जैक रीचर: नेवर गो बैक

She ruined the movie. Typical BS from a naggy teenage girl... would have been 100x better without her. No explanation as to where they got his name for her mom to file a paternity suit with the government!

I'm a big fan of Tom Cruise. He is a real old-fashioned film star, generous with his fans on the red carpet and with real star power at the box office. And I can happily sit down in front of just about any one of his DVD's time and time again and still enjoy it. Unlike many critics, I even enjoyed his last outing as Jack Reacher.

Unfortunately, and it pains me to say this but, his latest outing - "Jack Reacher: Never Go Back" - is a bit dull.

Lee Child's Reacher has many years before turned his back on his military past and wanders the country as a drifter righting wrongs outside of the law. In this film, his military past again makes a major ("No, ex-Major") intrusion into his life. Potential love interest Major Susan Turner (Colbie Smulders, from the "Avengers" world) is arrested on trumped-up espionage charges and Cruise sets out to clear her name. Along the way he accidentally (and rather too conveniently for the plot) discovers that a paternity suit has been filed against him and Reacher confronts the rebellious and light-fingered teenager Samantha (Danika Yarosh, aged 18 playing 15).

Unfortunately the big-cheeses involved in the international arms skulduggery are determined to tie up each and every loose end in their intrigue, and that includes Reacher, Turner and young Samantha by association. Needless to say, the villains - led by a one-man killing machine (Patrick Heusinger) - haven't counted on Reacher's 'particular set of skills'.

My problem with the film (after an entertaining opening) is that the screenplay lumbers from standard thriller set-piece to standard thriller set-piece in a highly predictable way. It's as if the scripts from 20 different films have been stuck in a blender. Shadowy arms dealing shenanigans: check; Cute teenager in peril: check; Gun fight on a dockside: check; Rooftop chase: check.

Are all the individual set-pieces decently done? Yes, sure. But the combination of these bits of action tapas really don't add up to a satisfying meal. The story arc is almost non-existent as there is no suspense in the 'investigation': the plot is all pretty well laid out for you.

Where there is some fun to be had is in the play-off between the born- leader Reacher and the born-leader Turner, both trying to be top-dog in the decision making. The romantic connection between the leads seems almost plausible despite their 20 (TWENTY!) year age difference: this is more down to how incredibly good Cruise still looks at age 54 (damn him!). Turner makes a good female role-model right up to the point where there is a confrontation in a hotel room and Turner backs down: despite Cruise being the "hero" it would have been nice for female equality for this face-off to have gone the other way.

The director is Edward Zwick, who helmed Cruise's more interesting movie "The Last Samurai".

The trailer started off well and then progressed into general mediocrity. Unfortunately - for me at least - the film lived up to the trailer. Watchable, but not memorable.

(Agree? Disagree? For the graphical version of this review and to comment please visit bob-the-movie-man.com. Thanks.)

Having read all of the Reacher books, I was one of those who cried "What??!!" when Cruise was cast as Reacher, but I changed my tune when I saw the first Reacher movie. I thought Cruise carried it off well.

So I was really looking forward to this next instalment . . . and what a disappointment.

The difference between the Reacher stories and other so called anti-hero stories is the realism that Lee Child brought to them. For example, none of those long slugging punch ups, Lee Child made it clear that a single punch would suffice and if not delivered correctly, then there was a danger of broken hands etc. And they followed this ethos in the first Reacher movie. But in this latest offering there was just slugging match after slugging match after slugging match, with nothing to show for it other than a cut above Reacher's eye. Where's the bruising and swelling? I'm sure he got smashed on the arm by a pipe, but there's nothing to show for it the next day when he's wearing his t-shirt.

On top of that, there's a hell of a lot of running throughout the movie - I'm surprised they didn't run to the toilet. This, with the camera work and editing had a way of making the movie feel rushed.

Finally, the script had one of the clever wit in the books.

All in all a disappointing follow up. Was it the Director? I think so.

Never Go Back, indeed. I'm reviewing this long after seeing it in the theater and I haven't seen it since despite its availability on Netflix, Hulu, Prime. The disappointment I felt then is still palpable today, especially after recently re-watching the first film.

