Haywire (Steven Soderbergh)

[TGM]

HAYWIRE

Director: Steven Soderbergh

imdb page (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1506999/)

http://unwrappedphotos.com/wp-content/gallery/haywire/haywire_poster-uk-2.jpg

[TGM]

Giving this one a mild nay. It took forever to pick up, and in that time, I was seriously considering walking out, because I was not a fan of what we got. For the first 20 minutes or so we don't know anything, because the movie tells us nothing. We just hop from one action scene to the next. The fact that I felt the fight scenes came across as rather silly didn't exactly help matters.

After the Michael Fassbender fight scene from the trailers, the movie finally picks up with a rather impressive chase scene through the city streets. I should also mention that I went in not knowing who directed it, but thinking that it really felt like a Soderbergh film, and even had the same kind of odd musical choices like in Contagion (which I'm still not certain how I feel about). Low and behold, it was, indeed, a Soderbergh film.

In the end, I suppose it was an okay movie, though it has a really rough start, and some of the relationships in the movie feel really forced. The ending was pretty satisfying, though.

[B-side]

I'm looking forward to this.

[Robby P]

Michael Fassbender is becoming the new Jude Law. How does he find the time to shoot all these movies?

[MadMan]

This will probably end up being a rental in a couple of months. Good overall cast, though.

[Irish]

Michael Fassbender is becoming the new Jude Law. How does he find the time to shoot all these movies?

Jeez! That almost sounds like a gypsy curse. Hopefully Fass won't be making an Alfie remake anytime soon.

[Izzy Black]

Just saw this. I've been waiting to see it for a while. Excellent film. Predictably, the story is secondary and fairly uninteresting. But Soderbergh knows that and doesn't waste much time bothering us with it. This is a Gina Carano showpiece and an elegant exercise in virtuosic style. Good way to start off the new year. I imagine others will be bothered more by the lack of story and flat dialogue, among other things. Thoughts?

[EyesWideOpen]

This is now the third Haywire thread on Match-Cut. :P

[Izzy Black]

Sorry I ran a search and didn't see one.

[B-side]

Just saw this. I've been waiting to see it for a while. Excellent film. Predictably, the story is secondary and fairly uninteresting. But Soderbergh knows that and doesn't waste much time bothering us with it. This is a Gina Carano showpiece and an elegant exercise in virtuosic style. Good way to start off the new year. I imagine others will be bothered more by the lack of story and flat dialogue, among other things. Thoughts?

So glad you liked it. I'm looking forward to seeing it.

[TripZone]

Excellent. I don't think Australia is getting this anytime soon, though :(

[Pop Trash]

This is now the third Haywire thread on Match-Cut. :P

Don't discourage Israfel from doing whatever the fuck he wants.

[EyesWideOpen]

Don't discourage Israfel from doing whatever the fuck he wants.

I just thought it was funny that I put in haywire in the search and three different threads came up just on the first page.

[Pop Trash]

I just thought it was funny that I put in haywire in the search and three different threads came up just on the first page.

I know. Just messin'. /threeglassesofwine

[Izzy Black]

I just thought it was funny that I put in haywire in the search and three different threads came up just on the first page.

I only searched the GD, my mistake.

[Izzy Black]

Audience reaction to this hasn't been too good. Doesn't look like it's going to do well.

[TGM]

What happened to the yay/nay poll?

[Derek]

Audience reaction to this hasn't been too good. Doesn't look like it's going to do well.

Well, I'm still excited for it, especially after your praise. Seeing it tomorrow night!

[Rowland]

Audience reaction to this hasn't been too good. Wasn't this also the case for Contagion? Soderbergh's detached approach isn't a very marketable prospect these days.

[number8]

It was marketed like a Jason Statham movie and people got a Soderbergh movie instead. Of course there will be disappointments.

[Ezee E]

It was marketed like a Jason Statham movie and people got a Soderbergh movie instead. Of course there will be disappointments.
So it is very much Soderbergh-ish?

[TGM]

So it is very much Soderbergh-ish?

Yes.

[EyesWideOpen]

So it is very much Soderbergh-ish?

I love Soderbergh and this definitely felt like one of his movies with the added benefit of having some of the best fight scenes I've seen.

[megladon8]

Carano's starting to get some buzz for Wonder Woman now. Not sure how I feel about that. Physically she may be a good fit, but from what I've heard, a natural thespian she is not.

[D_Davis]

Carano's starting to get some buzz for Wonder Woman now. Not sure how I feel about that. Physically she may be a good fit, but from what I've heard, a natural thespian she is not.

I can't imagine that role needing a natural thespian.

[number8]

I imagine that Wonder Woman probably needs good acting a lot more than Batman or Superman.

[EyesWideOpen]

Judged solely on her role in Haywire she's a perfectly capable actress.

[megladon8]

I can't imagine that role needing a natural thespian.


What 8 said.

I know you hate comic book superheroes (the mainstream ones, anyways), but Wonder Woman does require more than just an actress who can kick ass.

[Irish]

http://www.google.com/search?q=carano&hl=en&c&tbo=d&source=lnms&tbm=isch&ei=4e4dT_z1IcnaiQLT-93ZCw&sa=X&oi=mode_link&ct=mode&cd=2&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAQ&biw=1024&bih=672

^ Counter argument to any concerns about acting ability.

[megladon8]

http://www.google.com/search?q=carano&hl=en&c&tbo=d&source=lnms&tbm=isch&ei=4e4dT_z1IcnaiQLT-93ZCw&sa=X&oi=mode_link&ct=mode&cd=2&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAQ&biw=1024&bih=672

^ Counter argument to any concerns about acting ability.


She also said in an interview that if she knew she had one day left to live, she'd spend the day having sex on a beach.

I wonder if she's taking applications?

[Watashi]

Even though it's a Soderbergh movie, I don't understand the D+ cinemascore. People are morons. The story is not confusing. There is plenty of action. The film never feels "slow" like some people thought Drive was.

Carano is pretty terrible in this, but Soderbergh didn't hire her to act. Loved the Dublin sequence. Reminded me a lot of playing Uncharted 2.

[Kiusagi]

Did anyone else really like the score? For me it was one of the highlights. Didn't provide the tension that orchestral scores do in typical action movies, but it pumped me up nonetheless.

[B-side]

Haywire is great. Carano's sexuality is only a tool for her superiors, and when she engages in romance with a man, neither is seduced by the other, but rather both enter into a mutual contract of sexuality in unison. The jazzy music sits atop the breezy, cool exterior and the threadbare plot gives resonance to the action. That action is filmed with largely still, or close to it, photography and without any musical accompaniment, de-emphasizing the action as the sole attraction and embedding it further within the confines of the profession. Sources of light glow like stunning, radiant orbs in Soderbergh's digital photography.

