MovieChat Forums > Swingers (1997) Discussion > Some real problems with this movie (spoi...

Some real problems with this movie (spoilers)

posted 14 years ago by Rupert__Pupkin
32 replies | jump to latest

1) I think that most people who love Swingers were people who saw it back in mid90s. (I saw it for the first time this week.) As others have already said, the film has not aged well. I have a feeling that people who still rave about this movie are the same ones that still rave about Top Gun...a movie that was great in 1986 but is pretty average today.

2) The lead character of Mike is simply unlikeable. He's like Woody Allen, Albert Brooks, and Richard Lewis rolled into one 30-year old guy. I get that he's a guy with massive insecurities, but c'mon. His level of cluelessness was so over the top that it wasn't believable (e.g. interrupting Trent's sexual rendezvous so he could use the phone to check his machine to see if his ex called; calling Nikki six times to leave ridiculous messages; telling random girls at bars about his ex-girlfriend, etc.).

3) I had a problem with how the movie ended. Mike got over his ex-girlfriend, BUT ONLY when he met someone new. Is there anyone here that doesn't believe Mike would've gotten back with his ex if he hadn't have met the Heather Graham character? It was disgusting. Here was a guy that couldn't function without some girl on his arm. As soon as he found a girl that could stand him, he got with her, and everything's okay again. Mike had serious dependency issues that needed resolved before jumping back into a relationship. He already said his most recent ex was a rebound that came off the heels of a different failed 6-year relationship. Why should his relationship with the Heather Graham character be any different?

4) Heather Graham as the lonely girl at the bar with no one talking to her. Um...no. And then Mike making it clear he didn't want to dance and then turning out to be the greatest dancer in the bar. Another unbelievable scene.

5) Jon Favreau is not a good actor. The only reason he stars in this is that he wrote and co-produced it. This was clearly an attempt on his part to puff up his skills as an actor, including a shameless plug for his dancing ability.

5) The Trent character was charismatic, spontaneous, funny at times, and generally a likeable guy. I just didn't believe that he would be hanging around a wet blanket like Mike. The friendship seemed forced and contrived.

6) The women in this movie were terribly unattractive. I know it was the mid-90s and standards were different then, but they weren't that different 15 years ago. I went to college in the mid to late 90s and remember what fashion was like then. At no time in history would the women in this movie have been considered attractive.

7) The last scene of the movie. A horrifically ugly woman making faces at Trent and then it turns out she's making faces at a baby. Was that supposed to be funny? Even if someone did manage to find humor in this pathetic joke, is that really a strong finish to the movie? It was obvious they had no idea how to end the movie, and so they tacked this stupid scene on.

If I saw this in 1997 in a frat room with a bunch of drunk 19-year olds, I probably would've thought this was a pretty sweet movie. But seeing it as a 32-year old man, I thought it was pretty lame.

2 out of 10.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] la-southpaw 14 years ago

Dude, I was with you on book of eli, but I think you're off on this one, and here's why.

The Mike character wasn't necessarily unlikeable, but was annoying at times. The thing is, he is really bummed out about losing a girl he loved recently, and some guys really don't take this well. I don't know if you've ever had a chick you loved dump you, but it can be brutal, and some guys will do crazy things.

If you look at Mike & Trents relationship, it is very typical. First of all, Mike was only recently acting this way because of the breakup, and his buddy was trying to cheer him up. Real friends do this. They will stick with you even when you're down. Also, it's quite common for a guy who is a ladies man to have a friend or "wingman" who is not exactly a pick up artist. I'm not exactly Trent, but I'm pretty good in a social scene, but a friend of mine I've known for years is not. Actually, he sucks. But, he's still my friend, and I still hang out with him.

As far as the girls being ugly, who are you talking about? Heather Graham is a babe, and Brooke Langton is a total piece of ass. As far as Heather Graham's character being alone at the bar, well, she wouldn't be for long, however, she could have shot down guy after guy, and eventually they left her alone.

Remember, the point wasn't to show perfect people who do everything perfect. I don't know about you, but I grew up in LA, and I used to go out a lot, and I totally felt like the situations they were in were plausible. I'm in my early 40's now, so I don't go out as much, but I remember not too long ago, things like this happened to me.

