IMDb user comments for
Swimming with Sharks (1994) More at IMDbPro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 13:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Index

129 comments in total

---

27 out of 31 people found the following comment useful :-
Dark humour or nihilism?, 27 November 2000

Author: Gauti Fridriksson (hveiti@yahoo.com) from Reykjavik, Iceland

Powerful movie that shows the nastier, more foul-mouthed side of Hollywood. Guy, played by Whaley, is a Hollywood rookie with no real experience but some lofty goals. The movie charts his learning of the ways of Hollywood through becoming an assistant for fastidious big-shot producer Buddy Ackerman (Spacey), and his subsequent unlearning of the 'normal' moral values that apply almost anywhere else. A remarkable performance from Spacey who is by turns searingly offensive, scathingly funny and (funnily enough) vividly human. Making an audience feel for such a revolting character is a feat not many could accomplish, but Spacey's up to the task. Frank Whaley (possibly known to you through a bit part in 'Pulp Fiction') also turns in a very strong performance as the disillusioned young assistant who falls in love (or rather, in bed) with a female producer played by the sultry Michelle Forbes. Spacey and Whaley's interplay in key scenes is riveting, and for the most part, the younger Whaley manages to stay out of Spacey's shadow.

The movie's ending is quite unforeseeable, and its message can be construed either as darkly humorous satire against Hollywood, or as a nihilistic comment on the ways of mankind. Judging by the not-so-humorous tone of the movie (though ludicrously enough it was marketed as a comedy), to me it feels like the latter applies. Definitely worth seeing, even if only for Spacey. 8/10

---

17 out of 20 people found the following comment useful :-
For anyone who's ever had a vindictive boss - or a job at all, for that matter, 12 July 2005

Author: MovieAddict2009 from UK

"Swimming with Sharks" was made right around the time Kevin Spacey was becoming a rising star - his name was becoming well known enough that he could help finance low budget movies. Along with "The Usual Suspects" he helped "Swimming with Sharks" get off the ground, and now ten years later (it was given wide release in 1995) it still holds up well as a very, very dark comedy.

In fact, comedy isn't the right word. This shouldn't really be classified as comedy. It's not that funny. It works better as a dark satire - I expected something like "War of the Roses," but instead I got a Tarantino version of "Office Space" (complete with torture, violence, revenge and mayhem!).

Frank Whaley stars as Guy, a typical nobody who dreams of being a somebody. (Even his name confines him to anonymity.) When he lands a job working for world-famous producer Buddy Ackerman (Spacey), his future looks bright...until he realizes what he's in for.

Spacey delivers the best performance of the film, yelling, screaming, and throwing hissy fits practically every time he's on screen. But he never pushes the limits. He's always believable as a self-absorbed, ego-maniacal, ruthless producer; the director claims on the DVD commentary track and documentaries that he based the character and many scenes on actual things that happened to him while he worked for unnamed producers in Hollywood. Joel Silver is rumored to have been the basis for Ackerman.

The movie isn't great and never really achieves the amount of laughs I wanted but if you view it as a very dark drama-comedy you're more likely to enjoy it. I still found myself quite entertained and taken aback by how daring and unique this movie actually is - no one can condemn it for resorting to clichés. The ending is a punch in the stomach, I never expected it.

Whaley is good at playing the over/underwhelmed everyman and the direction is OK (if just so). The best aspects are the witty script and Kevin Spacey's scene-stealing performance; together he has good chemistry with Whaley and the movie succeeds based on the actors' success in their roles.

