gc_master12 1.) I didn't know it was based on a book. Just knew it from watching Sam and Cat. 2.) I watched it cause I thought it was interesting, cool, and exciting in which case I was right. 3.) It wasn't boring. 4.) NOT a bad film adaption. Yeah, it's different. Sure, Ben didn't have his neurological sleep disorder(in which I correctly spelled yet it still says I misspelled it so that's why I wrote it like this). Anyway, it was a great movie for kids it was something new. 5.) Some people need to give this movie some slack. I get that it's different from the book, but it's what made the movie interesting(for me). 6.) The people from Nick (cast, production staff, everyone) did a good job at this. P.S. TO NICKELODEON, PLEASE MAKE THE SEQUELS. THANK YOU.

Hickslauren2000 When I found out this movie was based on Swindle, I was excited. Gordon Korman is my favourite author. I knew the movie would be worse than the book, but I didn't think it would be that bad! First of all, his name is Ben SLOVAK, not Dupree. Ben is supposed to be narcoleptic, and he keeps a ferret in his shirt that bites him whenever he falls asleep. Also, Ben is supposed to have a gift for fitting in small spaces. Next, Savannah. Her name is Savannah DRYSDALE, not Westcott. Savannah is supposed to be an animal lover and a dog whisperer. Here, she's an actress. There is a character in the book named Logan Kellerman, who is supposed to be the actor. Melissa (Dukakis, not Bing) is not supposed to be Griffin's sister. Her name is ANTONIA Benson, not Amanda Benson. Antonia (with the nickname, "Pitch")is good at climbing, not gymnastics. Darren Vader is the school bully and is not part of the team. Finally, there is supposed to be a dog named Luthor who is one of the most important characters in the series. I was very disappointed with this movie.

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.