And yes, the best way to get over someone, is to find someone new. Chris Rock said it best- the best kind of Pussssy is new pussssy!

Anyway, I found it believable because I've seen similar types of people and situations in my life, and I thought it was funny. Is it the greatest movie of all time? No, but it was enjoyable, and funny.

[–] Rupert__Pupkin 14 years ago

southpaw, I see your point(s), but I think the dealbreaker for me was the Mike character. I simply couldn't stand the guy. His constant pathetic whining ruined the movie for me. I didn't care what happened to him. My only hope was that he wouldn't burden some poor unsuspecting female with his neuroticism. No such luck.

Heather Graham is of course beautiful, but I stand by my original post that every other girl in the movie was bow wow.

I don't know much about the LA scene. I busted my chops in the Chicago scene. Maybe things in SoCal really are that different. I tend to doubt it though. Oh well. To each his own.

[–] robbbbo 14 years ago

I'm not going to debate every point you made just because to each his own, especially considering an art movie like this one, not everyone will like it. Just a quick point about point #7, the last scene with Trent. It's funny because it shows that Trent, unlike Mike, hasn't changed at all, and he'll get to the age where women are getting married and having children and he'll still pathetically be chasing women (not pathetic to me though, lol). What I really like about the scene is, before the flirting begins, Mike is about to come out with some big revelation, and before he's able to he's interrupted by Trent trying to interact with that girl. It's a joke by the filmmakers that it's not a film to be taken seriously IMO..

"You're killin' me Smalls!"

[–] ob-6 13 years ago

I think for whatever reason you were totally unable to "suspend your disbelief" (look it up) and this ruined the magic of this movie for you. This kept you from enjoying the hilarious jokes in the movie (This script was actually in demand because of the dialogue!) but also the age old romantic story of someone down and out with self doubt going down his own road and becoming his own man.

Surely part of your inability to suspend your disbelief is because the movie is now dated... the guys use the Club to lock up their vehicles, they don't use smart phones, the answering machine uses a tape cassette, people don't swing dance anymore. You also seem obsessed with the character's attractiveness, and maybe you have exclusively hung out with beautiful people. In the 90s many of my swing dancing friends were slightly nerdy like Mike (and Lorraine). So to me, Mike's dorkiness and awkwardness (and Lorraine's dorkiness and awkwardness) seemed reasonable. Mike learned how to swing dance with his girlfriend but was obviously too scared to do it at the Derby until essentially being forced to do it by Lorraine.. so that scene is believable to me - in fact it is absolute moment in the movie where Mike grows a pair and starts being his own man.

I don't know what kinds of friends you have but I know plenty of Vince type guys who have life long buddies who are dorks like Mike that they are fiercely loyal to. And Mike was supposed to be unlikeable at least initially. He didn't even like himself for who he was. It was only when he finally started being his own man that his world came together, and that was the fantastic ending that Favreau pulled together.

The scene you ridiculed at the end of the movie with the baby faces, this is the one I remember EVERYONE talking about when this movie was in the theaters. So your negative opinion of the scene would be in the minority. And again it's just bizarre that you attack her appearance. I suspect that most people in the theater were too busy laughing to pay attention to the fact that she didn't have movie star looks (and was probably the sound guy's sister or something).

As a final note: the Derby was OPEN FOR BUSINESS when they filmed the final dance scene. They could not afford to buy the place out for the night (the film was made for around $250,000). In fact if you watch carefully, a guy shoots Favreau a nasty look when he cuts in front of him to talk to Lorraine. In the director's commentary they said that the dude was getting ready to hit on Heather (Then the guy looks at the camera and is like 'Doh')! Anyway, any unattractive women you saw in that bar were what you would have seen in real life when you were swing dancing in LA in 1995. LOL

[–] Rupert__Pupkin 13 years ago

ob,

It's hard to take your post seriously. It's obvious you spent some time and energy writing it, but then you attacked me in the first sentence by telling me to look up the term "suspend disbelief." And what's with the quotes? Here's some advice: If you want someone to take your posts seriously, try to not insult them in the first sentence.