[Adam]

Little disappointed with this. The audience i saw it with was kinda restless and I can't blame them. I feel like the movie's accessibility has been overplayed, particularly compared to the guy's last film. Soderbergh's as smooth as ever, but Haywire has definite longueurs, Carano is shaky in parts and I'll echo the cheapo dtv feel others have mentioned, as well. Some aspects just seem way stilted, like almost every scene with the kid in his car and also the Bill Paxton character. There's also no getting around the fact the overriding raison d'etre of the film is the novelty of placing a woman in this kind of role, which isnt always enough. Still recommend it on the strength of five or six great mini set pieces, though, especially the Fassbender hotel fight and the low speed car chase. And Antonio Banderas is pretty funny

[Dukefrukem]

I had said Contagion was my favorite Soderbergh film when I saw it last year, but this might have overtaken it. My only criticism is the score which felt oddly out of place and too similar to the Ocean films. Where did this Gina Carano come from? Cast her more often.

[Izzy Black]

I had said Contagion was my favorite Soderbergh film when I saw it last year, but this might have overtaken it. My only criticism is the score which felt oddly out of place and too similar to the Ocean films. Where did this Gina Carano come from? Cast her more often.

So Gina Carano's great here but Emily Browning terrible in Sleeping Beauty? You're such a maverick.

[Dukefrukem]

So Gina Carano's great here but Emily Browning terrible in Sleeping Beauty? You're such a maverick.

Well it depends on the role doesn't it? Carano was great for what this movie was. Browning was a fish out of water in being a disturbed-whorish-call girl. Her most unconvincing line? "I want to show you something. I would really love to suck your cock."

[Derek]

Where did this Gina Carano come from?

MMA. That's why all the fight choreography was great and Soderbergh could use wide shots rather than cutting the shit out of fight scenes just to make them look legit.

[Rowland]

Worth watching just for the surfaces, sounds, and cleanly staged set pieces. But what's the deal with the threadbare narrative, which all the timeline hopping fails to disguise, or imbue with much in the way of mystery, portent, or resonance? And it turns out I'm not too keen on Soderbergh's clinical detachment unless it somehow plays off the material in a tonally or thematically knotty manner, i.e. his most interesting recent work, The Informant! As much as I enjoy coherent action choreography, which Soderbergh proves adept at staging and capturing, I wish there had been more sequences like the opening rescue mission, which had a real kick thanks to Soderbergh's propulsive crosscutting. It's a shame too that Fassbender is the only actor with whom Carano has any palpable chemistry, as the remaining cast of admittedly engaging celebrity faces act primarily as window dressing.

[Pop Trash]

I dug this one. The plot is, of course, just a lark, but Soderbergh's style (long/wide takes with some particular color dominating the frame) and the jazz-funk score really worked for me. The Fassbender fight was hilarious, especially given the obvious sexual metaphor (in another film, say Out of Sight, that particular moment would be a sex scene).

I don't really get the knocks against Carnao's acting abilities, especially when she is up against Channing Tatum or can be compared favorably to J. Lo in Out of Sight.

I suppose the ending could have been better, or have had more of an impact, but eh, minor quibble for this type of film.

[MadMan]

Sometimes I think people forget that plot is overrated/not important when it comes to action movies. Haywire was semi-smart, relatively well paced with plenty of action sequences while also sporting a great cast. I too liked the soundtrack, although last year's slightly better action movie with a female in the lead Hanna had a better score. Regardless, I'm all for one movie coming out each year that features a woman being badass that's also highly entertaining. This is how modern action movies should be-Michael Bay should take notes, but he should have been doing that over two decades ago.

[Irish]

I thought this was bad. Really bad.

Soderbergh uses a lot of visual flourishes here to hide cheapy production values and a sort of parking garage aesthetic, but he did this kind of thing better & more carefully over a decade ago with The Limey.

The plot is a threadbare, third rate Cold War style thriller, sort of a Jason Bourne lite boiled down to its barest essence. It wouldn't be so bad except the characters all keep talking about it so damned much, which only makes the holes, gaps, and inconsistencies all that more obvious.

The action, such as it is, is good, but it consists mostly of the star Carano going through her MMA pre-fight workout on willing stunt doubles. After you see her throw the same hook and roundhouse the same way for the third time, it gets a little tired.

[Pop Trash]

Soderbergh uses a lot of visual flourishes here to hide cheapy production values and a sort of parking garage aesthetic, but he did this kind of thing better & more carefully over a decade ago with The Limey.


Don't all low budget movies use "visual flourishes" to hide "cheapy production values." I don't even know what this means really. I think that's just called "good cinematography." Also, what the feck is "parking garage aesthetic?"

[Irish]

Don't all low budget movies use "visual flourishes" to hide "cheapy production values." I don't even know what this means really. I think that's just called "good cinematography." Also, what the feck is "parking garage aesthetic?"

I'd argue that, no, they don't. At least not as Soderburgh does here. He's constantly using odd framing, multiple filters, different stocks, etc to keep the visual interest going. (In that way, it's very similar to The Limey).

On one level, it works. The movie looks great. On another level, if you get past all that ... there's no there here (to mangle Gertrude Stein). It's got a plot and a star that wouldn't pass muster with Van Damme and Seagal at their worst.

The parking garage thing is just something I noticed toward the end of the film. There are a lot of little scenes shot in service tunnels, garages, industrial spaces, generic offices, what have you .. basically, typical of any movie on a shoestring but maybe a little more noticeable here because the supporting cast is chock full of brand-name, high profile actors.

[Yxklyx]

I'd argue that, no, they don't. At least not as Soderburgh does here. He's constantly using odd framing, multiple filters, different stocks, etc to keep the visual interest going. (In that way, it's very similar to The Limey).

On one level, it works. The movie looks great. On another level, if you get past all that ... there's no there here (to mangle Gertrude Stein). It's got a plot and a star that wouldn't pass muster with Van Damme and Seagal at their worst.

The parking garage thing is just something I noticed toward the end of the film. There are a lot of little scenes shot in service tunnels, garages, industrial spaces, generic offices, what have you .. basically, typical of any movie on a shoestring but maybe a little more noticeable here because the supporting cast is chock full of brand-name, high profile actors.


I think Soderbergh always goes for that "cheap" down to earth look. For instance, Contagion reminded me a bit of Cronenberg's low budget Rabid. I think he intentionally does this.

[Ezee E]

Surprised at the love for this. Action scenes are brought down to being a musical montage essentially, Carano's fight scenes are impressive, but end up being repetitive, and by putting her up with fascinating actors like Fassbender, it shows her lack of talent.

This seems like an exercise movie for Soderbergh that he does every now and then.

[B-side]

It's intentionally threadbare. The interest doesn't come from a twisting, labyrinthine thriller plot filled to the brim with nonsensical convoluted arcs. The interest comes from its relative minimalism. It's best viewed as a response to the bloated Hollywood action films they release 100 times a year. It's a revisionist western in the 1940s. Soderbergh's form is exquisite; detached, unique framing allowing the action to be accentuated by the camera but also allowing the action to take place coherently in front of the camera instead of by the side of it or while the person holding the camera is having a seizure. The kineticism comes from the movements of the actors and their individual trajectories, not an artificially-induced energy by a convulsing camera. The lighting in particular is spectacular: warm orbs of light offsetting very clinical settings creating a contrast of mood that feels at once oddly calming and at others foreboding. The lack of any accompanying music during the fight scenes was a genius move; all the focus is on the bodies in motion and the diegetic sounds around them. It's an anti-Hollywood Hollywood action thriller, and Carano's stoicism plays directly into her archetypal female role. In that regard, I think people overlook the feminist element of the film. MacGregor's character even outright says it'd be a mistake to think of her as a woman.

