So it's about the man's man. And how he must learn that there is something on this earth besides him named "woman", and it's not created only for his joy. She's a human being, who has feelings and role in life. Hence, he has to confess her being, value her talents, and treat her fairly.
It's a good meaning. And the movie chooses fantasy to say it; particularly the "trapped-in-another-body" trick, which was so popular back then. (Blake Edwards), a master of farce, is directing. Nice pop soundtrack is presented, with songs like (Lyle Lovet)'s You Can't Resist It. So what on earth went wrong??!!
It's basically in the script. After choosing the fantasy plot, its creativeness ended, inclining to easy and empty talking, not situations. Look at the endless phone calls to the previous girlfriends to assure the main character's unfairness towards women, with not one satisfied or laughable situation. Then it takes 2 or 3 dry, direct, and sudden monologues to face the "other" unfair men with their truths, like the company's boss and else, with no appropriate situations either. And when the script makes situation, it rather fabricates one, where the lead's male friend sleeps with him, while he's a woman, to have a baby--it's all predictable from there to the end. Sure it lacks a lot. For instance, see how the lead blackmails his boss by knowing about his mistress, then blackmails his landlord by knowing about his mistress TOO!
The line of the lesbian affair was there to showcase the dominating male mentality even in affairs of that kind. However, the movie saw in it a way to attract male audience; therefore exploited it cheaply. Enough to know that a seduction scene between (Ellen Barkin) and (Lorraine Bracco) was excised after poor reactions in test screenings! Add to that the inserted nudity as well, to know perfectly that this movie cared about sex more than its comedy!
The script didn't find any way to produce laughs out of its plot. Walking falteringly in the high heels, or being bothered by the long hair, were naive, and went on and on in so boring manner. Speaking about "naive", in the lesbian bar fight, no way one punch could hit the eyes of 2 different persons in the same time. Character like the gay psychic wasn't funny at all. To tell you the truth, no character was funny in the first place. And no effort was done in scenes like the court's one, or the madhouse's, to make them any comedic!
Strangely, (Edwards) direction was as dead as the script. I don't exactly know why he went to the one-shot scenes, enhancing the wrong theatrical case, and causing a slow visual pace. In fact, this movie wasn't in the need of less impressive element or more bore!
(Barkin) did well in some scene, but she's not a natural comedienne. (Bruce Payne) can't be the male lead. He's not charismatic, and his performance was kind of cold. (Bracco), on the other hand, was unbearably cold. And - sorrowfully - the movie doesn't give anybody else an interesting role.
So (Switch) is primitive, cheap and unfunny. It's clear that its makers were between hasty and uninspired. This is why they, and us, ended up with good idea made in no good movie.
It's a good meaning. And the movie chooses fantasy to say it; particularly the "trapped-in-another-body" trick, which was so popular back then. (Blake Edwards), a master of farce, is directing. Nice pop soundtrack is presented, with songs like (Lyle Lovet)'s You Can't Resist It. So what on earth went wrong??!!
It's basically in the script. After choosing the fantasy plot, its creativeness ended, inclining to easy and empty talking, not situations. Look at the endless phone calls to the previous girlfriends to assure the main character's unfairness towards women, with not one satisfied or laughable situation. Then it takes 2 or 3 dry, direct, and sudden monologues to face the "other" unfair men with their truths, like the company's boss and else, with no appropriate situations either. And when the script makes situation, it rather fabricates one, where the lead's male friend sleeps with him, while he's a woman, to have a baby--it's all predictable from there to the end. Sure it lacks a lot. For instance, see how the lead blackmails his boss by knowing about his mistress, then blackmails his landlord by knowing about his mistress TOO!
The line of the lesbian affair was there to showcase the dominating male mentality even in affairs of that kind. However, the movie saw in it a way to attract male audience; therefore exploited it cheaply. Enough to know that a seduction scene between (Ellen Barkin) and (Lorraine Bracco) was excised after poor reactions in test screenings! Add to that the inserted nudity as well, to know perfectly that this movie cared about sex more than its comedy!
The script didn't find any way to produce laughs out of its plot. Walking falteringly in the high heels, or being bothered by the long hair, were naive, and went on and on in so boring manner. Speaking about "naive", in the lesbian bar fight, no way one punch could hit the eyes of 2 different persons in the same time. Character like the gay psychic wasn't funny at all. To tell you the truth, no character was funny in the first place. And no effort was done in scenes like the court's one, or the madhouse's, to make them any comedic!
Strangely, (Edwards) direction was as dead as the script. I don't exactly know why he went to the one-shot scenes, enhancing the wrong theatrical case, and causing a slow visual pace. In fact, this movie wasn't in the need of less impressive element or more bore!
(Barkin) did well in some scene, but she's not a natural comedienne. (Bruce Payne) can't be the male lead. He's not charismatic, and his performance was kind of cold. (Bracco), on the other hand, was unbearably cold. And - sorrowfully - the movie doesn't give anybody else an interesting role.
So (Switch) is primitive, cheap and unfunny. It's clear that its makers were between hasty and uninspired. This is why they, and us, ended up with good idea made in no good movie.