Your critique of my post indicates to me that you didn't read it. You seem to think that I didn't like the movie because it takes place in the 90s. Nothing could be further from the truth. The movie is dated. This might be a term you need to look up. Dated does not simply mean old. For example, The Godfather is 40 years old, but it's not dated. The Wizard of Oz is 72 years old, but it's not dated. These movies are timeless. Swingers is 15 years old, but it IS terribly dated. If this term confuses you, look it up.

You seem hung up on the point that I didn't think the people in the movie were attractive. Thank you for providing evidence that ugly people existed in the 90s. Very interesting. If you go back and read my original post, you'll see that my problem is not that the people were ugly. My complaint was that the guys in the movie were drooling over women that were nothing short of hideous. Do ugly people hang out in bars? Yes. Do attractive men hang all over them? Not a chance.

In your post, you refer often to how people reacted in the theater when this movie came out and what your friends thought of the movie when it was initially released. Again, you need to go back and read my original post. I conceded the fact that I probably would have liked this steaming heap had I seen it when it was brand new and I was a young college student. But Swingers has not aged well. Other examples of films that haven't aged well include most John Wayne movies, Easy Rider, Reality Bites, and many others. They were all big hits at the time. Now they stink. You liked Swingers in 1996 most likely because of your age and your place in life. If the same movie was released in 2011, I'm guessing you wouldn't like it nearly as much.

Think about it this way. People who love this movie are predominantly people in their 20s and 30s. If you look at the imdb ratings, you see that people under the age of 18 give it very mediocre ratings (suggesting that it's dated), and people over 45 also rank it considerably lower. So it's obvious that the people ranking this movie high are people that were college age when it came out, saw it with a bunch of friends, and this became a dorm room cult classic. But great movies don't appeal to just one demographic.

I stand by everything I wrote.

[–] ob-6 13 years ago

This is a fairly romantic comedy and you could not suspend your disbelief to allow you to enjoy it. From what I have seen of others who have seen this movie including younger commenters that makes you unusual. You are hung up on unusual things like whether guys in LA would get excited over those women because you think they are "nothing short of hideous". People who suspend their disbelief while watching a movie don't get hung up on stuff like that. It's really too bad that you can't because it ruins the movie for you.

I'll give you a counter example. I was a young boy when "Annie Hall" was filmed the the 1970s. I did not grow up anywhere near New York. I am not a left wing jewish intellectual. When I watched the movie years later at 25 years old, I did not obsess over the fact that Woody Allen was far too ugly to be dating beautiful women, or that the jokes were outdated or references were made to a time and place. No, instead, I relaxed, immersed myself in the movie and enjoyed what it was trying to give me, which was a heck of a lot of laughs and a nice sweet romantic ending, just like Swingers offers young people today.

[–] Rupert__Pupkin 13 years ago

The irony here is astounding. You condescendingly suggested that I look up the definition of the phrase "suspend disbelief," and then you clearly demonstrate the fact that you have no understanding of the phrase with your very next post.

Suspending disbelief means that you lose yourself in a movie. For example, I can watch Star Wars and enjoy it, despite the fact that I know no such world exists, and "The Force" is just an idea from George Lucas's imagination. I can also watch and enjoy "It's a Wonderful Life," even though I don't believe in guardian angels. Suspending disbelief does not apply to a situation where I see a clear plot hole and simply look the other way. That's just giving a bad movie a free pass.

Roger Ebert put this on his website and it sums up my thoughts perfectly:

"I'm getting really tired of people defending bad movie writing by saying some variation of the following: "Don't be so picky. Who cares about the details? It's not supposed to make sense. It's not a documentary. Movies like that require suspension of disbelief." No! No! NO! Woe was the day when "suspension of disbelief" made its way into the average moviegoer's vernacular, because they are completely misusing it. Let's set the record straight. The audience is never required to bring suspension of disbelief with them to a movie. It is the filmmakers' job to create it--to drag it kicking and screaming from the clenched fist of the viewer's reason."

When you tell me to "suspend disbelief," what you're really telling me to do is turn off my brain.

You said that I'm hung up on the minor details. I guess I don't see plot, plausibility, screen writing, and character development as minor or unusual details. These are the things that make or break a movie.

