If audiences react to Swordfish the way critics have, the recent downward plunge of John Travolta's career will remain unchecked. Stephen Holden in the New York Times dismisses it as "a meticulously choreographed bang-by-the-numbers action fantasy that I would accuse of peddling evil if the film weren't so dumb and incoherent." Jonathan Foreman in the New York Post growls, "There's junk and then there's really repellent lousy junk and Swordfish belongs to the latter category." Stephen Hunter in the Washington Post interrupts himself half-way through his description of the movie's plot, remarking: "Well, why go on? Nobody really cares about the plot, least of all the filmmakers, second least of all you readers, and in the end only the civilized, if ever-smaller, parts of me." Eleanor Ringel Gillespie in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution rips into the movie, lambasting all involved. "Finally, there's Travolta," she writes, "full of the over-the-top, unpredictable swagger that was so effective in films like Face/Off and Get Shorty. This time, he's just going through the motions." And Mike Clark in USA Today concludes that "in terms of being taken seriously, [Travolta is] not far from being where he was just before Pulp Fiction, when his career had lost its juice."