Why was "Haywire" so poorly received?

I really dont understand it. It got an 80% on Rotten Tomatos from the critics. I'm aware critics arent very good gauges for film quality. But it totally goes in the face of the audience at RT giving it a 42%. 42%??? Really?? According to the film grading firm "cinemascore" which for some reason doesnt have its own website, the film was a D+ in the eyes of the general audience. WHat?!? D+???

Why do 6/10 people hate this movie?

To put that in perspective, according to RT's same scale:

6/10 people liked The Toxic Avenger.

6/10 people hated Plan 9 from Outer Space.

6/10 people hated The Tourist.

5/10 people hated Die Another Day. The 2002 (just to clarify this was not made in 1965 despite sounding like it is) bond film with space lasers and antarctic ice castles and koreans with diamonds embedded in their faces that never go to sleep.

6/10 people hated the 2005 remake of The Poseidon Adventure. Which was one of the worst financial & cultural flops in the history of film. There isnt even a critic score for the film on RT.



I mean I'm totally used to critics shafting movies that audiences love. That makes sense. And sometimes it even makes sense for audiences to shaft movies that critics love, that can be logical on occasion. Hell I'm even okay with Shaft movies that everybody likes.

BUT THIS MOVIE WAS GREAT!!!!

It had an awesome retro jazz soundtrack that harkens back to classic spy films. Granted it kind of feels like a rip off in some ways, but its a rip off of all the right things!!! It's like Kill Bill 2 had sex with The Bourne Identity, then the offspring of said union had a baby with Lock Stock & Two Smoking Barrels. It's got Michael Douglas, Ewan McGregor, Michael Fassbender, Bill Paxton, Antonio Banderas & even Channing Tatum for the bored girlfriends in the audience. Its fun, its unique in its own way, its smart, the characters are interesting, I cant say it enough the sound track was fantastic. Its a fantastic spy movie, its not perfect, its not Citizen Kane. BUT WHY IS IT A 42%???


I actually was stupid enough to read the audience reviews on RT. The word used most often is "dry". DRY?!?

Its got gunfights, car chases, assassins, bare-knuckle kung foo throw downs galore. Oh, did I mention, the smoking hot female lead who chokes a man to death with her legs wrapped around his neck is actually.... a legitimate MMA fighter (you should see her weigh in pictures, girl is burning hot)...

"Dry" ?????????

42%...

Wha... Ho....... Wh....... I.... I....

Funny, I was wondering the same thing. Not a terribly great movie (when I saw the thread title I actually has to remember what this was about) but it had a strong cast and a good director. So I do remember, after watching it (just a couple of weeks ago) I did go online and look up reviews because I was kind of interested in what others would think about it.

Worth a watch.

Originally Posted by BarnabyJones

when I saw the thread title I actually has to remember what this was about

EXACTLY!!!

The studios clearly shafted its promotion too. Because I rented it from redbox not even realizing what it was, just wanting something random with action in it. I thought I had never heard of it before at the time. I put off watching it for 2 days because of a reluctance to watch & only finally did because I didnt want to be charged another $1.50. I didnt even realize I had seen the previews until the first sequence was almost over.

I knew who the chick was from ogling her in her skivvies on the internet after I found out (somehow) that there were good looking female MMA fighters. So I remember hearing about the movie (I think I was watching a UFC event), but I never saw a conventional TV ad for it. So they probably did push it fairly hard to the UFC audience.

I have a friend in Hollywood and often a movies fate is sealed even during shooting. They can watch dailies and commit to how much they will spend on a media blitz, or send it straight to video. So many good movies get shafted that way. Most famously Office Space which almost went straight to video. She worked on that (my friend, I learned years later).

One of my greatest achievements was renting Office Space the day it came out, on a whim. It looked funny to me. Hadn't heard a damned things about it. I was a hero.

I didn't see it because it was advertised as having a real MMA figher in it. I think MMA is retarded, and I simply lumped this movie together with the "Marine" franchise that WWE makes as most likely being complete and utter crap.