There is little difference between the first and second films in terms of production level, casting, story line, etc. Yet it's the collective of many small differences and attention to detail that makes one film great and the other a dud. I gave this one a 6 because it satisfies fundamental aspects of an action film, and those who rated the sequel higher than 6 or liked it, consistently to gravitated to that point. However, the first film more than satisfies all that too, but then outshines the sequel in every other way, making it a complete film in my opinion. This sequel falls flat in all those other aspects.

I think this film suffers very specifically from two problems - its comparison to the first film and its director. McQuarrie, who directed the first, is known more for his writing resume and has limited directing time, yet seems to understand the concept of satisfying action film fans while maintaining the continuity of a good overall film. Despite his short director resume, he has been consistent in action films.

In contrast, Zwick, who directed the sequel, has an Oscar-sprinkled director resume, but is known for drama epics. It seems clear to me that there was a shortsighted agenda by producers to change the direction of the feel, politics, rhetoric or something, but it was a bad idea. Jason Bourne, which came out the same year, had the same problem even though is had the same director as previous sequels. That's why I think it is an agenda thing from the producers.

Sequels tend to not be as good as the first, but usually because producers shamefully try to maximize capitalization on the success of the first film by skimping on big details like the director, the script and top actors in the followup film. However, Zwick and Greengrass wouldn't be cheap, plus top actors are still there and production levels alone keep the budgets high. Yet the first films in Reacher and Bourne still stand out so much more. Why? Attention to detail. Like a band's first album - they simply seemed to be trying to nail the small details in addition to the big ones.

Producers of Reacher and Bourne either don't understand why the first films were good, or don't care. I lean toward the latter. They only want your money and their agenda pushed. They don't care about longevity. Dollars can be found in the next fad.

Many reviewers have pointed out some of these flaws with the second film that were not in the first, or not as bad. Forced dialogue, implausible action scenes, all the good scenes in the trailer, hokey drama, flat/weak characters, cliche settings, and so on. I'll add these to it:

The opening sequence was the only part of the sequel that seemed like the first film. I think that was strategic. If some people knew better, they'd never had gone in the first place. Next, Cruise didn't seem interested the entire film. He appeared to be going though the motions in many scenes, while he seemed to relish in the character of the first film. Smulders should've been a perfect fit for her role, yet her performance wasn't half as good as Rosamund Pike in the first film. Outside of Cruise and Smulders, there were no other memorable performances or characters. The first film had dozens of well-thought out and well-performed characters. Every actor was fitting and at least up to par in the first Reacher. I think its worst performance was the local detective, and he at least did okay. No other secondary role in the sequel reached his level. There was NOBODY like Jenkins, Courtney, Herzog or Duvall in the 2nd film and these were big names playing secondary roles in the first Reacher. But even the next level roles like the supposed gunman, the thugs at the bar and the victims on the river were well-played and fitting compared to just about everyone in the sequel. Even the brief scene by the auto store manager in the first film was better performed and more memorable than the roles of the entire sequel.

Finally, the action scenes in both films can be criticized as unrealistic, and the final fight scene in the first film was one of the few things I didn't like in that one. But at least everything in the first film was plausible compared to the sequel. As one reviewer noted, the sequel stepped back into the cliches of the 90s for much of the action scenes. Maybe Zwick didn't know any better and they rushed through the details believing or hoping it would pass, just like the recent Jason Bourne film. It's as if they believe most people are dumb enough to believe some very stupid things (like remotely accessing CCTV cameras). Maybe people are that naive or simply that eager for ANY entertainment, but the IMDB ratings at least slightly show otherwise. If the direction of Reacher continues this way, I won't even consider going to the next one. I'd need some significant reassurances.

Jack Reacher: Never Go Back ought to be bi-lined "Never Go Forward".

This flick is firmly mired in 90's action "corniness". This seems to be a "old" "new" trend. Revisiting past formula's that worked once upon a time, with the hope they will work again, in the 21st century.

Fact is, viewers have, for the most part, become more sophisticated. For me, the new Jack Reacher is an anachronism. Its watchable but it comes across as dated, "silly" and utterly implausible, even by Hollywood standards.

Jack floats around like an avenging wraith, solving crimes for the military, whilst breezily moving in and out of military facilities, as if he has been given a lifetime pass to a weird, uptight, country club. Worse still, the antagonists come across as bumbling and inexplicably foolish. His success is never in doubt.

The result is a film that's "light weight" entertainment at best. Its not bad, as such, its just rather nondescript and not overly engaging. Five out of ten from me.