SparkMore
n my opinion it was a great movie with some interesting elements, even though having some plot holes and the ending probably was just too messy and crammed together, but still fun to watch and not your casual movie that is similar to all other ones.
TaryBiggBall
It was OK. I don't see why everyone loves it so much. It wasn't very smart or deep or well-directed.
eich317
In the movie Swindle, there are many things different from the book. The movie was pretty bad, but I'll give Nick some credit for trying! If you want to see a movie based on the book Swindle, don't even bother to watch this; it's as if the makers of the movie just skimmed through the book and took small details for the Nick version. It has more parts that came from the imagination than the original parts. This movie is over an hour, and whether you've read the book or not, it's not worth watching. This movie deserves a one star rating. The story (that's in the movie) is so messed up that if somebody read the book after seeing the movie without the names and title, they might not be able to tell that movie was made after the book Swindle. It needs lots of improvement, but it's too late now for Nick to change the movie. Overall, it's not worth watching. Here's a list of some differences.1: In the book, the team is originally Griffin Bing, Antonia "Pitch" Benson, Melissa Dukakis, Logan Kellerman, Benjamin (Ben) Slovak, and Savannah Drysdale. While they were in a meeting, Darren Vader eavesdropped, and then he became one of the team members. In the movie, Logan isn't in it at all! Also, Darren is one of the original team members. 2: Some of the characters last names and/or personalities are changed in the movie. Melissa is Griffin's sister in the movie (Melissa Bing), and is Melissa Dukakis in the book. Antonia "Pitch" Benson isn't Antonia OR Pitch in the movie; she's Amanda. Her specialty is not climbing in the movie; it's gymnastics. Also, her character doesn't have honey-blond hair, which it says in the book Framed, also in the Swindle series. Ben DOESN'T HAVE NARCOLEPSY IN THE MOVIE?!?!?! He's narcoleptic in the book, so why not the movie? He is the small spaces specialist in the book too, but not in the movie! In fact, in the movie he's taller than Griffin! Ben has a different last name in the movie than the book. Savannah has a different last name in the movie like Ben. She is an actress in the movie, whereas in the book she's an animal lover, expert, and carer-for. What is not delightful about that is if Nick had made Savannah's specialty NOT be acting, my favorite character, Logan Kellerman, might be in the movie.3: Things about Swindle's store, and Swindle changed, too. "S. Wendell Palomino" is "Paul Swendell" in the movie, which is different from the book. His store's name in the book is Palomino's Emporium of Collectibles and Memorabilia; in the movie, it has a pretty much different name in the movie. Another change is the baseball card is not a Babe Ruth card, Swindle doesn't have an assistant manager, AND he doesn't have the Doberman Pinscher, Luthor (who's face is on the cover of every book in the Swindle series). How can Nick have made a Swindle movie without Luthor??? It's like making a Jaws movie without a shark!!! 4:The people who play the kids from the story are older than 11. In the book Swindle, Griffin, Ben, Savannah, Pitch, Logan, Melissa, and Darren are all 11. In the movie, the members of the group are teenage high school students who can drive cars!! Also, the actors and actresses don't look like I'd picture them from the book descriptions, except for maybe Darren and Melissa, if they were younger. 5: Ben's family has the money problems in the movie. In the book, it's Griffin's family that has the problems. Ben's dad is the inventor, and he doesn't invent the Smartpick, like Griffin's dad did in the book. He invents a blue hand that can reaches out and grab things for couch potatoes. 6: There are different things about the heists. There is no "old Rockford house" sleepover, so the card is found somewhere else. There is no heist in Swindle's house like the book. Everybody knows about the store's heist when it takes place in the movie, but in the book, only Griffin, Ben, and maybe Savannah know until it's over. In the movie, the card was found in Swendell's store in the first "the great baseball card heist" instead of it and the safe it was in taken to Swindle's home like in the book. Like I mentioned, in the movie Swindle, there are many things different from the book. It could be a lot better if Nick had made it more like Gordon Korman's original story. If you haven't read the book Swindle, it's worth your time to read it and see the differences for yourself. Plus, it's a great book and the start of an awesome series!! If you HAVE read the book Swindle, and you agree, thanks! If you don't agree…. hey! We have our opinions! The movie Swindle had weird spots, bad spots, and okay spots! And maybe a few good spots. I might not even be mentioning these things if it was more like the book, but thank you for reading!
SanteeFats
This is a Nickledeon movie bringing together six of their stars three from past series and Ariana Grande who is on two current shows, Jeanette McCurdy on Sam and Kat, and Ciara Bravo on Big Time Rush, all three shows are ones that I do watch. I really enjoyed it because of the decent writing and acting. It is not the usual teen film with overt sexuality by under aged teens. Instead it is just a funny reverse con job on the name sake of the show, Swendell, just spelled a little different. As the show develops the six youngun's come up with an elaborate plot to get back an extremely pricey old time baseball card. The ensuing high jinxes, subplots and schemes make for an entertaining and funny movie. I must admit that I had no idea the the foreign thug and his two goons where going to turn out to be McCurdy's on screen dad and two other actors from his acting studio. A pretty neat turn in my opinion. The only thing I don't understand is why the inventor dad's arm didn't play a role in the end.
