User reviews

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.)

While the trailer gives too many of the best scenes away (as do seemingly most Hollywood trailers of late), the second entry in the Jack Reacher franchise fails in it's attempt to capitalize on the momentum of the original.

With the titular character ably portrayed by Tom Cruise as the quintessential and confident bad-ass, the surrounding cast and paint-by-numbers story-line struggle around his nucleus to present a believable and involving action flick.

One of the issues that plagues the franchise is that the source material portrays Reacher as 6'5" tall at a beefy 250 lbs, capable of taking on 4-5 attackers at a time. Cruise is in great shape and appears at least 10 years younger than his actual age but even with strategic camera angles, at 5'7", it is fairly obvious that he is physically outmatched when surrounded by 4 of his assailants. Yet much ass is kicked with relative ease. This affects the realism meter as the film progresses.

Another issue is the somewhat stilted dialogue and a few "Oh, come on, that would never happen!" moments that elicited a few unintended laughs from other audience members during the viewing I attended.

The supporting cast do their part in workman-like fashion and some of the dialogue between Cruise's Reacher and Co-star Cobie Smulders' Turner entertains and engages as they argue while being simultaneously attracted to one another. Rounding out the cast as the chief antagonist, Patrick Heusinger is an effective (if somewhat clichéd) ex- Special Forces Psychopath who hunts Reacher throughout the film.

It's unclear at this point whether there will be a third film instalment but based on early box office returns, a sequel is likely. I hope they can take the best elements from the first film which had better fight scenes, less stilted dialogue and fewer formulaic plot devices. Seeing as the Jack Reacher Book series is currently at 21 novels, there should be a worthy successor in the Lee Child-penned Canon to put the film franchise back in good stead the next time around.

If you are looking for a breezy action flick with low expectations regarding plot twists or realism, Jack Reacher: Never Go Back fits the bill.

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!

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.

Movie Street V.3 # 190

Tom Cruise is back with his new action thriller "Never Go Back". This time he collaborates with the brilliant director Edward Zwick and the gorgeous Cobie Smulders and trailer also gave some high expectations.

Jack Reacher after disbanding a human trafficking operation and he goes back to the headquarters to meet his long time telephone friend Major Susan Turner. But unfortunately she was framed and jailed. Reacher and Susan Turner teams ups to solve the mystery.

Tom Cruise shines all the way. His screen presence was totally impressive and his action performances were top notch. His energy level is Cobie Smulders was equally impressive as Tom Cruise. But all the other characters were actually dull and was nothing.

The storyline was an okay-ish but clichéd in most parts. It was predictable and the narration was pretty weak and slow. Some of the action scenes and car chase was good.

A forgettable Sequel to the great action movie Jack Reacher.

An action thriller which lacks thrills

5.7 on 10

As a TC fan, this one was disappointing.

25 October 2016 Film of Choice at The Plaza Dorchester This Afternoon - Jack Reacher Never Go Back. Tom Cruise returns in the title role and plays the hero part with aplomb. The film begins, continues and ends with action and intrigue. In this outing Reacher has to uncover a government conspiracy to clear his name and that of a colleague. A complicated plot entwines itself around the characters and it takes a little concentration not to get lost. There is however a rather refreshing chase scene that doesn't involve a single car. Highly watchable but not as good as the first film. Always easy to watch Tom Cruise when he's strutting his stuff, whatever the plot.

I have been a Jack Reacher fan since book 1 and have every one written. I know intimately who Jack Reacher is just as many of his fans do. And Jack Reacher is not on this film, and this film is not about Jack Reacher. Make no mistake this film is about Tom Cruise and no-one else. Every mannerism he has, his trademark way of running in every movie he makes. The stunts he loves to do which make it non realistic. The focus is on him, Tom Cruise all of the time and not on the character of Jack Reacher. As a standalone action film it was OK but just OK, there are much better films out there at the moment. Extraction absolutely overwhelms Never Go Back for sheer entertainment and action and great acting and direction. One day they will find a Jack Reacher worthy of the name, possibly someone like Thomas Jane, or Dave Bautista. But after 4 years of denying this movie I finally gave in to pressure from friends and watched it and the disappointment is palpable. A very sad day for movies.