[Raiders]

It's intentionally threadbare. The interest doesn't come from a twisting, labyrinthine thriller plot filled to the brim with nonsensical convoluted arcs. The interest comes from its relative minimalism. It's best viewed as a response to the bloated Hollywood action films they release 100 times a year. It's a revisionist western in the 1940s. Soderbergh's form is exquisite; detached, unique framing allowing the action to be accentuated by the camera but also allowing the action to take place coherently in front of the camera instead of by the side of it or while the person holding the camera is having a seizure. The kineticism comes from the movements of the actors and their individual trajectories, not an artificially-induced energy by a convulsing camera. The lighting in particular is spectacular: warm orbs of light offsetting very clinical settings creating a contrast of mood that feels at once oddly calming and at others foreboding. The lack of any accompanying music during the fight scenes was a genius move; all the focus is on the bodies in motion and the diegetic sounds around them. It's an anti-Hollywood Hollywood action thriller, and Carano's stoicism plays directly into her archetypal female role. In that regard, I think people overlook the feminist element of the film. MacGregor's character even outright says it'd be a mistake to think of her as a woman.

Indeed. This is Soderbergh's best film since The Limey (I haven't seen The Girlfriend Experience yet).

[Izzy Black]

Agree with everything BS wrote.

But while Haywire's great, IMO Solaris and Traffic > Haywire.

[Raiders]

Agree with everything BS wrote.

But while Haywire's great, IMO Solaris and Traffic > Haywire.

I like both of those, though the one that is closest to this one for me is actually Ocean's Twelve. Nothing he has made in the past 12 years though can touch The Limey, Out of Sight or King of the Hill.

I know we mentioned it in the Contagion thread, but despite his reputation I think he is an undervalued filmmaker. His formal sensibilities are tremendous, almost without fail. He's always got an angle to the film/story.

[B-side]

I know we mentioned it in the Contagion thread, but despite his reputation I think he is an undervalued filmmaker. His formal sensibilities are tremendous, almost without fail. He's always got an angle to the film/story.

Agreed. And I'm excited for Magic Mike, especially since it looks to be an ersatz thematic expansion on The Girlfriend Experience.

[Irish]

It's intentionally threadbare. The interest doesn't come from a twisting, labyrinthine thriller plot filled to the brim with nonsensical convoluted arcs. The interest comes from its relative minimalism. It's best viewed as a response to the bloated Hollywood action films they release 100 times a year. It's a revisionist western in the 1940s.

It's an anti-Hollywood Hollywood action thriller, and Carano's stoicism plays directly into her archetypal female role. In that regard, I think people overlook the feminist element of the film. MacGregor's character even outright says it'd be a mistake to think of her as a woman.

Threadbare might not be the best word, but I don't know how else to describe it. Sure, you could say it's intentionally thin and linear, but I think it's also shabby.

Good action movies tend to be simple and accessible. Think Die Hard, or Under Siege or the recent Korean flick The Man from Nowhere. There isn't anything unnecessary in any of them, and almost every scene plays to a single idea (bad guys take over office building, bad guys take over a ship, good guy must rescue kidnapped girl). The focus is on the action.

With Haywire, there's an almost constant stream of chatter about "what happened in Barcelona," as if it's big and meaningful. The problem is that the characters must act as if this situation is new and dangerous to them, but for the audience, it's trite and hackneyed. We've seen the "agent gets double crossed by their superiors" bit a dozen times before. (Wasn't that the big hook for Bourne?).

The real cleverness of things like Die Hard and Under Siege was that they hired solid, classically trained actors as counterweights against untested or weak stars. And then gave those guys something to run with. Soderbergh got half that right, but then he forgot to give his supporting cast anything to do. Hiring guys like Douglas and McGregor to stand around access tunnels and have inane conversations seems almost negligent. What's the point? Anybody could have performed those roles.

I'm not quite seeing how this movie is a "revisionist western" -- there isn't anything western about it. Ditto for the feminist bit. I have to ask you to spell that out more clearly. (Usually, when people say "such and such is feminist," they're calling attention to gender, almost saying "and she can fight just like a man!". Which strikes me as the polar opposite of feminism.)

Let me ask you this -- excepting the cinematic pyrotechnics and the fact that the lead is a woman, what about this movie is fresh, original or interesting? The story is old hat, the characters are utilitarian, the dialogue is uninteresting, and the performances are unnotable.

[Raiders]

I actually love that the film has essentially zero charisma. These are business people through and through. It's an interesting angle that is both partly the nature of Carano and also the nature of Dobbs' script which is all about efficiency. I think the hiring of known actors for roles that are essentially cogs in a system is to specifically designate them as "important" people and for us to quickly identify with their stature within the narrative. It could probably be called lazy, but I think it is symptomatic of the entire production's view of the film, which is business-like, momentum-driven and leaving little to no time to actually explain things or get caught up in charming dialogue. Call it the anti-Tarantino. It provides a cool, detached view of the people and events which gives way to the clarity and the medium-range view of the action scenes which again, highlight the lack of style or charm in the choreography but instead highlights the physicality and violence (if I recall correctly, the scenes are generally non-scored as well to further reduce excess cinematic trappings and put the action itself as the only kinetic force).

I can't really argue with a lot of the criticism because it is a film that doesn't really create anything "new" or "dynamic" that hasn't been done before. But that's a pretty poor barometer these days (what hasn't been done before?) but rather that Soderbergh, as I alluded to before, finds for me a very unique and intriguing angle with which to view the story and characters and to present the scenario with as little trappings as possible, right down to any real acting or character development. It's the action and the business-like mentality that dominates, and I really enjoyed it.

[B-side]

I'm not quite seeing how this movie is a "revisionist western" -- there isn't anything western about it.

It was an analogy. Circa the 40s the western had become so ubiquitous that it needed some adjustments and revisions to stay fresh, which is why I think around then is where the revisionist westerns started popping up, elevating female characters above simply objects of romance and daring to bring down the machismo on display.


Ditto for the feminist bit. I have to ask you to spell that out more clearly. (Usually, when people say "such and such is feminist," they're calling attention to gender, almost saying "and she can fight just like a man!". Which strikes me as the polar opposite of feminism.)

Quite the contrary, actually. The film is self-aware about that particular feminist film trapping. She loses none of her feminine wiles while playing hero. She's not just a pretty face, nor is she a surrogate male. Like I spoke of before, MacGregor says it would be a mistake to think of her as a woman, which cleverly tackles a few different sides of that topic; a) that because she's a female, she's incapable of properly defending herself; b) that thinking of her as a woman will undoubtedly bring a distracting sexual element into play. I also wanna draw attention back to what I said in my initial thoughts post-viewing: "Carano's sexuality is only a tool for her superiors, and when she engages in romance with a man, neither is seduced by the other, but rather both enter into a mutual contract of sexuality in unison."


Let me ask you this -- excepting the cinematic pyrotechnics and the fact that the lead is a woman, what about this movie is fresh, original or interesting? The story is old hat, the characters are utilitarian, the dialogue is uninteresting, and the performances are unnotable.

