‘Haywire’ Review: Hollywood’s Newest Action Starlet Doesn’t Need Acting Chops, Stunt Doubles
by Kurt LoderFew filmmakers have been more alert to the possibilities of working with non-professional actors than Steven Soderbergh. His 2005 “Bubble” was an exercise in trailer-park vérité, and the 2009 “Girlfriend Experience” provided a crossover showcase for porn star Sasha Grey.
Now Soderbergh has constructed a high-profile action picture around Mixed Martial Arts icon Gina Carano, a woman alarmingly skilled in the ways of head-kicking, gut-punching, throat-wringing and related modes of cage-match devastation. Unlike Angelina Jolie, Halle Berry, and other movie-land action chicks of the past, Carano demonstrates beyond doubt that if called upon, she actually could put you in the hospital.
“Haywire” is an old-school spy-versus-spy espionage tale. It would be nice if the story (scripted by Lem Dobbs, who previously wrote Soderbergh’s Kafka and The Limey) made a little more sense; at some points you might wish it made any sense at all. Carano plays Mallory Kane, a black-ops specialist in the employ of an international security firm run by her shifty onetime boyfriend Kenneth (Ewan McGregor).
When a shadowy figure named Coblenz (Michael Douglas) commissions Mallory’s services in extracting a Chinese journalist from bad-guy captivity in Barcelona, Kenneth dispatches her there with a team that includes the prickly hunk Aaron (Channing Tatum); she’s also told to coordinate with an ambiguous local character named Rodrigo (Antonio Banderas). The operation is a suitably tense undertaking, crowned by a back-alley smackdown in which Mallory, in an explosion of leg-sweeps and gob-smashes, reduces an oppo gunman to twitching insensibility. This is pretty great to watch, let me tell you.
Read the rest of the review at Reason.com
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
12 Comments
I really can't wait to see this!
I might actually see this one in the theater.
Knock me out, baby!
Why is the U.S.A. always the bad guy? This crap won't see my money.
She can kick ALL those liberal Follyweirdos asses, and shes pretty easy on the eyes, too!
Reading Loder and then the other contributors to BH (and other blogs, newspapers et al) reminds me of how Paul Newman responded when asked if he cheated—something along the lines of "why go out for hamburger if you have steak at home?" Loder is a pro, who I always enjoy reading even if I don't agree with the opinion….it doesn't hurt my sensibilities to read him….wish I could say the same about the others.
I'm definitely seeing this. Gina Carano is pure awesomeness….
I understand the point of the piece. However, it's hard for me to celebrate the use of non-professionals in place of any professional who has trained, worked, waited for the audition, the part, the book or record deal. There is a commercial where a doctor sits down with a string quartet and attempts to play; and plays badly, to the irritation of a real musician. The point is, if you don't want a doctor doing your job, don't try to do the doctor's job.
I understand the issues that a lot of viewers have with the content of films and TV; i.e., it is agenda-driven and disconnected from the audience, and we all get a little tired of twittering know-it-all celebrities. But is the answer to elevate non-professionals to film stars (or authors, or musicians?) Do we acknowledge that there is such a thing as creative talent, or do we really think that anybody can act – or paint, or write, or sing, for that matter?
Not a big fan of Stephen Soderbergh (His "Che" movies turned me off of most of his films), but being a massive fan of Gina Carano, as an athlete and a person (From her interviews she is surprisingly sweet and down to Earth for being a celeb) I'll be willing to support this film.
Gina Carano is awesome
In other areas do we favor the education professional who has trained, worked, and waited, or do we favor the chemist, or the physicist, or the artist, or the content professional.
Do we favor the journalism professional who has trained, worked, and waited, or do we favor the economist, business PhD, or scientist?
I suppose those are trick questions… we DO favor the "professionals" in education and journalism over the people who actually know what they're talking about. It's a mistake.
Perhaps the professional who has trained, worked, and waited is the martial artist. Someone like Jackie Chan famously (used to) do all of his own stunts… Jet Li also did real, non-movie-magic, martial arts. Wire-fu has it's place but the actual, for-real, martial arts ability of Jackie Chan, Jet Li, Van Damme or Segal, and of course, Chuck Norris, is the POINT of it all.
I don't agree with the "paid their dues" standard in any case, or we'd be favoring time-in-grade instead of ability. Newcomers get in line ahead of those who have put in their time in any field where the ability to deliver counts. New, hot-shot actors. New, hot-shot scientists. New, hot-shot athletes.
I couldnt have said it better myself, Ningrim!
You must be logged in to post a comment.