes of quasi-violence and intrigue, but no memorable action sequences like Indiana Jones. But, then again, maybe "Shanghai Surprise" can be respected for daring to be different by not catering to those with ADHD.

GRADE: C+

Nice tie, shame about the film....

[FlashCallahan · 2/10 · 4 April 2015]

Glendon Wasey is a fortune hunter looking for a fast track out of China.

Gloria Tatlock is a missionary nurse seeking the curing powers of opium for her patients.

Fate sets them on a hectic, exotic, and even romantic quest for stolen drugs. But they are up against every thug and smuggler in Shanghai.....

If you ever want to see a film starring a married couple who have zero chemistry in a movie, then this is a must.

It's labelled as an adventure romance, so you'd be forgiven to think your about to watch a homage to Indiana Jone ps by way of romancing the stone. Instead you get a film that is more like a homage to Firewalker, by way of Allan Quartemain in the eighties, and every bit as bad as it sounds.

We have Paul Freeman pretending to be an old Oirish clergyman, and the big reveal at the end is wasted, because we see him without his contacts in for at least five minutes before he goes 'ta da'.

There's a man with porcelain hands, Penn looks like he's been taking some sort if narcotic throughout filing, and Madonna, is supposed to be a virginal missionary.......

Isn't it all hilarious.

It's dreck of the highest order, and no wonder they broke up after this, I hated everybody after sitting through it.

Devoid of almost anything, it's a surprise it didn't sink Handmade pictures....

Shanghai Surprise tries to emulate the appeal of old Hollywood romantic adventures, but a limp screenplay, direction, and chemistry free leads prevent it.

[IonicBreezeMachine · 3/10 · 10 January 2024]

In 1930s Japanese occupied Shanghai, sleazy drunkard and drifter Glendon Wasey (Sean Penn) is stranded without the means to get home and his sole possession of several novelty neckties. Wasey is approached by missionary Miss Tatlock (Madonna) who enlists his help as a translator in supposedly finding the missing father of a bedridden soldier in the care of her mission, which spirals into a chase for a crate of lost opium that puts both Miss Tatlock and Wasey in contact with various duplicitous and unseemly elements in Shanghai.

Shanghai Surprise is a 1986 romantic comedy adventure film based on Tony Kenrick's 1985 novel Faraday's Flowers that served as a vehicle for then newlywed husband and wife Madonna and Sean Penn. Due to the high profile nature of the real life relationship between the stars, the film attracted considerable attention even prior to release with reports of photographers inundating the set of the film that Penn demanded the film's publicist be fired. A co-production between the UK and Britain, distributor MGM rejected director Jim Goddard's initial cut of the film and order re-edits as Goddard was unable to secure alternative distribution. Prior to release both Penn and Madonna attempted to distance themselves from the film including demanding their likenesses be removed from tie-in novel and MGM clearly knew they had a bomb on their hands as it opened in only 400 theaters in 18th place behind several Summer holdovers ending its run with a little over $2 million against a $15 million budget. Critical reception was overwhelmingly negative with many lambasting the performances, writing, technical aspects, and even the original songs and score done in part by George Harrison were poorly received to the point the soundtrack album's release was cancelled. Shanghai Surprise is a mess of a movie and is definitely a case of everyone giving their worst work.

In terms of what Shanghai Surprise is: think a kind of screwball comedy mixture with shades of Maltese Falcon, some elements of Romancing the Stone, and some elements of older films like To Have and Have Not, and you'll get somewhat in the ballpark of what watching Shanghai Surprise is like (assuming you transfer the elements of those films without what worked). The movie has a problem maintaining a consistent tone as parts of the film seem like they're playing in a manner akin to a screwball farce complete with limp pratfalls and floundering gags that linger way longer than necessary, while other parts such as Lim Kay Tong's performance as Mei Gan is so dark it feels like he belongs in something like Temple of Doom. Jim Goddard had a respectable history in British period television prior to this film (and subsequently returned there) and Goddard shows absolutely no flair for directing this kind of light hearted adventure film as the pacing is way too slow and deliberate for either an adventure film or a comedy. Sean Penn is hopelessly unappealing as Glendon Wasey and when looking at the majority of Penn's career one notices he doesn't typically do comedies and Shanghai Surprise is a prime example of just how hopeless Penn is when he comes to comedy as he often looks stiff and uncomfortable and can't deliver lines with any comic punch (a far cry from his dramatic works). And then of course we have Madonna, while Madonna has the looks of a leading lady, she doesn't have the delivery or presence of one. Madonna's performance as Miss Tatlock is very wooden and she doesn't sell the comedic scenes or even the romantic scenes all that well (with the chemistry rather flat between Madonna and Penn). The only good point I can remark on from the film is maybe the production design and some of the costuming, but it's in service of such ineptitude that its novelty wears off.