Seems this weekend is all about prequels/sequels coming to the theaters. Robbie K here reviewing Jack Reacher: Never Go Back, which promises to have some mystery, action, and comedy to entertain us. But will Hollywood deliver on its promise, or will we get another lackluster sequel from the generic mold?

LIKES:

• Fast Pace • Comedic Timing • Solid casting

In my experience, crime stories tend to drag out a bit before getting to the juicy drama and violence. While this film is a little slow and convoluted at the beginning it does cut through most of the boring fat to get to the action packed meat. The pace continues to pick up through the movie, as constant pursuit from the enemy keeps our small band on their toes throughout the country. While some of the slower character building moments are integrated into the intense game of hide, seek, and run, they are often short, entertaining sequences that are there to set up for the impending "excitement". Rest assured, Reacher's latest journey connects the dots in rapid succession to get you to the answers as quickly as possible. And like the last installment, you might be hoping for some witty comedy to help relieve the tension of the constant chase. Good news, the writers adapted the book to provide Reacher's famous dry humor. For those who don't know, this movie's style isn't slapstick and stupid one- liners to be endlessly quoted. Instead Reacher's comedy is dry where timing is the main punch line rather than mindless babbling. Seeing Cruise react to some of the scenarios or deliver a sarcastically flat response were the funniest components of the film. I felt the comedy was well integrated into the tale and not abused to keep the laughs as fresh as possible. Of course the comedy and story would be nothing without a good cast, and Reacher has a great lineup to keep you entertained. All of the cast feels like a solid military crime family, each playing that stereotypical, no nonsense attitude cinematic soldiers seem to have. While not as tall as book Reacher, Cruise's rogue nature mixes well with Smulders modern age warrior woman to craft a realistic, crime solving MP duo. Ms. Yarosh as the edgy teenager from a broken home also played her part well and added a twist that both worked and annoyed me at times. And as for the hunter, Heusinger played him well but I don't think the character direction worked for me (more on that later). Still the cast overall make you feel part of a government conspiracy, which gets a plus in my book.

DISLIKES: • Action is short lived • Annoying character tendencies • Little mystery and suspense

The trailers paint for action, but sadly that action has been greatly reduced to Reacher being in small scuffles that usually detail some poor extra getting knocked unconscious in a single punch. Occasionally you get some gun play involved and a chase scene displaying Cruise's agility, but even this lackluster at times. While a former veteran appreciated the realistic battles, I was hoping for a little more excitement and tension to grace the screen. This nearly happened at the end, but that scene crossed into a drawn out, ridiculous torture that while justified, did little but make my eyes roll. While the action scenes may have been annoying at times, there were a few characters who ground my gears. Samantha in particular was an irritation, as her portrayal of an edgy teenager, whining about everything did little to entertain me. Samantha's arrogance can be entertaining at times (and was important for character development), but there were a good number of shots that had me hoping Reacher would slap some sense into her. And as for the hunter, well he doesn't win the award for scariest motive, merely a mercenary with delusions of grandeur to feed his obsession. His skills are certainly impressive, but his drive is lacking and kind of stupid. Yet the biggest disappointment had to be the lack of mystery and suspense in this movie. In the first installment Reacher had to dig deep to find the perpetrator by pushing his skills to the limit and using ingenuity. In this film though, the quest was almost too easy for Reacher, with all the pieces falling to conveniently into place that is uncharacteristic of a crime thriller. The source of the corruption was sloppily revealed in the form of pointless character I cared little about and lacked the twist of the original. Of course the surprise isn't helped by obvious foreshadowing introduced in what would be perceived as unnecessary scenes.

THE VERDICT:

Overall Reacher's latest adventure is a more diluted version of its predecessor. For me the cast is the strongest aspect in this fast paced adventure who will set the stage for the adventure. However, the lack of a challenging mystery was a major disappointment that didn't have the action to make up for it. If you are looking for some realistic crime/adventure you might check this out, but I recommend most wait for RedBox to pick this flick up.