I get annoyed at people that will watch literally anything. Transformers 2? Sure. Beverly Hills Chihuahua? Yup. Kangaroo Jack? Why not? Glitter? Of course. (By the way, Beverly Hills Chihuahua has a rating of 3.5 on imdb, yet it produced a sequel. Why? People will watch anything because they have no problems turning their brains off...or as you like to say, "Suspending disbelief.") These people often defend their colossal waste of time by saying things like, "Hey, it's nice just to veg out and think about nothing," or "It's an easy no-brainer." That's what Swingers is for me: a complete no-brainer. If I completely turn my brain off, it might be a kick-ass movie. But that's not the kind of movie fan I am.

Your comparison of Swingers and Annie Hall is way off. Annie Hall is an American classic. Swingers is a dorm room drunk flick. You used the comparison to exemplify your point about suspending disbelief, but given the reasons stated above, your comparison is irrelevant. You need to understand the term first. Then you create your analogies.

"I am not a left wing jewish intellectual."
No kidding.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] pagliaccirecords 13 years ago

Purely off the subject. What are your Top Ten Movie Soundtracks?

My Top 12 Movie Soundtracks:

1. "Once Upon A Time In THe West" Ennio Morricone
2. "The Godfather" Nino Rota
3. "Papillon" Jerry Goldsmith
4. "Rocky" Bill Conti
5. "West Side Story" Leonard Bernstein
6. "Platoon" Samuel Barber
7. "Edward Scissorhands" Danny Elfman
8. "The Wizard of Oz" Harold Arlen
9. "E.T." John Williams
10. "Amadeus" Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
11. "Mr. Majestyk" Charles Bernstein
12. "La Strada" Nino Rota

[–] Rupert__Pupkin 13 years ago

Those look pretty good. Honestly, I'm not really a soundtrack guy. I'm a huge audiophile and have almost a thousand albums in my collection. Only about 5 of those are soundtracks. Weird I know. If I had to choose my favorites off the top of my head, here's what I got:

1) Raiders of the Lost Ark
2) Meet Joe Black
3) The Last Waltz
4) Star Wars
5) Pulp Fiction
6) E.T.
7) The Buddy Holly Story
8) A Hard Day's Night
9) The Rocky Horror Picture Show
10) Maximum Overdrive

[–] pagliaccirecords 13 years ago

I was going to add "Pulp Fiction" and "A Hard Day's Night" but I'd already picked more than ten. "The Last Waltz" was a great one as well. Good list! By the way, I've got over a thousand albums myself, And still use an 8 Track. I've got an extensive collection of 8 track tapes, and over a hundred of the most sought after classical albums. "Papillon" is one of my favorite LPs.

[–] Rupert__Pupkin 13 years ago

I love 8 tracks. One of my earliest memories was playing The White Album on my dad's 8-track player. I need to watch Papillon again. I'm a huge Dustin Hoffman fan and watched Papillon when I was quite young. I remember not thinking it was great (pretty depressing), but I should go back and re-watch it. I'd probably like it a lot more now. I love the story Dustin Hoffman tells of having dinner with Paul McCartney while filming Papillon and asking Paul how he gets ideas for his songs. So Paul sits down, picks up the day's newspaper, and writes "Picasso's Last Words" right there in front of Dustin (based on an article about Pablo Picasso passing away). The song later appeared on the great "Band on the Run" album in late '73. Dustin said he was blown away.

[–] pagliaccirecords 13 years ago

Yes, The White Album on 8 Track! I've got the black cover version, and the white cover version. I thought Hoffman's performance was amazing in "Papillon." Steve McQueen gave a Tour De Force performance, an Oscar worthy performance, the one that he truly gave his all, and I believe he got the Golden Globe that year. I never heard that story before about Paul and Dustin. That's the best way to write songs. Lennon wrote "Being For The Benefit Of Mr. Kite" from an old Victorian circus poster and used the words almost exactly as written on the poster. Ah, The Beatles! To me, they were the greatest phenomena of all time. The world is a canvas ready to be painted at any time by those willing to take the time to tap into that part of themselves that we all have within us. Some choose to ignore it while others flourish within it. It's a choice. You either do it or you don't.