I've already detailed much of why the film is fresh and interesting. The narrative framework is old hat, yes, but what matters is how Soderbergh moves within and manipulates that framework for his product. Soderbergh's fantastic form is 90% of what makes the film great, so I can't really "except" that since it's so essential. I think Carano's stoicism worked well in the film, and she had charisma. The other actors were just fine in their supporting roles. Acting isn't particularly important to me unless it's incredibly good or bad.

[B-side]

I actually love that the film has essentially zero charisma. These are business people through and through. It's an interesting angle that is both partly the nature of Carano and also the nature of Dobbs' script which is all about efficiency. I think the hiring of known actors for roles that are essentially cogs in a system is to specifically designate them as "important" people and for us to quickly identify with their stature within the narrative. It could probably be called lazy, but I think it is symptomatic of the entire production's view of the film, which is business-like, momentum-driven and leaving little to no time to actually explain things or get caught up in charming dialogue. Call it the anti-Tarantino. It provides a cool, detached view of the people and events which gives way to the clarity and the medium-range view of the action scenes which again, highlight the lack of style or charm in the choreography but instead highlights the physicality and violence (if I recall correctly, the scenes are generally non-scored as well to further reduce excess cinematic trappings and put the action itself as the only kinetic force).

I can't really argue with a lot of the criticism because it is a film that doesn't really create anything "new" or "dynamic" that hasn't been done before. But that's a pretty poor barometer these days (what hasn't been done before?) but rather that Soderbergh, as I alluded to before, finds for me a very unique and intriguing angle with which to view the story and characters and to present the scenario with as little trappings as possible, right down to any real acting or character development. It's the action and the business-like mentality that dominates, and I really enjoyed it.

I also agree with all this.

[Izzy Black]

Good action movies tend to be simple and accessible. Think Die Hard, or Under Siege or the recent Korean flick The Man from Nowhere. There isn't anything unnecessary in any of them, and almost every scene plays to a single idea (bad guys take over office building, bad guys take over a ship, good guy must rescue kidnapped girl). The focus is on the action.

With Haywire, there's an almost constant stream of chatter about "what happened in Barcelona," as if it's big and meaningful. The problem is that the characters must act as if this situation is new and dangerous to them, but for the audience, it's trite and hackneyed. We've seen the "agent gets double crossed by their superiors" bit a dozen times before. (Wasn't that the big hook for Bourne?).

Not to pile on here Irish, and I know you get enough of that, but I just want to add a few things to what BS and Raiders have said. For one, the constant stream of chatter you talk about is really a process of plot marginalization rather than overly sophisticated plot development. As you note, unoriginality is big part of this film. Where this trope of secret agent betrayal is dramatized, romanticized, and exaggerated in a film like the Bounre series, this film does everything it can to take the drama out of the situation, the wit out of the dialogue, the emotion out of the characters, and the style out of the action. Soderbergh is a formalist, and he's at the peak of his formalist experiments in trying to divest the film of all its dramatic import. It's a film that's literally about an empty culture of corrupt professionalism (nod to Michael Mann), or as Raiders notes, a film that's totally about its business. It makes for a very emotionally hollow, sterile, and distant film. A film so clean, deliberate, and tight in its construction that there's hardly room for even a laugh or a smile. Like the way Gina's character makes love, the film eschews felt sentiment altogether. It's easy for me to see how this film might be off-putting to some.


The real cleverness of things like Die Hard and Under Siege was that they hired solid, classically trained actors as counterweights against untested or weak stars.

Though hardly beacons of originality. You simply prefer the technique of these films to Haywire, which the rest of us prefer.


Let me ask you this -- excepting the cinematic pyrotechnics and the fact that the lead is a woman, what about this movie is fresh, original or interesting?

Not a damn thing. I could turn this back around on your [insert favorite action movie] here, especially when you're excepting the few things that action movies actually can contribute to cinematic novelty (namely style).

[B-side]

Not to pile on here Irish, and I know you get enough of that, but I just want to add a few things to what BS and Raiders have said. For one, the constant stream of chatter you talk about is really a process of plot marginalization rather than overly sophisticated plot development. As you note, unoriginality is big part of this film. Where this trope of secret agent betrayal is dramatized, romanticized, and exaggerated in a film like the Bounre series, this film does everything it can to take the drama out of the situation, the wit out of the dialogue, the emotion out of the characters, and the style out of the action. Soderbergh is a formalist, and he's at the peak of his formalist experiments in trying to divest the film of all its dramatic import. It's a film that's literally about an empty culture of corrupt professionalism (nod to Michael Mann), or as Raiders notes, a film that's totally about its business. It makes for a very emotionally hollow, sterile, and distant film. A film so clean, deliberate, and tight in its construction that there's hardly room for even a laugh or a smile. Like the way Gina's character makes love, the film eschews felt sentiment altogether. It's easy for me to see how this film might be off-putting to some.

This is all well said. Its cool veneer masks what you eloquently refer to as "corrupt professionalism". It's not a film of punctuated dramatic revelation, but rather a going through the motions of traditional action narrative, but with all the emphasis placed on form and cinematography as opposed to convoluted twists and turns. The narrative is secondary; a string holding up a breezy, kinetic and propulsive de-dramatized action thriller.

[MadMan]

Despite still loving (and upon a second viewing, upping my rating for) The Avengers, I think of Haywire as being the slightly better action movie. Yes I know its tough to compare the two since they are different, but Haywire has a bit more intelligence, is far more stylish, and has some truly excellent action set pieces.

Oh and I'll stand by this and Hanna being better than the entire Bourne trilogy, not to mention the first three Mission: Impossible movies as well (although I haven't seen the latest installment). However the best action movie I've seen from 2000 on has to be Collateral (or maybe Kill Bill Vol. 2). If we're including action/comedy spoofs though its probably Hot Fuzz, incidentally enough. I'd include Drive, but I found it to be more of a drama/thriller than an action movie.

[Izzy Black]

Don't much consider Collateral an action movie, though there's some great action scenes in it. Hannah's better than the Bournes, but I really liked the first MI.

[Irish]

I actually love that the film has essentially zero charisma. These are business people through and through. It's an interesting angle that is both partly the nature of Carano and also the nature of Dobbs' script which is all about efficiency. I think the hiring of known actors for roles that are essentially cogs in a system is to specifically designate them as "important" people and for us to quickly identify with their stature within the narrative. It could probably be called lazy, but I think it is symptomatic of the entire production's view of the film, which is business-like, momentum-driven and leaving little to no time to actually explain things or get caught up in charming dialogue. Call it the anti-Tarantino. It provides a cool, detached view of the people and events which gives way to the clarity and the medium-range view of the action scenes which again, highlight the lack of style or charm in the choreography but instead highlights the physicality and violence (if I recall correctly, the scenes are generally non-scored as well to further reduce excess cinematic trappings and put the action itself as the only kinetic force).

This was a great read. It actually makes me appreciate the film a little more (not enough to like it, but still -- I get where you're coming from).


I can't really argue with a lot of the criticism because it is a film that doesn't really create anything "new" or "dynamic" that hasn't been done before. But that's a pretty poor barometer these days (what hasn't been done before?) but rather that Soderbergh, as I alluded to before, finds for me a very unique and intriguing angle with which to view the story and characters and to present the scenario with as little trappings as possible, right down to any real acting or character development. It's the action and the business-like mentality that dominates, and I really enjoyed it.