Shanghai Surprise is the definition of a "Hollywood trainwreck". You have a big budget and name stars in a seemingly decent setup for something like this only for it to crash and burn before your eyes. As a time capsule for a certain focus of celebrity history of the 80s it's maybe worth a viewing, but it is a bit of a slog getting through it.

Just watch it to see the worst beard ever!

[bazztian-46829 · 4/10 · 23 November 2022]

The best thing about this movie is how bad Penn's beard is. It looks like the make-up artists shaved a rodent and stuck the hair to his face with kindergarten glue! While watching it I expected it to jump of his face at any moment on to Madonna's face like an Alien face hugger. I really wanted to like this movie. I like history, I like adventure and I like a good movie with good acting. Most of it you don't get with this movie. The acting is not great, but the biggest problem is the story and plot or lack thereof. Both are rather feeble and make for a boring watch. The good news is there are really good films out there that check all the boxes like High Road to China and Romancing the Stone.

An amazing adventure film that deserves to be revalued

[vogue-3 · 8/10 · 29 March 1999]

Missionary "Madonna" hires adventure "Penn" to capture a cache of stolen opium in 1937 China, but only for medical purpose. The plot seems simple but it reserves great unforseen turns of events, with a lot of action, a tender love story and a little bit of humour, on the backdrop of a beautiful 30s' China. "Shanghai Surprise" takes the best from 30s adventure films and re-propose it with the freshness of the 80s. The cinematography and the music are very suggestive and Madonna gives a good performance. She is a chameleon not only for what concern her looks but also getting into very different part (an explosive street girl in "Desperately seeking Susan", a modern "Betty Boop" in "Who's that girl", A seductive 30's night club star in "Dick Tracy", a baseball girl in "A league of their own", just the "Body of evidence" in the hononym film, an actress in the mirror in "Dangerous game", the first lady of Argentina in "Evita".etc. ) and I think that that is the most important quality that an actress should be! Penn is good too. Thrilling.exciting...really a good film.

Sloppy, gorgeous Madonna, and fair

[UniqueParticle · 6/10 · 4 June 2020]

Shanghai Surprise is a pleasant surprise especially with the soundtrack and negativity behind it; it's unfortunate the movie bombed so much I like it. The writing is definitely the worst thing about it once that's voided out the rest is pretty awesome! The movie tries to be like other movies and gets away with it better than I would've ever thought. Really should be given more of a chance even for a one time viewing and possibly whilst high or drunk.

Not as bad as everyone makes it out to be.

[outofthesky89 · 5/10 · 3 December 2006]

I came across this movie at my local video store, and my Madonna-loving heart just had to buy it; it was only $3.15, and I was sure it couldn't have been as bad as everyone made it out to be.

I was right. While it's in no way outstanding or excellent, and is, in fact, probably slightly bad (but more mediocre than anything), it's no way the worst movie ever made, or deserving of being on the Bottom 100, either.

The only acting I found to be lacking was from Madonna, who seemed stiff in several scenes in the first half and rather annoying throughout the last half. I don't see where the hate against Sean Penn's performance is coming from - like in "Fast Times at Ridgemont High", I was able to focus on the character and forget about the fact that I really dislike Sean Penn, so he must have done something right.

The plot wasn't bad, either - a bit confusing in places, but otherwise decent. A lot of stuff that I found to be rather ridiculous in the beginning made more sense in the end (why missionaries would be looking for opium), and I didn't find Madonna the Missionary's unethical behavior to be that far-fetched or over-the-top.

All in all, a decent, somewhat (unintentionally) campy movie recommended to fans of Madonna, Sean Penn, or both the Poison Penns. Otherwise, if it comes on TV, and you're bored with nothing else to do, consider giving it a try.