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.