Well, by original I didn't mean something that's startlingly new to the human race or anything. But I do think the very best movies always seem to be greater than the sum of their parts. This one doesn't have many "parts" and what there is, isn't put together with any sort of fresh or interesting angle.

I suspect I might have liked it more had I seem it on the big screen, where the visual pyrotechnics would have had more an impact.

I'm curious where you, B-side and Iz first viewed this.

[Raiders]

I'm curious where you, B-side and Iz first viewed this.

It was indeed on the big screen. With a surprisingly receptive crowd (I expected the restlessness others here have mentioned).

[Izzy Black]

Saw it in a theater with mixed audience reactions. The first scene had everyone floored though, especially with the sound mixing, pace, and lack of music.

[B-side]

Saw it in theaters. The crowds I see films with aren't vocal, so I can't really gauge their reaction. Maybe vocal crowds are more of a big city thing?

[Izzy Black]

Retirement community? :sad:

[B-side]

Retirement community? :sad:

Were the men leaving the theater every 5 minutes to pee?

[transmogrifier]

I understand the stripped-down aesthetic for this type of gritty, quasi-realistic minimalistic action thing, but why does it have to apply to the story as well? One of the most snore-inducing plots I've had to suffer through in quite a while, I almost literally couldn't have cared less about the characters or what their motivations were - mainly because the film makes it clear from the start that it has no interest in doing anything interesting with them; they are all there to get the main character's whirling fists and legs from place to place.

And what the hell was with that stupid kid in that stupid car as a means to deliver the backstory? Worst structuring device ever?

So many good actors sleepwalking through the most boring innocent-on-the-run story ever. Only the sequence with Fassbinder has any real impact, as the film actually bothers to include some ambiguity for a while, but its soon back to tension-free showdowns with dull characters shouting imperatives at each other.

With this and the equally tepid Contagion, Soderbergh maybe needs that retirement after all.

Shit, he's doing a male stripper movie and a Liberace biopic next. Does he use StumbleUpon to decide his next project? Retire this man.

[Ezee E]

Thank you trans!

[MadMan]

22 people think he should not retire, or at least they liked this movie well enough....

[EyesWideOpen]

Soderbergh is one of the most consistently interesting directors working today. I really hope he doesn't retire.

[Irish]

Retirement would be harsh. I think he's one of the most frustrating directors out here because he's never lived up to his full potential, combining these great cinematics with a truly great story.

[Rowland]

And what the hell was with that stupid kid in that stupid car as a means to deliver the backstory? Worst structuring device ever?:lol: So true. I meant to say something about this, never did. That chase in his car that ends with the CGI deer was the pits as well.

[Pop Trash]

Israfel > Trans ...but everyone already knew that already.

[Rowland]

Choice dialogue.


"I just got this car a week ago!"

"Yeah, well..."


"Whoops, more LEOs."

"What's LEO"?

"Law Enforcement Officers."

[Pop Trash]

Lem Dobbs wrote The Hard Way. Interesting.

[Pop Trash]

Choice dialogue.

It is choice! It made me chuckle. :lol:

[Izzy Black]

I understand the stripped-down aesthetic for this type of gritty, quasi-realistic minimalistic action thing, but why does it have to apply to the story as well?

It doesn't have to. It just does, in this case.


because the film makes it clear from the start that it has no interest in doing anything interesting with them; they are all there to get the main character's whirling fists and legs from place to place.

That's right.

Soderbergh has stated that he wouldn't have made this movie if Gina had declined the role. Clearly this wasn't a movie conceived of for its plot and story first, its actors later. The plot and story were literally after the fact, and they're little more than afterthoughts in the film. It's all intentionally general, familiar, and basic.


And what the hell was with that stupid kid in that stupid car as a means to deliver the backstory? Worst structuring device ever?

It was just a way for Soderbergh to start the film in media res, which I think he really wanted to do. This allowed him to jump around a bit with the story through jump cuts and disregard linearity.


So many good actors sleepwalking through the most boring innocent-on-the-run story ever.

Raiders addressed this point fine. There's notable irony in the underuse of the star talent and a greater use of the non-professional actor. But honestly for Soderbergh I think the situation was far more practical. He cast McGreggor, Tatum, and Fassbender because they've all done action and could handle the physicality of going against Carano. Indeed, Soderbergh was trying to find big names that could carry their weight next to Carano, not the other way around.


With this and the equally tepid Contagion, Soderbergh maybe needs that retirement after all.

That you level this film with Contagion I think exposes a bias against the style and aesthetic in general. The things you dislike about Soderbergh others like. It's not clear you've stated weaknesses we should respect. Soderbergh has said this film's aesthetic is like an "anti-Bond" film that's also the complete opposite of the Bourne series. It flips just about everything you'd expect from those movies. If you're looking for an exciting story, suave characters, sexy female arm candy, big explosions, and frantic action, you're in the wrong place. Take your stub to the usher and get your money back. You've been duped. Soderbergh's films often have this effect though. Releasing experiments like this like it's a Hollywood blockbuster is very deceptive. I don't necessarily blame the audience for not liking it.


Shit, he's doing a male stripper movie and a Liberace biopic next. Does he use StumbleUpon to decide his next project? Retire this man.

Kind of. His career trajectory is almost like a stream-of-consciousness. He's a very in the moment type of filmmaker, not the deliberate conventional auteur who spends decades mulling over an idea (I like whenever Soderbergh is pressed on recurring themes/trends/politics in his films he always resorts to "It's by chance"). It's what enables his polystylism, his ability to work in every possible genre and explore the formal possibilities within each of them. His movie with Tatum, though, is similar to The Girlfriend Experience and Haywire. The plots for each of them are all construed out of the private lives of their leads. Soderbergh's very interested in this kind of transparent filmmaking and the very notion of transparency itself (since circa Sex, Lies, and Videotape, on through Traffic, Full Frontal, The Informant! and so on), melting the ice between the actor and audience and blurring the distinction between the personal and the professional (he had planned to cast Art Howe as himself when he was still attached to direct Moneyball).

[transmogrifier]

Trouble is, almost all of your defence rests on "Yes, but it is intentional", which doesn't make it automatically valuable or good, unfortunately. In fact, it makes me hate the film even more, for being willfully dull, rather than accidentally so. Indeed, you seem to think we should be praising him for making deliberately underpowered genre pictures, just because he likes to meld reality with preconceived genre expectations. Well, how bout you meld those two and make a decent self-contained movie. Then I'll be in.

The tone with the kid in the car is all off, and adds nothing to the story. Why not just go The Limey route (an infinitely better movie) and just let it be? And sorry, I can't get on board the he-wastes-star-actors-because-hes-making-a-point, mainly because, functionally, it appears no different to he-wastes-star-actors-because-he-doesn't-know-what-the-hell-the-story-is-or-what-to-do-with-them. I sit there bored either way.