Most of the negative reviews I read about this movie on IMDB and elsewhere pointed to the poor acting/directing/script as the reason they voted it low. Not a lack of:

"gunfights, car chases, assassins, bare-knuckle kung foo throw downs galore. Oh, did I mention, the smoking hot female lead who chokes a man to death with her legs wrapped around his neck is actually.... a legitimate MMA fighter (you should see her weigh in pictures, girl is burning hot)"

It's just my opinion that people who star in movies should be capable actors otherwise its a painful experience for the audience.

Maybe I could see its appeal if I cared about MMA or different kinds of MMA take downs and wanted to see a movie that revolved around that.

Originally Posted by tarvu

It's just my opinion that people who star in movies should be capable actors otherwise its a painful experience for the audience.

She is, so that helps.

I thought it was a solid film myself. Quite enjoyed it. A lot of silence, yes, but more than made up for by the combat scenes.

Originally Posted by The Dude

She is, so that helps.

I thought it was a solid film myself. Quite enjoyed it. A lot of silence, yes, but more than made up for by the combat scenes.

Exactly. I didn't even realize she was an MMA fighter until I started research for this thread. I thought she did a perfectly acceptable job of it, wasn't Oscar material but she sold it. Alot of reviewers said she was to ridged and cold. But if you payed attention to the movie, that's her character to the t. At one point someone close to her dies violently in her arms, her father comes and holds her in an attempt to console her grief. But the camera pans in on her face & you see she's not even upset. She's staring coldly into the fireplace, if anything more full of furious vengeance than sorrow. Her character is a former marine turned icy gun for hire and that in mind she plays it just fine.

Critics liked Avatar i think that says enough .

Originally Posted by Uber Mind

Critics liked Avatar i think that says enough .

The audience liked it even more. D'oh!

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/avatar/

83% of the critics liked it with anverage score of 7.4 of 10
92% of the audience liked it with an average score of 4.2 of 5.

So I fear your argument ("Avatar is pretentious PC-crap that was liked only by critics" was it, no?) doesn't fly.

I am a bit surprised, you didn't know that, because Avatar's success was the main reason to hate it in the first place, wasn't it...

Anyway:

Wrong conclusion: Avatar is just not your thing, and didn't suit your taste.

Correct conclusion: Critics and audience are all retarded. Avatar is an abomination and truly one of the worst movies of all time!!!1

Well, I haven't watched the movie in question, but I always care little about the ratings of the plebs. I know that makes me sound like a scarf wearing film snob, but it's true. Sometimes good films are just too high-browed for the general public. Sometimes it's also the film's fault with how they advertise it too, though.

An example might be The American 66% Critics, 37% Audience. They made the mistake of peddling the film through commercials as a high-action, spy-thriller. When in actuality it was an artsy/drama/tragedy kinda film. The unwashed masses went in expecting to see a popcorn munching, James Bond/Mission Impossible kind of movie and left sorely disappointed, lol.


(Neat film btw (The American), not saying it should have been nominated for an Oscar or anything, but it was beautifully shot. I recommend it.)

Originally Posted by The Doubtful Guest

(Neat film btw (The American), not saying it should have been nominated for an Oscar or anything, but it was beautifully shot. I recommend it.)

I actually don't think that was the case with Haywire. I think it just was not slated for a big media blitz outside of UFC events.

The American was a case of just a bungled message. I bought into that, as reviewers I trust were talking of its slow pace, as if it were a bad thing. So needless to say I was pleasantly surprised with that movie. Very good film with a plausible storyline.

I never saw this movie even though I wanted to. I've had a HUGE crush on Gina Carano since she was in New American Gladiators.

I want her cast as Wonder Woman if they ever make that movie.

I haven't seen it yet, but I have seen some good praise about it being very entertaining.

I would guess it just came out at the wrong time.

I recall an article I read many years ago, about a Japanese animator who spent 20 years creating every cell of a story based on the tale of Aladdin. About a year before he'd completed his masterpiece Disney released their version of the story. The article went on to say this guy had been heartbroken (contemplated suicide) because he knew no matter how good his film might be, it would always be referred to as a 'Japanese version of the Disney film...