I just found this interesting blog you might be interested in reading:
http://michaelmanningtv.blogspot.com/2011/03/steve-mcqueen-film-festival-presents_27.html

My favorite "Papillon" scene
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XGWXmxmaoE

[–] ob-6 13 years ago

>"I am not a left wing jewish intellectual.""
>No kidding.

Ok, Ok, I get it. You're trolling IMDB. You got me.

[–] Rupert__Pupkin 13 years ago

Dear ob,

Criticizing ignorance does not equal trolling, just like turning off your brain does not equal suspending disbelief. You have a lot of learning to do. Let me know how the next Kelly Clarkson/Carrot Top movie is.

[–] pagliaccirecords 13 years ago

LOL :) HAHA!

[–] willard86 13 years ago

RP the OP,

I get that you didn't like the movie, and you are entitled to your opinion, but your points are listed more as factoids. Everyone has an opinion.

1. When I saw this movie in the 90s, I didn't like it much. Thought it was clever but overall shallow and totally unrealistic. Just re-watched it and liked it a lot better this time. Creating an autobiographical piece on a very limited budget is very difficult, and they pulled it off nicely.

2. You are saying that because Mike is a Woody Allen (Albert Brooks, Richard Lewis) type, he is unlikeable. Do you know how many Woody Allen fans there are? But unlike the character he always plays, Mike's character is actually fairly well rounded, as he does change over the course of the movie. Just because most characters in movies today are savvy even when they are dorky, or are more polished and witty due to the writing, doesn't mean this character should simply be dismissed. Yeah he was annoyingly whiny at first, but people can get like that after a breakup of a six-year relationship. The whole point of showcasing this character was that he had great traits under his annoying ones, waiting to come out. (Gentlemanly, a good swing dancer, kind, smart, industrious with attempting to get his career off the ground). My complaint with him was that he was supposed to be a comedian and he wasn't that funny.

3. I see your point about one girlfriend simply replacing another. Although that happens often in real life, it might not be the best message to put out there regarding the main character. But remember, he did start getting back on his feet before he met the Heather Graham character (getting out of the apartment, getting a girl's number, going to Vegas, parties, clubs).

4. We only saw her character for a moment before Mike approached her. She looked good enough that guys would be hitting on her, but maybe she was giving off a "don't come near me" vibe and maybe several guys had already tried. We don't know. It was L.A. People are cliquey there. They may have stayed away from her *because* she was by herself.

5. I thought he did a good job with the character. He played the whiny part well, and then when his better sides came out, he displayed them skillfully.

5 (you have two 5s). Trent, charismatic huh? The guy who calls women babies and yells every five minutes no matter where he is? Could barely stand the guy, the first time I saw the movie as well as the latest time. But the point of his character as a friend of Mike's was that he, for all his antics, was not "money" and he was constantly pointing out that Mike was. That's why he had Mike as a friend. And note that Vince Vaughn was actually Jon Favreau's friend and was playing himself, basically.

6. I found the women attractive, only too much makeup.

7. You seem to have an issue with beauty. That woman looked a bit older, but not ugly. Again, too much makeup. Maybe you've become conditioned to the smoothing and correcting editing tactics used on every film that comes out these days. Hint: People don't actually look that smooth and perfect. What I thought was wrong with the last scene was that the woman who was supposed to be making faces at her baby on the booth seat across the table from her was not looking down toward where the baby was sitting, but straight ahead as if the baby were across the room. That didn't work so well.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] rainofwalrus 13 years ago

1) I assure you nobody raving about SWINGERS (terrific arthouse/indie) is raving about TOP GUN (terrific popcorn/fauxwar).

2) His unlikable quality serves to make Trey all the more likeable.

3) Needed to be resolved, but obviously didn't get resolved. This seems the biggest non-issue of all your points.

4) I assure you pretty women sit alone in bars ALL THE TIME. Some just got off of work (same joint, or next door); some are actually dating the bartender and everyone knows it; some are even professionals. This wasn't very unrealistic at all.

5a) And you are not a good writer. That much is true.

5b) See my #5a. I feel it applies here as well.

6) Fair enough. No argument.

7) Horrifically doesn't mean what you think it means.

messageboard rules are serious business. like really serious.

