There are critics out there who knock the five-star rating system because, they claim, it creates too bizarre of a spread between different ratings. How can one tell the difference between a one star movie, a half star movie, and a zero star movie? They all would be terrible, but is a one star movie all that much better than one that receives a zero?
The answer is no, I suppose. They both would be movies that I hated to such an extreme that the only purpose in my reviewing said film would be the fun I would have in ripping into it. For example, I gave Napoleon Dynamite a zero star rating, and Paul Haggis' Crash one star, both of which are loved by many people. I abhor both films, as I abhor Swimfan but I hope to clear up the difference in the type of hatred that would separate the three different ratings.
First, Napoleon Dynamite is a picture filled to the brim with the most grating anti-humor I have ever experienced, to the point where I would choose any number of physically violent acts to be performed upon my person, over sitting through the film in its entirety again. It pissed me off to the extreme. Zero Stars.
Second, is Swimfan, a film that is so devoid of ambition that it boggles the brain. It is the very definition of Hollywood schlock; the type of movie that is only made to make money, not because it is good, but because it strays so far away from being offensive, that no one will hate it. This, by default in the adoring teenage public's (sheep's) eyes, makes it “pretty good.”
The producers of Swimfan choose a young starlet to play its lead (Erika Christensen), but not the biggest young starlet available. Merely an adequate one. It wants to be suspenseful, but not overly. A lot of the plot is revealed though email, and the victim is someone that we don't really care a whole lot about. It wants to be sexy, but not too sexy as to cause controversy. It isn't gutsy, violent, or even remotely clever. The plot is so derivative that the viewer can call of the shots just by watching the preview; it throws a moderate amount of nothing new at its audience.
The fact that the people who made Swimfan seemed to be so conscious of doing anything original as to avoid the risk of alienating even one of their young viewers, is the very reason I hate it so much. It isn't a terrible movie by any means. It is relatively well-acted, well-edited, and has fair production values. But it wants more than anything to be average, and that makes me sick.
Paul Haggis' Crash got one star from me. I fucking loathed it, but at least (however badly it failed) it wanted to achieve something. It had some sort of ambition, and it failed. Better than Swimfan.
I issue a challenge to all of those who read this that own a copy of Swimfan right now on their DVD shelf (there are a lot of you, and you know who you are). Ask yourself if you truly like it, and if you do, please email me and tell me why. If you realize that you don't really like it, and probably have no reason to watch it again, then please: Place it in the garbage. It's where it belongs.