Haywire was released around the same time as Hannah, Colombiana and The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo. While they might all be different in their own ways, they were all marketed as the same Genre as Bourne (in fact I think they all had Bourne (but with a girl) mentioned in their ad blurbs) .. So in effect Haywire was destined to be compared with how those movies stacked up against Bourne. I've seen them all and Haywire, imo, is poor by comparison. Saying that GWTDT, is the only one I thought was actually any good.

Originally Posted by Halie Satanus

I would guess it just came out at the wrong time.

I recall an article I read many years ago, about a Japanese animator who spent 20 years creating every cell of a story based on the tale of Aladdin. About a year before he'd completed his masterpiece Disney released their version of the story. The article went on to say this guy had been heartbroken (contemplated suicide) because he knew no matter how good his film might be, it would always be referred to as a 'Japanese version of the Disney film...

Haywire was released around the same time as Hannah, Colombiana and The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo. While they might all be different in their own ways, they were all marketed as the same Genre as Bourne (in fact I think they all had Bourne (but with a girl) mentioned in their ad blurbs) .. So in effect Haywire was destined to be compared with how those movies stacked up against Bourne. I've seen them all and Haywire, imo, is poor by comparison. Saying that GWTDT, is the only one I thought was actually any good.

I've considered that yes. The thing is I think that both GWTDT AND Haywire were both misrepresented. Firstly because GWTDT is a murder mystery, not an action spy flick. I dont really think it was represented as such either to be honest. Secondly, between Columbiana, Bourne & Haywire I'd say Haywire is a very close second. And as far as I'm concerned the only reason it isnt first is because Bourne has pulled off the borderline blasphemous "Trilogy of Quality Films". It had a better style than bourne, was more clever than bourne, was more realistic than bourne & the MMA fighter believe it or not was better at her fight scenes than Matt Damon... who really runs a Zoo apparently.

Also if you havnt already I'd recommend the original, foreign, version of GWTDT over the hollywood rehash. It captures the concept alot better.

GWADT was a revenge/searching for answers movie, more in line with Bourne. The 'girl' in question was also very tech savy, which probably drew the comparisons more than anything else.

I'm a big fan of the Bourne movies (bracing myself for the new one) so maybe I'll give Haywire another spin, but I can't say I found it better than Bourne on any level.

Originally Posted by Halie Satanus

GWADT was a revenge/searching for answers movie, more in line with Bourne. The 'girl' in question was also very tech savy, which probably drew the comparisons more than anything else.

I'm a big fan of the Bourne movies (bracing myself for the new one) so maybe I'll give Haywire another spin, but I can't say I found it better than Bourne on any level.

Of course it wasn't. I personally went to see it just because I enjoy watching female protagonists beat dudes up. I got that. I also got a more interesting film than I had initially expected, so it turned out to be a win/win for me.

I enjoyed the movie quite a bit but I am not surprised that it was poorly received by the audiences. Soderbergh stripped down action movies to its very basic components and then crafted a movie about betrayal and espionage around that framework. It was advertised as something of an action movie and it certainly had action but a lot of people expect those kinds of movies to involve witty one-liners from the protagonist and excessive explosions.

It is the same reason some people didn't like Drive. It was advertised as an action movie and I kind of felt that was what I was going to get when I went into the theater but I got a whole lot more than I was expecting. I appreciate that, quite a lot. Some people just want to omnomnomnom on some popcorn and watch things blow up. *shurgs*

Edit: On a side-note...I believe that the Swedish and American renditions of The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo are both quality films and I consider myself lucky enough to have gotten to see both in the theaters. Both movies focus on different tones presented in the books and I enjoyed the differences and the faithfulness of both movies. I fall back on the Swedish version as the best version because I feel that Noomi Rapace was by far the more powerful and interesting Lisbeth. Rooney Mara did a good job as well but not as good as Noomi.

Critics rated Avatar so highly because of technological achievements. The plot was simplistic and well-worn but Cameron's goal with the movie wasn't to wow you with the plot. He wanted to wow you with the tech aspects of the film. Mission accomplished.

Do you understand how critics rate films? Did the film accomplish its goal? That is the number 1 priority of all films. What is the goal of this film I am making and how do I accomplish that goal in roughly 2 hours.