The Fix Feature Scores
Explore all 45 feature scores for The Fix, organized into pros and cons.
Scores by Feature
Summary
45 reviewed features-
Very positive 4.5-5.02 (4%)
-
Positive 3.5-4.45 (11%)
-
Neutral 2.5-3.48 (18%)
-
Negative 1.5-2.417 (38%)
-
Very negative below 1.513 (29%)
Pros
Sort
-
The action is one of the film’s strongest and most consistent selling points, with the Kabul opening and later set pieces often praised as intense, immersive, urgent, or thrilling. A smaller group finds the gunplay obvious, clipped, or creatively empty.
-
Audience-facing reactions are much warmer than the critical response, with strong scores and enthusiastic comments about the action, twists, pacing, and fun factor. The movie appears to connect best with viewers already inclined toward military conspiracy thrillers.
-
The location work is a major visual asset in the two reviews that address it directly. Both praise the scouting and environments for convincingly evoking the region and giving the film a stronger sense of place.
-
Suspense is a relative strength, especially for audience-positive viewers who praise the tension, uncertainty, and edge-of-the-seat third act. The main reservation is that long stretches between action beats can drain urgency.
-
The supporting cast generally fares better than the screenplay gives them room to show. Quincy Isaiah, Wes Chatham, Jake Choi, and Augusto Aguilera earn positive mentions, though other reviews find the ensemble thinly written or largely nondescript.
-
The photography is divisive but has notable highs, especially the moonlit action, strong framing, and immersive battle imagery. One critic, however, found the daytime image blurry and nighttime scenes hard to see.
-
The practical effects stand out positively whenever they appear, especially in contrast with the weaker CGI. More physical effects would likely have helped the action look more convincing.
Cons
Sort
-
The screenplay is the film’s most consistent structural problem, criticized as incompetent, bland, convoluted, overcomplicated, exposition-heavy, and in need of major tightening. Even mixed-positive reactions tend to separate the action craft from the writing problems.
-
The 141–142 minute length is the clearest consensus complaint. Most critics say the film is badly overlong or could lose substantial time, although a few enthusiastic viewers say the action and twists make the two-plus hours pass quickly.
-
The violence is intense, graphic, and often deliberately brutal, but many critics think the film pushes it too far. Reactions include jarring, exploitative, fetishistic, or shock-for-shock’s-sake, even when the action itself is praised.
-
Dialogue is a near-consensus weakness, repeatedly called clichéd, cringe-inducing, on-the-nose, basic, stiff, or clunky. Even critics who find some natural team banter say the plot-driven exchanges quickly become awkward.
-
The marketing repeatedly creates the impression of a Liam Neeson action vehicle, while his actual role is small and largely supporting. Several reviewers specifically call the poster, billing, or advertising misleading.
-
The Tucker-Zara romance is almost uniformly disliked. Critics call it awkward, predictable, tacked-on, and out of place, with some arguing that it creates bad decisions instead of meaningful chemistry.
-
Tone is a recurring problem, with critics saying the film cannot reconcile bleak war drama, macho action, heist playfulness, romance, and political seriousness. The result is often described as confused, monotonous, or full of whiplash.
-
The film’s treatment of Iran, Middle Eastern characters, and women is one of its most serious critical liabilities. Multiple critics call the portrayal xenophobic, exploitative, misogynistic, one-note, or lacking the nuance the subject deserves.
-
The central story is widely criticized as bloated, confusing, derivative, or overloaded with twists, although a smaller group finds it layered, involving, or easy to follow. The premise attracts interest more consistently than the execution.
-
CG explosions and digital effects are a recurring weak spot, often described as cheap, distracting, or unrealistic. Even more positive reactions tend to praise the action despite the CGI rather than because of it.
-
Most reactions to the ending are negative, describing it as overstuffed, sloppily neat, jumbled, preposterous, or unsatisfying. A few viewers do find the conclusion satisfying and enjoy the final twists.
-
The political and moral messaging is sharply divisive. Some praise the film for confronting sanctioned violence, veterans’ abandonment, and foreign-policy failures, while others call the same material gross, blunt, confused, trivializing, or ideologically off-putting.
-
Critical reception is exceptionally poor, with aggregation coverage placing the movie near the bottom of Liam Neeson’s career and describing the early response as overwhelmingly negative. Length, writing, and casting recur among the complaints.
-
Character work is a major weakness for many critics, who describe Tucker as thin, stereotypical, or short on growth and the supporting roles as underwritten. A few positives come from the team dynamic and the agency given to Zara.
-
The plot is usually described as convoluted, head-spinning, or unnecessarily confusing, especially as deals, betrayals, and late twists pile up. A minority view says the story connects its dots clearly and remains easy to follow.
-
Pacing is one of the most repeated complaints, with long setup, draggy stretches, and bloated construction cited again and again. A few positive viewers see steady momentum, a fast pace, or tension strong enough to make the long runtime pass quickly.
-
The sexualized framing of women is criticized rather than enjoyed. The two direct assessments see it as chauvinistic or exploitative and harmful to the film’s treatment of its female characters.
-
Zachary Levi is the film’s biggest performance divide: supporters call him phenomenal, believable, gritty, and surprisingly effective, while detractors find him miscast, inert, empty, or lacking charisma. Whether Tucker works may largely determine whether the movie works for you.
-
Enjoyment is highly polarized. Some viewers are gripped, entertained, or strongly recommend it, while many critics describe the same film as boring, tedious, or nearly devoid of entertainment value.