[Izzy Black]

I'm not trying to persuade you into liking the movie. I understand why you didn't like it, and as I've said, Soderbergh is kind of a catch-22 filmmaker. His Hollywood resources allow him to make bigger budget experiments, giving him the opportunity to cast A-list talent and do interesting things visually, but he really doesn't consistently make films that should be marketed to mainstream audiences. He's a niche filmmaker in a mass market, somehow breaking even and staying afloat. You want a "decent self-contained movie," whatever that is, and I want an interesting anti-genre formal exercise with immaculate Carano setpieces. I got what I wanted, you didn't, but we're wine tasting. We share different values and brought different expectations to the film.

I also think the point about the casting was more of a practical decision. He didn't cast A-list talent because he needed heavy hitters to masterfully deliver his Shakespearean dialogue from his emotionally charged script. He knows his script is plain. That's why he avoids telling a straightforward story. I really think the talent was cast, in part for their name, but primarily because of their background in action filmmaking. It wasn't about line deliver, but whether they could realistically trade blows with Carano, whether they could take the hits, give hits, and do the stunt work convincingly.

For the scenes in the car, again, it allows Soderbergh to work in flashback, to jump around the narrative. I don't share or sense your problems with the tone.

[Izzy Black]

I want to say something else and try to be more charitable here. I don't mind criticism of the plot and story in itself. Although I think Soderbergh wanted to deemphasize it and undermine it, I don't necessarily think he wanted it to be outright bad (obviously). But my take is against approaching the film with a high expectation of a good story. In fact, rarely do I go to action films for the story, and much less so a Soderbergh one. Even if the story is lamer than it should be, or could be, I just don't hold it as a major mark against the film's quality. It has overwhelming merits elsewhere, far redeeming of its misgivings in plot or character.

[transmogrifier]

I want to say something else and try to be more charitable here. I don't mind criticism of the plot and story in itself. Although I think Soderbergh wanted to deemphasize it and undermine it, I don't necessarily think he wanted it to be outright bad (obviously). But my take is against approaching the film with a high expectation of a good story. In fact, rarely do I go to action films for the story, and much less so a Soderbergh one. Even if the story is lamer than it should be, or could be, I just don't hold it as a major mark against the film's quality. It has overwhelming merits elsewhere, far redeeming of its misgivings in plot or character.

Disagree entirely. I mean if the action scenes had proven to be balls-out amazing (they're not), or if the themes and artistic resonance had proven illuminating (they didn't), then of course I would rate the film higher. But it still wouldn't be a top-tier film because for me, the best action films still have an interesting frame to hang their goods on. This one didn't, it was by far the worst aspect of it, and deserves to be held against it. It's not a zero-sum game we are playing here, where there is an inherent trade off between how good my make shit go bang and and how well you can actually get people interested in the plot and character.

Sure, Soderbergh might have ditched the story and plot, but for what purpose? Certainly, there is minimal artistic interest in the ploy at the basic level, at least in the context of this movie.

[Izzy Black]

Disagree entirely. I mean if the action scenes had proven to be balls-out amazing (they're not), or if the themes and artistic resonance had proven illuminating (they didn't), then of course I would rate the film higher. But it still wouldn't be a top-tier film because for me, the best action films still have an interesting frame to hang their goods on. This one didn't, it was by far the worst aspect of it, and deserves to be held against it.

The action scenes aren't balls-out amazing, but they're pretty damned impressive. The artistic integrity of the film, as Raiders, Brightside, and I have all argued, is well worth the price of admission alone. It makes a very interesting, even if not groundbreaking, contribution to the medium.




Sure, Soderbergh might have ditched the story and plot, but for what purpose? Certainly, there is minimal artistic interest in the ploy at the basic level, at least in the context of this movie.

We've stated the purpose numerous times up thread. You call it "minimal artistic interest," I call it the very meat and potatoes of Soderbergh's aesthetic, approach, and style, the very stuff I want to spend my time and money on. What more do you want?

[B-side]

It's not worth it, Izzy. The guy thinks more of Bridesmaids than Last Year at Marienbad.:crazy:

I'm teasing.

[Boner M]

I didn't like the film overall, but I liked the structuring device. I found it wryly funny - and of a piece with the no-biggie vibe of the film - to have the inconsequential plot related in flashback to some dweeb randomly selected from an upstate NY diner.

Ultimately though, that self-conscious lackadaisicalness became wearying, and it pales in comparison to this year's other SS offering. Awesome opening scene, though.

[Qrazy]

This movie completely sucked. I felt like I was watching Soderbergh try to do Melville or Bresson and failing miserably. The lead can't carry a film to save her life and beyond that none of the drama from the quality cast works in the slightest. Did they ADR every god damn scene? Couple the poor drama with terrible dialogue and we're rolling! So basically if you don't give a shit about dialogue, drama or story and just want to watch sickly slick camera movements capturing hard hitting but largely arbitrary fight sequences then this film is for you.

[Qrazy]

The lighting in particular is spectacular.

No, it isn't.


The lack of any accompanying music during the fight scenes was a genius move.

Well, not genius, but yes, a good move.

[Qrazy]

Not to pile on here Irish, and I know you get enough of that, but I just want to add a few things to what BS and Raiders have said. For one, the constant stream of chatter you talk about is really a process of plot marginalization rather than overly sophisticated plot development. As you note, unoriginality is big part of this film. Where this trope of secret agent betrayal is dramatized, romanticized, and exaggerated in a film like the Bounre series, this film does everything it can to take the drama out of the situation, the wit out of the dialogue, the emotion out of the characters, and the style out of the action. Soderbergh is a formalist, and he's at the peak of his formalist experiments in trying to divest the film of all its dramatic import. It's a film that's literally about an empty culture of corrupt professionalism (nod to Michael Mann), or as Raiders notes, a film that's totally about its business. It makes for a very emotionally hollow, sterile, and distant film. A film so clean, deliberate, and tight in its construction that there's hardly room for even a laugh or a smile. Like the way Gina's character makes love, the film eschews felt sentiment altogether. It's easy for me to see how this film might be off-putting to some.


You can make a film about corrupt professionalism without making it dramatically inert. You can also tell a minimalist crime narrative (Le Samourai, Pickpocket, Le Trou) without making it into a tedious piece of crap. The film also ends with a laugh and a wink, so there goes the no smile theory.

[Qrazy]

Soderbergh has said this film's aesthetic is like an "anti-Bond" film that's also the complete opposite of the Bourne series. It flips just about everything you'd expect from those movies. If you're looking for an exciting story, suave characters, sexy female arm candy, big explosions, and frantic action, you're in the wrong place. Take your stub to the usher and get your money back. You've been duped. Soderbergh's films often have this effect though. Releasing experiments like this like it's a Hollywood blockbuster is very deceptive. I don't necessarily blame the audience for not liking it.

That all sounds wonderful, but this film doesn't really do that. It does have the sexy sideline (female arm candy near the end) and a big cop shoot out. Frankly I'd love a stripped down gritty crime drama, but what we have here is not that. You're right that this doesn't have an exciting story, but where something like Tinker Tailor succeeds at exploring the factual minutiae of the spy mission and the double cross, this film isn't actually interested in exploring the nature of their profession. What is actually does is skip from set piece to set piece. The set pieces are adequate but a bit of MMA and some parkour isn't enough for me personally.

