Swingers

I saw the movie twice: once in the cinema and once on DVD. I must say, it's looks better on DVD, because the director uses close ups a lot. In the cinema the movie also seems to drag a bit. At first I thought the movie was shot on 16 millimeter, but in scene one I saw the artifacts common with DV, so I knew what to expect. Contrary to another comment, which said the cinematography sucks, but can't tell why, just that it stinks. I think it was very brave to go the classic way and give room to the story, instead of using that old style of 'innovative cinematography' ofter associated with DV. The person who wrote the comment, fotorobbert I recall, has an approach that is quite wrong: the question is, does the choice the filmmakers made fit the way the story is told, it's not about how yóu think it should be done. His added remark that another Dutch movie called Costa looked better is utterly stupid considering that movie was shot on 35 mm and had at least 100 times more budget. The question is more: why have the producers chosen to shoot on DV when they knew they were going to release the film in the cinema? Well, maybe they didn't at the time. Still, on DVD it really found it's place.

Swingers' problem is more the way the story is told. What is the main question? What is the main conflict? What genre is it? It's start out one way and ends another. Sometimes that works, this time it just feels strange. The cast is stellar at times, but is uncomfortable at others. There seems little room for improvisation or even to let a flow go. This gives the movie a cramped feeling sometimes. And I must say: the story itself doesn't help either. I personally think it's too simple given the characters the actors put out. It at times feels like a paint by numbers exercise. Next time, the writer director should get out there and try to be on his edge of creativity. He has the ability, but he's seems very restricted. Let's see where this man will take us next.

Great mix of drama and erotica. First part of the film is provocative and sultry. It appeals to everyone's fantasy and is played out very realistic. After a while however more serious questions are asked and it is here where the lack of moral guidance was well appreciated. The makers give you room for your own conclusions, which is a far more intelligent than just telling us how to feel. Unjustly compared with the Dutch, cheap sex laden films from the 70's. People who think Swinging is something from the past don't know what's going on. Even puritan Oprah did a show on this group of people. "They may be your neighbors. They could live in your street!"

Good entertainment.

Being Swingers for several years now I watched this film with high expectations and with some skepticism, because seldom is "our" way of life portrayed in a realistic way. Usually it is turned into a cheap thriller where the so called swinger is someone with a problem, killing their dates in a bloody manner. With this film it is clear that the drama comes from the lifestyle. Something true swingers might sigh about. Usually real swingers live a positive life with hardly any problems concerning their way of life. In this case trouble is obligatory. No trouble, no drama.

So the first hour or so is exciting. Very recognizable moments are played very convincing by the actors. When the plot moves into the second half, the film has some slow moments, but never to a degree that it gets boring. All in all it is a very believable film and it sets a very good tone and atmosphere of how it is really like to have a swingers-date.

Technical flaws of this film where other viewers spoke of, I didn't see. It looked all fine to me, the sound, the image and the music were in good balance. I enjoyed it very much and so did my wife.

Compliments!

Well, there I was, standing in hand with 6 videos, where you can get 7 for just 7 euro's, so I needed one more... A good reason to give 'Swingers' a try. Normally, I'm not too fond of Dutch movies, with the usual exceptions (De Grot, Zusje). But Swingers wasn't too bad. As someone said earlier, the acting is what it's all about in a movie like this, based upon just a couple of characters. Recently I saw comparable movies (that is, with just a couple of characters doing a lot of talking) where the acting was better (Misery), but then again another where it was a lot worse (the incredibly dull Hurlyburly). Here it's... okay really. I don't understand the criticism De Kok gets, I liked him the best. The story is pretty interesting as well, and the music didn't bother me as much as it did to others apparently. I'd give it a 6 out of 10. Oh and BTW: It's great to see Brenninkmeyer defending his film on the IMDB (although he probably shouldn't quote 'De Telegraaf'), isn't this a great site :)

After having had it's release in Belgium, the press is mostly very positive about this film. Regardless of what other comments say, they are unanimous about the acting... it's good! The characters are believable, the dialog is witty and to the point. All this from actors who are either unknown, or known from the more 'light' televisionseries. Notable magazines like HUMO or newspapers like DE STANDAARD recognize the shortcommings on the technical features (it has been shot on video) but they give the story, actors and makers all the credit for delivering a suprisingly good Dutch film. Swingers is a "contemporary, wellmade and subtle piece of cinema" and they are "pleasantly surprised"

Judge for yourself.