[–] Rupert__Pupkin 13 years ago

1) Here you are raving about both Swingers AND Top Gun. +1 for me

2) His unlikeable qualities made him likeable? Ha Ha! Nice logic. +1 for me

3) This issue needed to be resolved yet it's a non-issue. Huh? +1 for me

4) Yes. Women go to bars all the time alone. Have you been to a bar? +1 for me

5a) Nice red herring (look it up). Try addressing the point next time. +1 for me

5b) Again, try addressing the point next time. Try to keep up. +1 for me

6) At last we find common ground. Split.

7) Try this link: www.dictionary.com +1 for me

Final score: me - 7; you - 0

Thank you.

[–] rainofwalrus 13 years ago

I do applaud your style. But you're still a terrible reader/writer.

1) Complimenting a film is not the same as raving about it. To rave about something implies more than 3 words. Fact.

2) Read it again slowly. Mike != Trey.

3) No. The character's issue needed to be resolved (to improve his character). but your issue with his issue going unresolved is non-issue because this isn't a "coming of age" Loser-to-Hero Arc.

4) Yes I have. Even worked at several bars. And my GF's would hang-out alone while waiting for me to get off... OR, keeping an eye on the girls I'd flirt with. But, I suppose you've been to every bar in existence and have achieved omniscience on this subject.

5a) Not a red herring (e.g. a trick). You really are a bad writer.

5b) see my #5a... again.

6) I copped out. Actually.

7) A dictionary, alone, doesn't prove anything. Your mastery of our written language is lacking and all the dictionaries on Earth wont change that.

messageboard rules are serious business. like really serious.

[–] Rupert__Pupkin 13 years ago

I do applaud your style.

Thank you. I wish I could return the favor and applaud something that you've done. But I can't.

As a former bartender, I'm sure you hold yourself to a very high standard when it comes to noble intellectual pursuits. Demonstrating examplary writing skills on a movie message board is just one of many examples I'm sure. Maybe next time you can entertain us movie buffs with a dirty limerick you read on a cocktail napkin. Either that or explain to me the underrated genius of Carrot Top.

[–] rainofwalrus 13 years ago

lol, what's with your (hard to hide) Carrot Top fascination?

messageboard rules are serious business. like really serious.

[–] Rupert__Pupkin 13 years ago

Dear Walrus the stalker,

Carrot Top epitomizes bad taste, so his name is an easy reference when addressing someone with questionable taste. It's not rocket science buddy.

[–] rainofwalrus 13 years ago

I think I rushed judgment on you. You have no style.

And seriously, chatting with you on a msgboard != stalking. sorry.

messageboard rules are serious business. like really serious.

[–] Rupert__Pupkin 13 years ago

nice flip flop

[–] unrealban 13 years ago

why do u insist on tearing down this movie with your biased, idiotic opinions? the scenarios you are criticizing are completely plausible in a world full of 7 billion people. on top of that, Mike is a lovable loser. If anything Trent was less likable because he was so cocky and sure of himself.

Anyways, opinions are like a**holes, everyone has them, and some of them are extra stinky. yours just sucks bro, sorry.

[–] Rupert__Pupkin 13 years ago

Let me get this straight: My comments are stupid because they are just my opinion. But your comments (also opinions) are somehow valid? Huh? Not that your opinion matters...anyone who would defend this movie clearly doesn't have the two brain cells required to collobarate in forming a logical opinion. Happy viewing. Let me know how great the next Justin Bieber movie is.

[–] jslavik 13 years ago

Ok, for one, if a movie was good ten, fifteen, twenty years ago, why would it be any less now?

Second.. Ok, even if you're the exception - a guy that's never gone through being dumped, you're saying you've never known a guy like Mike? I find that hard to believe. Breaking up sucks. I thought the movie was pretty real in that aspect.

Ummm... I think it's pretty common that the best way to get over an ex is to find someone new. No idea how you can find this concept hard to believe.

I will agree with you on the women though.. Lol. They could have found some more attractive women.

Lastly though, c'mon, I know mike's ten phone calls were exaggerated, but you don't know anyone who ever made a fool out of themselves out of desperation? Never sent multiple texts or emails then thought afterward - what the hell did I just do? C'mon. I think most people can relate to that scene in some way.

I know way too many people that have rebounded too quickly and talk about the ex on some first dates. Stupid, but happens.