[Qrazy]

I want to say something else and try to be more charitable here. I don't mind criticism of the plot and story in itself. Although I think Soderbergh wanted to deemphasize it and undermine it, I don't necessarily think he wanted it to be outright bad (obviously). But my take is against approaching the film with a high expectation of a good story. In fact, rarely do I go to action films for the story, and much less so a Soderbergh one. Even if the story is lamer than it should be, or could be, I just don't hold it as a major mark against the film's quality. It has overwhelming merits elsewhere, far redeeming of its misgivings in plot or character.

Which is reasonable, but with say a Jackie Chan or Stephen Chow movie at least you get humor and fantastic, inventive choreography in return and in large doses. Here you get a few quick fight sequences which are hard hitting but ultimately not all that memorable and then two or three fairly average, standard chase sequences.

[Irish]

Goddamit, Qrazy! Where were you, like, a year ago?! :lol:

[Raiders]

Goddamit, Qrazy! Where were you, like, a year ago?! :lol:

Busy being wrong about other films.

:P

[Qrazy]

Goddamit, Qrazy! Where were you, like, a year ago?! :lol:

I didn't really have any reason to think this was any good, but I watched it last night on a whim and my initial suspicions were confirmed.

[max314]

I have a real soft spot for this movie.

Sure, the plot is about as original as a ham sandwich, but Soderbergh's joyous melding of fist pumping exploitation and realistic aesthetic is too good to not be won over by it.

[Qrazy]

I have a real soft spot for this movie.

Sure, the plot is about as original as a ham sandwich, but Soderbergh's joyous melding of fist pumping exploitation and realistic aesthetic is too good to not be won over by it.

The aesthetic isn't especially realistic imo.

[Pop Trash]

The aesthetic isn't especially realistic imo.

I think he means not cutting the fight scenes to sushi.

[Izzy Black]

You can make a film about corrupt professionalism without making it dramatically inert. You can also tell a minimalist crime narrative (Le Samourai, Pickpocket, Le Trou) without making it into a tedious piece of crap. The film also ends with a laugh and a wink, so there goes the no smile theory.

You're right. You can make a film like that's not dramatically inert, but it wouldn't be the same film, and it's not clear to me that it would be obviously better for it. The point of the movie, on my reading, is to be dramatically inert, at some level. I would lose something of value to get something else (it wouldn't function the same way as an anti-genre film). As for the humor, there's some irony and self-reference there as with any Soderbergh film, but the kind of comedic banter we'd expect from this kind of genre is really kept to a minimum.

[Izzy Black]

That all sounds wonderful, but this film doesn't really do that. It does have the sexy sideline (female arm candy near the end) and a big cop shoot out.

I think so. The female arm candy is the trope we'd expect to see in a Bond-esque film where the protagonist is not only a super spy, but a handsome ladies man and suave playboy. Here, with the role reversal, Carano's character is the super spy, and prior to the film's central set-piece in the one very stylized scene where she's objectified as arm candy, there's a playful awareness about the implied roles, and it's immediately subverted by her aggressive force as her male counterpart is literally outmatched by her dominant presence and brute physicality. Conversely, unlike a James Bond, her sexual relations are purely perfunctory, calculated, and unsexy, exposing the vapid nature of these encounters when not dressed up by the smoke screens of clever dialogue and romantic, lush imagery. That's the way sex is depicted in this film. There's nothing classy about it. And there's nothing classy about it because, in truth, there's nothing classy about sex in a Bond film.


with Frankly I'd love a stripped down gritty crime drama, but what we have here is not that. You're right that this doesn't have an exciting story, but where something like Tinker Tailor succeeds at exploring the factual minutiae of the spy mission and the double cross, this film isn't actually interested in exploring the nature of their profession. What is actually does is skip from set piece to set piece. The set pieces are adequate but a bit of MMA and some parkour isn't enough for me personally.

I don't think the film is about exploring the nature of the profession, but I can certainly accept that this film isn't your cup o' tea. Very few people liked it, so you're in good company.

[Qrazy]

You're right. You can make a film like that's not dramatically inert, but it wouldn't be the same film, and it's not clear to me that it would be obviously better for it. The point of the movie, on my reading, is to be dramatically inert, at some level. I would lose something of value to get something else (it wouldn't function the same way as an anti-genre film). As for the humor, there's some irony and self-reference there as with any Soderbergh film, but the kind of comedic banter we'd expect from this kind of genre is really kept to a minimum.

The only reason the film is dramatically inert is because Carano can't act and so instead of finding someone that could Soderbergh decided he would be better off bringing down everyone else's performance to her level.

There's a difference between purposefully dramatically inert (Bresson) and ineffectually dramatically inert (this film).

[Qrazy]

I think so. The female arm candy is the trope we'd expect to see in a Bond-esque film where the protagonist is not only a super spy, but a handsome ladies man and suave playboy. Here, with the role reversal, Carano's character is the super spy, and prior to the film's central set-piece in the one very stylized scene where she's objectified as arm candy, there's a playful awareness about the implied roles, and it's immediately subverted by her aggressive force as her male counterpart is literally outmatched by her dominant presence and brute physicality. Conversely, unlike a James Bond, her sexual relations are purely perfunctory, calculated, and unsexy, exposing the vapid nature of these encounters when not dressed up by the smoke screens of clever dialogue and romantic, lush imagery. That's the way sex is depicted in this film. There's nothing classy about it. And there's nothing classy about it because, in truth, there's nothing classy about sex in a Bond film.



Nah, there are plenty of sexy money shots of Carano and other females and males in this film. Just as there are also plenty of slick action money shots. Soderbergh is not making The Killing of a Chinese Bookie here, a film which genuinely explores the seedy underbelly of sexuality in a crime film.

[Izzy Black]

The only reason the film is dramatically inert is because Carano can't act and so instead of finding someone that could Soderbergh decided he would be better off bringing down everyone else's performance to her level.

I don't think so.


There's a difference between purposefully dramatically inert (Bresson) and ineffectually dramatically inert (this film).

I also don't think Bresson is dramatically inert.

[Izzy Black]

Nah, there are plenty of sexy money shots of Carano and other females and males in this film. Just as there are also plenty of slick action money shots. Soderbergh is not making The Killing of a Chinese Bookie here, a film which genuinely explores the seedy underbelly of sexuality in a crime film.

I'm not sure what you mean by "sexy money shots," but a lot of the sexuality in this film is contextualized in the way I've tried to frame it, as self-aware and subversive (perhaps not all?). I also don't think this film is in any way trying to explore the "seedy underbelly" of sex in the genre, but rather to divest it of its glamor and allure, and to make gestures about gender roles. That isn't to make it dark or seedy, per se. It's just frank and sterile. When Carano and Tatum's characters hook up, there's no foreplay, there's no sexy banter, there's no flirting or romantic devices. It isn't shot with lush framing and elegant music. It's straightforward and calculated, cold and dispassionate, but with a touch of aggression. It fits with the film's overall formalism. This is very different from how a Bond sex scene would go.

[B-side]

I believe I spoke of Tatum and Carano's sexual encounter in my initial writing on the film, but it bears repeating that that single encounter sets the stage for the entire film. Soderbergh's approach to that one scene is so close to the most respectfully consensual and mutually inclusive act of sexuality I've ever seen on film. Nobody seduces the other. The man doesn't take control. The woman isn't a temptress or a whore. It's stages with a nearly sterile sense of naturalism, but so sublimely so it almost feels oneiric.

