Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Swimfan

This is topic Swimfan in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000388

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 09-08-2002, 01:10 AM:

This was a pleasant surprise. I didn't think the movie would be nearly as good as it was. The writing is weak, without a doubt, but it's so well made. For one thing, the acting was good. I've only seen a few movies with Jesse Bradford, but he keeps impressing me. And Erika Christensen is good too, but that shouldn't be a surprise after her performance in TRAFFIC.

The photography is really pretty. I liked the lighting and use of color, and the compositions were nice. The editing is outstanding. This movie wastes no time at all. I forget what famous filmmaker-guy said that you should always enter a scene late and exit early. I wanna say it was either Murch or Dmytrk. Either way, who cares? This movie does that. It doesn't waste time with pesky little things like establishing shots. It goes straight to the action. The transitions from one scene to the next are so good that there are times when you think that the first shot of one scene is actually still a part of the previous scene. You know how most movies end with some sort of big crane shot or something that signifies that it's time to go home? SWIMFAN doesn't. It ends on a shot which seems like it should be mid-scene. And it doesn't fade to black or even cut to black. It cuts to the credits already in mid-crawl. That's so cool!

All of this is great, but the movie also gets kind of wacky at times. There are a lot of unconventional techniques which are used to let us glimpse into the character's minds. Jump cuts are used quite frequently to quickly show a character's emotional state. This doesn't always work, but it usually does. There's also a scene in which a prop dollies with a camera. It's strange, but good.

I liked this movie way too much. I really want to see it again. I haven't been this excited about a movie for a while.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 09-08-2002, 05:02 AM:

I didn't see this flick, but have heard from several friends this movie "sucked really, really bad".

Mike, you aren't one of those fake movie critics hired by the studios, are you? You seem to like the movies everyone else hates.

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 09-08-2002, 08:45 AM:

I can't help it if other people have no taste

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 09-08-2002, 12:16 PM:

I did not like this movie but I did like it better than Fear Dot Com. It had one thing going for it. More light bulbs in use.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 09-08-2002, 06:02 PM:

09/08/2002, 12:55PM, Regal Cinema World 8, Eugene OR, #8, probably DTS. Attendance around 20. Feature presentation good. The trailers were in bad analog, with dialog jumping around between channels, and distorted.

I have to agree with Mike on this one. I knew absolutely nothing about this going in, and was "pleasantly surprised". The story may be ludicrous, but the film holds together anyway, for all the reasons Mike noted. I too liked this a little too much.

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 09-08-2002, 06:14 PM:

Only digital format available for this one was SRD. No DTS or SDDS.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 09-08-2002, 06:19 PM:

I guessed DTS because all the trailers including the Regal roller coaster played in analog (BAD analog). I guess that isn't a very reliable indication. I know some theaters play all the trailers in analog on purpose, but usually not this one. Anyway I stand corrected. And from now on I won't state the format if I don't know for sure.

Posted by Don Anderson (Member # 397) on 09-09-2002, 11:35 PM:

Very predictable film. I liked it, found it somewhat interesting. Plus, it contained no nudity whatsover. No dumb blondes in this film. I enjoyed the soundtrack too.

Posted by Michael Barry (Member # 237) on 09-11-2002, 12:17 PM:

I am looking forward to this. I didn't really dig John Polson's last effort, SIAM SUNSET too much, but from what Mike is saying, he is obviously quite sorted out as a director this time around.

As to Mike's taste in movies, his comments confirm what I've suspected: that he and I are the B-movie kings of Film-Tech!!!

I too love Carpenter, for example. You either dig B-movies or you don't. Personally, I love them. I have much more time for either a B-movie or a very well done arthouse movie (The Piano Teacher, Ghost World, Magnolia, or classic stuff like Bergman or Antonioni, for example). I don't enjoy middle of the road; it bores me.

BTW, I think it was Robert Towne (screenwriter of 'Chinatown') who said that thing about getting into scenes late and getting out early; I could be mistaken, however.

One thing can be said for sure; arthouse and B-movies seem to have much 'tighter' direction than a lot of high-profile A-movies...the latter seem much lazier in this respect (let's just throw money at the screen), and seem to love as much padding as possible. As with anything, there are exceptions.

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 09-12-2002, 02:57 AM:

Yes! Padding! That's what's wrong with most movies. They have too much shit that just doesn't need to be there. I've probably said this before, but why should I spend 2 hours in a theater when I can get the same damn thing in an hour and a half? That's why SWIMFAN is so great. If you need time to tell your story, that's one thing. BOOGIE NIGHTS is a good example of this. But padding is bad. It's worse than bad. It's the biggest problem I have with most movies.

I do love B-movies, but I love big blockbusters too. It's just that B-movies tend to be seen less, so when I like one, I'll spend a lot more time trying to convince other people to see it. Everyone's going to see EPISODE II. There's not much point in recommending it to people, even though it's the best film to come out in a very long time. But no one's going to rush out to see a little movie like CQ, for example, so time is better spent talking about how cool that is, even though EPISODE II kicks its ass on every single level. But CQ's a great movie, and if you tell people that, maybe they'll go see it. I don't think I'm making much sense here, but what else is new?

Also, I think I like B-movies more than a lot of people because I'm very forgiving of bad writing as long as the movie has something else to offer. Lots of people aren't, and I don't understand that. Look at Ebert's review of FEARDOTCOM, which he gave 2 stars. He said it was bad, basically because of the writing, and then he spends the entire review praising the visuals, saying that they are worthy of 4 stars. I bet you anything that if the script was top notch and the visuals sucked ass, he would have given it 3 stars at the least. Why is that?

One other thing (and I'm not sure how this all fits in, but it just came to mind). I love it when people put B-movies on the same level as their critically-acclaimed, money-making counterparts. If someone were to say that CITIZEN KANE and FROM DUSK TILL DAWN are two of the greatest pictures ever made, I'd think they were the coolest person in the world.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 09-12-2002, 10:47 AM:

How about "Citizen Kane" and "Kung Pao" as two of the greatest movies ever made.

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 09-13-2002, 03:00 AM:

Um... no. But seriously, I'd have a lot more respect for someone who said that as opposed to someone who said, say, CITIZEN KANE and GONE WITH THE WIND, because, at the very least, you know that the KUNG POW guy isn't full of shit. That's not to say that the GONE WITH THE WIND guy is full of shit, but I'd say it's more likely, and even if it's not, GONE WITH THE WIND still sucks, so it's not like what he's saying is better than the KUNG POW guy. I should note that I haven't seen KUNG POW, but there's a reason for that. I should also note that I don't really know what point I'm trying to make with this post, It's all just stuff that came to mind right now, hence, the incoherence (and probable misspellings).

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 03-14-2003, 04:03 AM:

I wanted to see this movie in a theatre but never had the time to see it because there were others I wanted to see first. I must admit I am a sucker for thrillers and this movie did not disappoint when I watched it last night at home on DVD and 5.1 Dolby Digital sound. It was another take on "FATAL ATTRACTION", the Michael Douglas/Glenn Close film which I also enjoyed. The picture quality and the sound mix was also very good.

-Claude