---

21 out of 32 people found the following comment useful :-
a misfortunate case of a great fim seen by a few "movie buffs", 28 July 2000

Author: eyal philippsborn (eyal_philippsborn@yahoo.com) from jerusalem, israel

Today, when kevin spacey has enough recognition and reputation that won't be tampered even if he'll star on "baywatch" for the rest of his life - my praises won't mean much. spacey is a superb actor, no doubt about it. but for frank whaley, appearences in the "right" films (natural born killers, born in the 4th of july, pulp fiction) as well as a undisputable talent did not turn him to a reknowned actor - which only goes to show that no matter how good you are, in most cases success is a luck depandant variable. On with the movie, the story of an ambitious youngster who wishes to engage in a key role of the film industry and starts to work as an assistant for a completely manipulating, ungreatful, demeaning movie producer george huang

(the writer and director) could come up with. the movie begins with guy (frank whaley) kidnapping buddy ackerman in his own house and concurrently whit guy's act of abuse to his hated boss, unfolds the story of a young kid with high hopes who was entangled both in the cynic world of his women loving, hair losing boss and in a relationship with a struggling movie producer - dawn (michelle forbes- now on "homicide - life on the streets"). the movie continues up to the point where guy has to decide which of those worlds to choose and now i won't add anything in fear of disclosing the end (and its unpredictable no matter which option you chose)

the movie is a complete delight and all i can say is - this may not be the best film you ever seen but it will sure leave enough of an impression to more than justify the two hours of your leisure time.

9 out of 10 in my scale

---

11 out of 13 people found the following comment useful :-
One of the best artistic commentaries on the professional world, 22 July 2006

Author: Brandt Sponseller from New York City

This film would be worth watching just for Kevin Spacey's portrayal of the ultimate boss from hell, Buddy Ackerman, but there's also much more than that going on. Ostensibly a damning look at the inner workings of the film business, Swimming with Sharks just as accurately depicts any highly dysfunctional employer/employee/associate relationships, and that's a lot of them.

But even more than that, there is a lot of mostly unstated philosophical material underpinning much of the film, some of it literal and some more metaphorical, such as the ending. One of the key lines of dialogue towards this end is Ackerman's, "If you're not a rebel by 21, you've got no heart, and if you haven't gone establishment by 30, you've got no brain".

Ackerman obviously has problems or he wouldn't be acting quite in the way that he is, but director George Huang and Spacey are also careful to show that Ackerman has a lot more going on than surface behavior--he's acting the way that he is purposefully, both to get his due now as part of the establishment and to coyly manipulate his young, meek and abused underling, Guy (Frank Whaley), along with everyone else he comes into contact with. His aim is to mold Guy in a particular way--a way that works even though Guy thinks that he's severely breaking form in the extended penultimate scene that's intercut with Guy and Ackerman's history.

Huang shows professional relationships as consisting mostly of politicking and manipulation. That's true at every level--certainly even Guy is doing this. There is very little authenticity to anyone in their working relationships. That seems pretty accurate to me, unfortunately. It's notable that the one dream of authenticity in the film--Guy talking about moving to Wyoming with Dawn (Michelle Forbes)--is treated and dispensed with as an unreachable fantasy, and it's also notable (and is fairly literally pointed out in the film) that Dawn, the one character who tries to demand being more authentic amidst the "shark infested waters" of the professional world, basically never gets anywhere.

In the highly metaphorical ending of the film, things remain manipulative, political and backstabbing, and in that climate, at least two out of three characters "win". Huang seems to be suggesting that the professional world ain't likely to change any time soon, and that even if you try to change it or manipulate the game itself, you're likely to just get eaten up by it, processed by it and incorporated into it anyway. Again, I can't say I disagree with him.

---

10 out of 13 people found the following comment useful :-
Why is this so enjoyable?, 1 June 2006

Author: Mike Keating (yamawhore@gmail.com) from London, England

Swimming with Sharks sees Guy (Frank Whaley) attempt to "turn the tables" on his abusive boss Buddy (Kevin Spacey), and while this makes the film simple and unoriginal in terms of plot, it is a cut above the rest thanks to the performances of its small cast.

One would assume that we would root for Guy, the innocent graduate demeaned by his aggressive boss, but the way the film tells the story prevents us from empathizing with him (as does his awful haircut); knowing that he tortures Buddy physically for his mental abuse complicates our response, and puts us on Buddy's side, allowing us to enjoy the games Buddy plays with Guy. This is something that's made very easy to do by the acting. Kevin Spacey is typically excellent as Buddy Ackerman and is the most engaging character in the film, remaining funny and manipulative throughout, even while being tortured and held hostage, as well as handling the more serious emotional aspects of his character expertly. Frank Whaley is also brilliant, playing the overwhelmed lapdog who is eventually pushed over the edge by Buddy's abuse. Importantly however, despite his plans for revenge, he remains under Buddy's spell right up until the end, and is eventually broken.

