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

Some real problems with this movie (spoilers)


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.

reply

I admit, the movie is dated... Anything that aims for hip is going to end up dated, but to me that doesn't take away from the quality of the work. Look at Seinfeld, Miami Vice to name two. Don't let the fact that something is dated ruin your experience. You referenced the Beatles - greatest band in my opinion. Does the fact that their stuff screams 60s ruin it for you?

reply

2) The lead character of Mike is simply unlikeable.

5) The Trent character was charismatic, spontaneous, funny at times, and generally a likeable guy.

so you thought rent was likeable and mike wasn't? WTF?


reply