Bluekeet
Lately, it seems Nickelodeon has been going downhill from the releases of their new series', but when I saw them advertising for one of my favorite books I read in elementary school, I thought "Great. Now they're going to make a mockery out of this book." Surprisingly, that didn't happen. It flowed out smooth enough to take in the movie without too many judgements, but it didn't completely elude my judging. There were 2 things I didn't care for in this TV movie. One being it verged from the original story a bit. I kept waiting for the part when Ben would reveal his narcolepsy, but that never happened. Aside from that, I was disappointed that the final heist never happened in Swindel's house, instead in a hotel lobby. Nick definitely took away the most suspenseful part. The second thing I did not care for were Noah and Jennette's characters. Savannah was meant to be the animal lover and the dog whisperer. Instead she was an actress with really no part. Ariana's character wasn't even "Pitch", instead she simply went by "Amanda" (Which wasn't even her real name in the book). However, though Nick left out some of the scenes I was hoping to see, they did a pretty decent job and is easily re-watchable.
votesmall
There are some adaptations that can get away with omitting and changing some parts from the book it is based on. For example, Jurassic Park, I Am Legend and Jaws make pretty major changes from the source material but does so in a fashion that maintains the overall structure, style and message. Gordon Korman's "Swindle" one of my absolute favorite books, but the adaptation of Swindle is horrendous. This film is by far the worst film adaptation I have EVER seen. Not only was Swindle one of the best damn books ever written, but everything in the book worked in a way that made total sense. The movie barely retains the structure of the book it is based on. This would be forgivable if Swindle was 400 pages long, like Jurassic Park or the Lord of the Rings. Obviously you need to omit some material. BUT Swindle was a modest length children's book, so why this movie felt the need to make ridiculous amounts of unreasonable and senseless changes to the PERFECT book. I'm not some twelve year old writing this review, and I'm not acting like everything Gordon Korman wrote was a masterpiece, but when Korman got it right, he got it right. Why even make an adaptation of one of the greatest children's novels ever made when you won't do it right? I'm sixteen nearing my seventeenth birthday and I can firmly say that Swindle is one of the greatest children's books ever written. It knows its audience, has a great structure, original plot, refrains from clichés, flamboyant, developed characters and a realistic method of retrieving the card. This film has neither the charisma of the novel nor its intelligence. EXAMPLES: 1) In the book, S. Wendell actually fools them into selling the card to him by explaining that it is a worthless replica. In the film, they need as MUCH MONEY AS THEY CAN GET because Ben (not Griffin) is moving to Montana. Also for some reason a hole is punched into a wall and they need cash fast to cover the costs. So when they sell it to Swendell not only is it painfully obvious to our ignoramus protagonists (in the book they were intelligent and likable) that Swendell is lying but he later actually admits that, get this, HE WAS LYING!!! He then raises the price from $10 to a shattering sum of $350. Obviously knowing that Swendell can't be trusted, our protagonists cleverly look up the price of the card and discover its true value, right? WRONG. They, despite knowing it is worth more than Swendell said, they ACTUALLY SELL IT TO HIM. In the book our protagonists were intelligent and only were fooled because S. Wendell was confident and actually sounded like he knew what he was talking about. 2) One of the biggest changes comes from making Griffin from a regular whiz-kid into a suave and stuck-up cool kid. Also, Ben's dad is the inventor and Ben (whose narcolepsy is taken out) is the one moving. Also instead of being a practical fruit picker for farmers, the invention turns out to be a lame extending arm made for lazy people who can't get their ass off the couch to turn off the lights or grab the remote. The characters are also made to be in their late teens as opposed to middle schoolers in the book. Swindell is also made to be an incompetent and irrational monster (he pushed a nun down a steep hill) as opposed to the selfish and sneaky character of the book who was too intelligent to do something like that. The character of the book was also a great liar whereas the character of the film is such a terrible liar that anyone with an IQ over 40 would realize they were being screwed over. The character's names, genders, specialties and dialogue are changed beyond belief but perhaps the BIGGEST flaw is when they change the final heist from S. Wendell's house to a CROWDED EXHIBIT HALL. Instead of being a fresh and suspenseful heist from a house in the middle of the night it goes from being a predictable heist in a crowded hotel ballroom. 3)There are THREE Call Me Maybe references. In the final scene, Darren and Savannah sing Call Me Maybe. What was the point of this? Nothing, nothing at all. But while the book will still hold up in three hundred years, the movie will be dated. 4) The ending of the book taught us that money doesn't matter as long as you have friends. Here they sell the card and each of the talentless group members actually get $25,000. The movie literally spat on the book.To say I was disappointed by this film is an understatement. And you may criticize me for comparing the two works but think of it this way: Perfection cannot be topped unless you are going to at least try to replicate the original. This film DOESN'T EVEN TRY. A childish, predictable, preposterous, unrealistic, rushed and overall boring film that tried to capitalize on one of the greatest books for children ever written. Did you like the Cat in the Hat? If so, this film is probably for you. But if you DIDN'T because a simple morality tale from Dr. Seuss was superior to Mike Myers in a cat suit, you WOULDN'T like this slapstick bullshit film adaptation, mainly because THERE IS NO STRUCTURE. It happens SO FAST and there is no challenge for our protagonists. I barely realized this was based off Swindle, because it was so untrue to the book (which is a good thing if done correctly) but it was childish and mind-numbing to watch. I wish this movie hadn't been made. Gordon Korman and anyone over the age of six would HATE this movie for not even trying to relate to its target audience or tell the story in an effective and suspenseful manner, as the book did so well.