The film's conclusion further complicates our responses to both characters. The hostage situation revelations pull the audience between the impassioned-now-heartless Buddy and the desperate and confused Guy, but ultimately good does not prevail, and the shooting and Buddy's manipulation of the situation remove us from both characters as the film ends.

All in all, Swimming with Sharks is an enjoyable film. The simple plot and small cast are compensated for by some fine performances; it's funny , well-acted, and definitely worth watching.

---

5 out of 5 people found the following comment useful :-
Spacey great as always, 11 November 1998
Author: Tito-8 from North Bay, Ontario

Kevin Spacey, perhaps the finest actor on the planet, is brilliant as usual in his hilarious turn as Buddy Ackerman, one of the nastiest characters that you'll ever see anywhere on film. Sure, the whole cast is great, but it is Spacey who really shines, and he is the reason that this film works so well. Watch this movie if you want to laugh your head off, or if you simply want to see a legend in the making at the top of his game, yet again.

---

6 out of 7 people found the following comment useful :-
Hardly Kevin Spacey's Best *Spoilers*, 26 February 2003
Author: Monique from Miami, Florida

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

There's a subtle art to creating an effective dark comedy. This movie tried way too hard. It was exaggeratedly heavy on the comedy and exaggeratedly heavy on the drama. It didn't seem to know which way to go. And the two never managed to mesh well. In the end, its message, though clear, was not effectively communicated. It came off preachy and last minute. Spacey was fantastic as Buddy, but the breakdown scene involving his wife was just tossed in and played up to the point of being ridiculous. The entire torture scenario seemed silly to me, especially that paper cut business. I couldn't take Guy seriously at all. In addition, Guy's relationship with the girlfriend was completely unbelievable and acted more as a filler than anything else. That would have been ok if the relationship hadn't had such an important role in the ending. And the ending itself was too much to be taken seriously. Everything was so extreme. We were practically slapped in the face with the moral and it wasn't appreciated, by me anyway. In addition, there was too much talk. So much was said instead of shown, which made the movie drag. Whaley bored me and I wasn't sympathetic to him at any point in the movie. Oh... And character development? Not any that I saw. Whaley's transformation is best classified as "here today, gone tomorrow". He doesn't visibly transform. The ending is unexpected but also unjustified by the story. Sure, that makes it interesting, but that's not good storytelling. And the tone... the director's pretension is so tangible it almost made me sick. I've rarely seen a movie that took itself so seriously.

As a huge Kevin Spacey fan I am appalled when I read reviews that rank this movie as one of his best, or as his best performance. Apparently a lot of people need to rent more Kevin Spacey movies.

---

4 out of 4 people found the following comment useful :-
Dark but well acted, 27 August 2006

Author: wrlang from United States

Swimming with Sharks was an earlier work of Spacey and perhaps one of his better efforts in acting. Many of his other roles are rather sedate and reserved such as KPAX or Se7en, but this one is more like his role in the Negotiator. The mark of a good actor is his ability to competently act in any genre of film and Spacey has this ability. The rest of the cast was also very good in their roles making the film good for viewers. The film is about cut-throat movie producer Buddy Ackerman (Spacey) who brutally indoctrinates his assistant Guy (Whaley) into the world of film making. Most everyone really wants to see someone put the tyrant Ackerman in his place. Guy can only take so much though. By the time the film ends, the viewer is thankful but surprised.

