Go! (2000) from Sasquatch

Let me begin by saying this, I loved "Swingers"...probably because I lived it. Before the posers and trend sheep jumped on the Swing bandwagon, one of my best friends and I were real life versions of Trent and Mikey. We listened to the music, drank the drinks, wore the clothes and most importantly we had the attitude. Being a movie fan as well, I was ecstatic to hear of Doug Liman's next directorial effort "Go". But.....
Honestly at first I was very disappointed, I believe I used the phrase "Pulp Fiction, hold the pulp". The Tarentino-esque interwoven stories were not quite sewn together with the greatest craftsmanship. Some elements played out well, others just sorta righted themselves for the sake of ending the segment. I expected the same 20-something, gen-X slacker attitude and witty banter, but ended up with what I consider to be a discount version. I thought only Disney movies were allowed to have this many happy endings. The Drug dealer with the heart of gold, the gang of kids headin' to Vegas, shootin' up a strip club, burning hotels, stealin' cars, and then driving home the next day and everything's OK, etc. Well it did take place at Christmas time...and it is a time for miracles, peace, love and forgiveness blah blah blah. 


"Becky" and Rebecca" were played by Katharine Towne and Marisa Morell respectively. These two ladies do a 3-way with "Simon" before the room goes up in flames. Marisa's nudity is very clear, Katharine's on the other hand is not.

Next...I have a complaint! Niki Fritz and Tane McClure make their living nekkid on film...Yet for some reason, their the nudity in "Go" was not only minimal, but a real pain in the ass to see! A far cry from what we normally expect from these two!

Desmond Askew shows his butt as he wanders through the hallway

After seeing it again a year or so later, I enjoy it much more now then I did originally. My criticism is still the same, however. But I suppose I've grown out of my "Swinging" days and am now able to look at this movie for what it is, instead of how I hoped it would be.

As a whole, I think the movie hovers around B- on the Tuna/Scoopy scale. However there are many individual parts that really shine. William Fichtner for example is terrific as the weird cop. (I think he's been studying at the Walken/Roberts Acting School). Breckin Meyer was also great in his small role as the very white guy claiming to be part black. And while Desmond Askew's character 'Simon' gets off way too easy in the end, I couldn't help but root for the guy.

Is it a great movie? No. But I'll admit it was much better the second time around, perhaps it will grow on me.

DVD info from Amazon.

  • Widescreen letterbox, 1.82:1

  • no significant features

Scoop's notes:

Swingers isn't really a very good movie. It just happens to be THE movie for a generation, just as Big Wednesday and Carnal Knowledge were to the war babies, and The Graduate was for my generation. Young guys like Lawdog and Sasquatch love Swingers. Old farts like me and Tuna love The Graduate. Older farts like The Insider like Big Wednesday and Carnal Knowledge. The quality of the movie never enters into the discussion, because it is our story. In fact, I have a strong fear and suspicion that The Graduate actually sucks, so I don't want to watch it again.

Oh, yeah, back to the point. I think Go is a better movie than Swingers. Swingers is a pure genre flick, the epitome of cool for those who can relate to it, just drudgery to watch for anyone else. (Like talking to a drunk guy when you are sober.) Jon Favreau, Hollywood's designated sorta-but-not-really-funny chubby guy, wrote it when he was 30, presumably out of his own experiences, and  its total gross was only $4 million. However, I need to say that Swingers is an excellent film if you allow for the fact that it was made with $200,000. It is one of the better no-budget films of all time.

Go is a film with more universal appeal, however. I agree with Sasquatch's B-.

The Critics Vote

  • General consensus: two and a half. Ebert 3/4, Berardinelli 2.5/4, Apollo 70.

The People Vote ...

  • With their votes ... IMDB summary: IMDb voters score it 7.7 (Swingers 7.6), Apollo users  74/100. These scores are consistent with the critical consensus.
  • With their dollars ... it did OK in Altman-Woody territory. Made for $6.5 million, it grossed $16 million domestically on 1500 screens..
IMDb guideline: 7.5 usually indicates a level of excellence, about like three and a half stars from the critics. 6.0 usually indicates lukewarm watchability, about like two and a half stars from the critics. The fives are generally not worthwhile unless they are really your kind of material, about like two stars from the critics. Films under five are generally awful even if you like that kind of film, equivalent to about one and a half stars from the critics or less, depending on just how far below five the rating is.

My own guideline: A means the movie is so good it will appeal to you even if you hate the genre. B means the movie is not good enough to win you over if you hate the genre, but is good enough to do so if you have an open mind about this type of film. C means it will only appeal to genre addicts, and has no crossover appeal. D means you'll hate it even if you like the genre. E means that you'll hate it even if you love the genre. F means that the film is not only unappealing across-the-board, but technically inept as well.

Based on this description, this film is a B-.

Return to the Movie House home page