-
Most comments on originality are negative, pointing to familiar action-heist beats and derivative storytelling. The strongest counterpoint is the unusual Iran-set heist premise, which one reviewer finds genuinely fresh.
-
Sound draws negative reactions in the limited comments available: one critic calls the ADR awful, while another found the gunfire and explosions intense enough to cover their ears. The mix adds force, but not always pleasantly.
-
Chemistry is inconsistent: Tucker and Zara are criticized as awkward or lacking a spark, while the Tucker-Larry relationship gets more favorable notice for its solid rapport. The buddy-team relationships also fail to land for at least one critic.
-
Guy Moshe’s direction works best during combat, where several critics praise the intensity, control, and battlefield chaos. Outside the action, reactions turn much harsher, citing inert pacing, pedestrian filmmaking, and an overstuffed overall approach.
-
The conspiracy ties a major secret to a real historical figure without enough grounding in known history. That choice makes the premise feel especially shaky for historically minded viewers.
-
The intended seriousness sometimes tips into unintentional comedy, particularly in Liam Neeson’s dramatic material. The humor lands more as accidental camp than as a deliberate strength.
-
Liam Neeson’s hair dye is singled out as conspicuously bad and distracting. No other makeup element emerges as a meaningful strength or weakness.
-
The movie is described as poor value at theater prices and only barely worth a digital chance. The effects, twists, and emotional payoff do not feel substantial enough to justify the cost.
-
Visual effects are sharply split: one audience reaction calls them impressive, while critics describe other effects as cheap, ineffective, or too streaming-grade for the big screen. The digital work is less reliable than the physical action.
-
The dramatic material struggles to convince, especially when the film asks its lead to sell heavier emotional beats. Those scenes tend to feel strained rather than genuinely affecting.
-
The music choices are criticized as distracting and are grouped with other odd stylistic decisions. The soundtrack does not emerge as a meaningful strength.
-
Editing ranges from a real strength to a serious weakness. The Kabul opening and a crosscut heist-rescue sequence earn strong praise, while other reviews call the later cutting strange, jarring, or outright chaotic.
-
The ensemble draws sharply divided reactions: some viewers call the cast great or engaging, while several critics find the performances flat, standard, or outright subpar. The split is especially visible around the two leads.
-
As a military-heist political thriller, the film works for viewers who enjoy bloody conspiracies, shifting loyalties, and action-heavy plotting. Critics who want a tighter, more disciplined action movie often find it derivative, bloated, or less satisfying than genre peers.
-
The emotional payoff is uneven: some reviewers respond to the family thread and final-act beats, while others say feelings become an afterthought, ring hollow, or feel manufactured. The movie reaches for weight more often than it consistently earns it.
-
The twists produce a real split: several critics find them obvious, predictable, or punchless, while enthusiastic viewers praise the double-crosses and late reveals for keeping the movie unpredictable. The plot is more surprising to fans than to detractors.
-
The movie has real thematic ambition around war, loyalty, moral compromise, veterans, and sanctioned violence. Some reviewers find those ideas worthwhile and even thought-provoking, while others say the film leaves them muddled, thin, or hollow.
-
The look of the film is another major split: some praise its lighting, framing, locations, and artistic compositions, while others call it blurry, stereotypically yellow, or visually unattractive. Its strongest images tend to come during action or location work.
-
Realism depends heavily on what is being judged: some viewers praise the action, locations, and military texture as convincing, while others balk at implausible decisions, naïve operators, and plot turns that demand too much suspension of disbelief.
Cast & Creators
-
ClayIsaiah is one of the more consistently praised supporting performers, described as believable, worth watching, and impressively charismatic.
-
ActorChatham stands out positively, first as part of a believable team and then for the unpredictable, coiled energy he brings to his scenes.
-
CinematographerSmith’s cinematography is singled out as a major strength, especially for using moonlight, headlights, fire, and color to keep the night action visually engaging.
-
BruceAguilera is part of the team that one reviewer finds believably played, and another highlights his scenes with the other operators as some of the movie’s livelier moments.
-
CharlieChoi is praised as part of a believable team and for helping deliver some of the film’s rare crackling operator interactions.
-
ZaraNorouzi draws generally positive notices, ranging from doing what the role requires to being called very good. Her performance fares better than the writing of Zara’s subplot.
-
Executive ProducerBaz’s consulting contribution is credited with lending the military action a welcome layer of authenticity.
-
LarryNeeson’s small role produces mixed reactions, but the strongest notices praise his gravitas, screen presence, layered work, and ability to command attention. Detractors see him as disengaged, going through the motions, or occasionally slipping into unintended comedy.
-
QasimNegahban is seen as doing what he can with a thin villain role, earning a middling but not hostile assessment of his contribution.
-
DirectorMoshe earns his best notices for staging battle chaos, action, atmosphere, and occasional visual flourishes. The broader response is much rougher, with repeated criticism of bloated writing, inert stretches, and an undisciplined overall structure.
-
WriterHutchinson’s co-writing draws criticism for a convoluted screenplay, with one particularly harsh assessment calling the writing stunningly incompetent.
-
TuckerLevi is the movie’s most divisive performer. Admirers call him phenomenal, convincing, gritty, and effective in action, while critics repeatedly describe him as miscast, inert, empty, or unable to carry Tucker’s emotional weight.
-
WriterBacci’s co-written screenplay is largely criticized as confusing, convoluted, and badly in need of tighter construction. The opening worldview gets somewhat more credit than the busy plotting that follows.