[Qrazy]

I believe I spoke of Tatum and Carano's sexual encounter in my initial writing on the film, but it bears repeating that that single encounter sets the stage for the entire film. Soderbergh's approach to that one scene is so close to the most respectfully consensual and mutually inclusive act of sexuality I've ever seen on film. Nobody seduces the other. The man doesn't take control. The woman isn't a temptress or a whore. It's stages with a nearly sterile sense of naturalism, but so sublimely so it almost feels oneiric.

Either you're prone to hyperbole or you need to see more films. I know you've seen plenty of films so it must be the former.

[Qrazy]

I'm not sure what you mean by "sexy money shots," but a lot of the sexuality in this film is contextualized in the way I've tried to frame it, as self-aware and subversive (perhaps not all?). I also don't think this film is in any way trying to explore the "seedy underbelly" of sex in the genre, but rather to divest it of its glamor and allure, and to make gestures about gender roles. That isn't to make it dark or seedy, per se. It's just frank and sterile. When Carano and Tatum's characters hook up, there's no foreplay, there's no sexy banter, there's no flirting or romantic devices. It isn't shot with lush framing and elegant music. It's straightforward and calculated, cold and dispassionate, but with a touch of aggression. It fits with the film's overall formalism. This is very different from how a Bond sex scene would go.

There's some flirtation between their characters prior to the scene where they hook up. I also don't think their hook-up is calculated, cold and dispassionate in the slightest and I think it's made pretty clear especially by the end of the film that she cares about the guy when she has to watch him die.

[B-side]

How about neither?

[Qrazy]

How about neither?

Okay, out of all the romance and drama films ever made in the history of the cinema the film Haywire has for you the most 'respectfully consensual and mutually inclusive act of sexuality' ever. Noted.

[Izzy Black]

There's some flirtation between their characters prior to the scene where they hook up. I also don't think their hook-up is calculated, cold and dispassionate in the slightest and I think it's made pretty clear especially by the end of the film that she cares about the guy when she has to watch him die.

The interaction mostly consists of mundane talk about the mission and their careers. There's perhaps just enough flirtation to establish an attraction there, but this is hardly a quintessential case of romantic seduction. Perhaps it's not as cold and dispassionate as I've suggested, but it all still seems very understated and abrupt, downplaying the role of traditional male seduction and avoiding displays of over the top passion. It wasn't my intention to suggest that she didn't care about the guy, though.

[B-side]

Okay, out of all the romance and drama films ever made in the history of the cinema the film Haywire has for you the most 'respectfully consensual and mutually inclusive act of sexuality' ever. Noted.

I added the qualifier "so close" because don't like making those kinds of definitive statements, but Izzy seems to get the general idea of what I'm talking about.

[Qrazy]

The interaction mostly consists of mundane talk about the mission and their careers. There's perhaps just enough flirtation to establish an attraction there, but this is hardly a quintessential case of romantic seduction. Perhaps it's not as cold and dispassionate as I've suggested, but it all still seems very understated and abrupt, downplaying the role of traditional male seduction and avoiding displays of over the top passion. It wasn't my intention to suggest that she didn't care about the guy, though.

This isn't exactly the first female spy film that empowers a woman by making her the protagonist and thereby downplays traditional male seduction.

[B-side]

If that were all that was done to subvert the role, then you might have a point, but Izzy and I have both pointed out specific aspects that add to that role-reversal.

[Qrazy]

If that were all that was done to subvert the role, then you might have a point, but Izzy and I have both pointed out specific aspects that add to that role-reversal.

Similar to the way in which I have pointed out specific aspects which make this film bad.

[transmogrifier]

You're right. You can make a film like that's not dramatically inert, but it wouldn't be the same film, and it's not clear to me that it would be obviously better for it. The point of the movie, on my reading, is to be dramatically inert, at some level. I would lose something of value to get something else (it wouldn't function the same way as an anti-genre film). As for the humor, there's some irony and self-reference there as with any Soderbergh film, but the kind of comedic banter we'd expect from this kind of genre is really kept to a minimum.

Why would making an "anti-genre" film necessitate that it be dramatically inert? Drama is the sole preserve of genre? Please explain.

Anyway, the completely jokey ending that is part and parcel of typical genre fare works against your argument, such as it is.

[Izzy Black]

This isn't exactly the first female spy film that empowers a woman by making her the protagonist and thereby downplays traditional male seduction.

My point wasn't merely about her being the protagonist, but in any case, I wasn't arguing for unqualified originality either, even if I was making pointed contrasts.

[Izzy Black]

Why would making an "anti-genre" film necessitate that it be dramatically inert? Drama is the sole preserve of genre? Please explain.

I wouldn't say it's necessitated, but I would say (and did say) that it wouldn't function in the same way. My only point is that the aim of this film is to target a particular brand of genre, style, or aesthetic, and to subvert it. This involves the kind of genre that (typically) involves hyped up dramatic elements or situations. This goes to Soderbergh's stated intentions to position the film as an anti-Bond film (but also perhaps just as well as an anti-Bourne film). It didn't work for you. I get it. But it worked for me.


Anyway, the completely jokey ending that is part and parcel of typical genre fare works against your argument, such as it is.

I don't think so, and I've already addressed this. I don't know I'd call it a "jokey" ending, but in any case, I've already said that irony and self-reference is a key element in this film. My point about the lack of humor had less to do with tone and more to do with the drama. That's a significant distinction. I don't think the film takes itself too seriously, however, even if the dramatics are pretty dry. (In fact, part of how I think it is successful is distinguishing itself from certain spy movies - not all of them - that do take themselves too seriously by playing up the melodrama.)

[Qrazy]

It didn't work for you. I get it. But it worked for me.

You keep saying this, but I'm not sure why this should keep us from voicing our criticisms of a film which did not work for us while you and others are particularly outspoken in regards to Nolan and other such films which do not work for you.

[Qrazy]

My point wasn't merely about her being the protagonist, but in any case, I wasn't arguing for unqualified originality either, even if I was making pointed contrasts.

I'm sort of curious how The Long Kiss Goodnight holds up. I remember finding it quite mediocre as a young teen, I'm guessing it would be even worse now.

[Izzy Black]

You keep saying this, but I'm not sure why this should keep us from voicing our criticisms of a film which did not work for us while you and others are particularly outspoken in regards to Nolan and other such films which do not work for you.

I don't mind people voicing criticisms at all. In fact, it's what I love most about this board. I just think sometimes people do not immediately appreciate the point that I might like something for the very same reason that they're lodging a criticism at it. If that's a misread, though, then my mistake.

[Izzy Black]

I'm sort of curious how The Long Kiss Goodnight holds up. I remember finding it quite mediocre as a young teen, I'm guessing it would be even worse now.

Likewise. I think 1996 was the last and only time I saw that movie.

[Skitch]

LKG has some amusing moments and the plot became kind of uncomfortable for me after 9/11. As a film I would rate it mostly harmless.

[Milky Joe]

In terms of mediocre-to-bad 1996 action films I haven't seen since they came out, Chain Reaction > Long Kiss Goodnight.