---

4 out of 5 people found the following comment useful :-
He who must be obeyed, 29 January 2005

Author: cfn_halliwell from United Kingdom

This film just sums up what it is to be a flunky in Hollywood. Buddy Ackerman is your normal high flying film producer, from the sharp suits down to the aggressive approach to anyone below him. Guy is flunky who has the job of dealing with Buddy's every whim, and then there's Dawn Lockard who is stuck in the middle. With an explosive relationship between all of them, the film is set at the home of Buddy. Guy has taken him hostage, and is annoyed that Buddy has fired him. Set with a series of flashbacks starting with an appearance with Benicio Del Toro, it tells the tale of what Guy has had to put up with in working for Buddy and all the hell he was put through to get to the place that he was before being fired over nothing. Very under-rated film and Spacey is amazing. Also applause to go to Frank Whaley for his great conflicting work with Spacey. A+

---

4 out of 5 people found the following comment useful :-
I'm speechless, 5 April 2002

Author: Verbal Spacey from USA

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

Oh my gosh. Woah. This movie is a RUSH man! I read reviews with almost all of them saying it dragged in the middle. DRAGGED? No way! This movie had me laughing, squirming in my chair, and feeling sad all at the same time. A rollercoaster, a complete ride. And the ending! :eek: That was probably the one ending I DIDN'T even consider. Wow. What a great film.

One comment I would like to make real quickly on a personal note. I am a Kevin Spacey fan, and when you think you've seen it all, you just watch some of his movies. I hadn't seen this movie yet and I had heard from other fans that it was a favorite, so I was a little worried about it meeting expectations. Never doubt this man's ability!

Ok, so let's talk about Buddy, shall we? Well, I don't think there is anyone on this earth who could see this movie and not realize how great of an actor Kevin Spacey is. I just don't. This performance is so unique, not just of Kevin's roles, but of almost any role. At first, Buddy's just funny. And I think he remains funny throughout the film. But he also gets progressively more evil and demeaning. This character is one that you would just want to... well, torture. And so I can see where Guy is coming from. Then, there is something else. Something I think only Kevin could manage to bring to this role- sympathy. Maybe no one else felt it, but I sure did. I felt sorry for Buddy. A wild thing to feel, I know. But somehow Kevin just plays with your emotions. He makes you feel sorry for the biggest jerk ever. Because you realize as the movie goes on that Buddy might not have ended up that way had Hollywood not been like it is (at least this theoretical Hollywood.)

This is where I think this movie is totally the biggest bash on Hollywood ever made. It's just so revealing of how everyone is striving for their own thing and will do whatever it takes to get there. It's such a horrible attitude! It's what made Buddy like he is and in the end it's what drives Guy to resort to killing Dawn to climb the ladder.

A question. Do you think that Buddy knew what Guy was going to do in the end? I think it's obvious that Dawn didn't, but what about Buddy? Let me make some comments on the ending of this movie. There are several possible things that could have happened as I see it:

Guy kills Buddy- Buddy wins, Guy goes to jail Guy kills Himself- Buddy wins, Guy is dead Guy doesn't kill anyone- Buddy wins, Guy goes to jail and his career is ruined Guy kills Dawn- Buddy wins, Guy wins, Dawn is dead

So basically, Guy could have picked a scenario in which he owned up to what he did, or accepted punishment, or just ended it for himself (not saying that's right). But instead, Guy picks the one way that he can escape scott free. No matter what Guy did, Buddy was going to win. Either by going back to his job or by ruining Guy's life or both. So he decided he would compromise. He would take an innocent person's life for his own good. He listened to Buddy. He let that scumbag get inside his head! (Like I said, Buddy is scum, but I do feel sorry for him because he has had some things happen to him which have made him think that being nice always make you lose.)

"What do you really want?" Buddy asks him, time and time again. I think the end makes us realize, he wasn't asking what Guy wanted of him, but what Guy wanted for himself. He says he wants Dawn. He says he wants love, a normal life. He says he wants respect. But in the end, are those things what he really wants? No. Hollywood, the glamor and appeal of it has gotten to him just like the hardened men and women who went before him. He no longer really cares about being respected or loved. He cares about getting ahead. So what was Guy's mistake? I think his mistake was wanting the one thing he wanted. What did Guy want? He wanted to be Buddy. And in the end, he was.

---

---

Page 1 of 13:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Plot synopsis	Amazon.com summary
Ratings	Awards	Newsgroup reviews
External reviews	Plot keywords	Main details
Your user comments	Your vote history