My scores are:

Action/Adventure/Crime: 7.0 Movie Overall: 6

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.

Former military investigator Jack Reacher (Tom Cruise) takes down a smuggling ring run by the local sheriff with the help of his successor Major Susan Turner (Cobie Smulders). He goes to DC to meet her for the first time only to be told that she has been detained for treason. She had sent two investigators to Afganistan who were mysteriously killed. Her military lawyer is killed and Reacher is framed for it. While in detention, Reacher saves Turner from assassins and they escape. Meanwhile, a paternity claim against him has been filed by Candice Dayton for 15-year-old daughter Samantha whom he never met.

The story, the execution, and quite frankly the characters are rather robotic. It's not actually exciting but there is plenty of fight action. There is no mystery or shocking twists or interesting reveals. The big climatic twist is barely a twist. The story unfolds in a string of events that aren't terribly compelling. The bad guys are willing to kill as many people as needed but this is the kind of movie where they always come up a little short ending with a hand-to-hand fight. On the plus side, Smulders delivers a tough character without it all collapsing into a romantic puddle although it threatens to from time to time. This franchise keeps doing the hat thing but it's not filmed well. The point is for the character to disappear. It needs a scene where we lose track of Cruise (or Smulders in this one) in a crowd. That would be movie magic. In the grand scheme of things, this movie punches a lot but the hits rarely hurt. It's an action movie with limited thrills.

After accomplishing the assignment of dismantling a human trafficking organization, the former military and drifter Jack Reacher (Tom Cruise) goes to Washington to invite his liaison Major Susan Turner (Cobie Smulders) to have dinner with him. However, he meets her substitute Major Sam Morgan (Holt McCallany) that explains that Major Turner is arrested accused of espionage. Jack seeks out her veteran lawyer Colonel Bob Moorcroft (Robert Catrini) that explains that Major Turner is the also accused for the murders of two soldiers in Afghanistan. Further, he also tells that Jack is being sued, accused by a woman of being the father of her fifteen year-old daughter Samantha (Danika Yarosh). When Moorcroft is murdered, Jack is accused of being the killer and sent to a prison. He sees that Turner and he have been framed and also that Turner will be killed by two assassins. However he rescues her and they flee; soon they realize that there is a conspiracy involving military people from the army and a contractor that is a powerful arm dealer. Jack also learns that Samantha is in danger and Turner and he rescues her. They decide to protect her since a skilled assassin (Patrick Heusinger) is hunting them down while they try to find the motive of the conspiracy. Who can be trusted?

"Jack Reacher: Never Go Back" is a full of action film, also full of clichés and with a storyline that recalls Ian Neeson's Bryan Mills films protecting his daughter Kim. The plot is well-resolved and the cast is great. My vote is seven.

Title (Brail): "Jack Reacher: Sem Retorno" ("Jack Reacher: Without Return")

This had all the parts. Lots of action. Tom cruise. Cool main character. When it all came together it just was bland. The saying 'the sum of its parts is greater than its whole' fits this movie. The first one wasn't great. This was worse. I doubt they make any more of these.

Easily the worst Tom cruise film I've ever seen, awful....

This film essentially begins with a former military law enforcement officer by the name of "Jack Reacher' (Tom Cruise) going to Washington D. C. to meet a colleague by the name of "Major Susan Turner" (Cobbie Smulders) who is currently working in the same position he vacated when he left the Army several years previously. Not long after his visit, he is informed that Major Turner has been arrested for espionage, which immediately raises his suspicions that something isn't quite right. He also learns that he may have fathered a daughter fifteen years earlier by the name of "Samantha" (Danika Yarosh) who has no knowledge of who her father could be. That said, after learning that assassins have been sent to either kill her, he immediately deduces that this assassination attempt is somehow connected with Major Turner's arrest--and he now becomes determined to investigate the matter to its conclusion. But to do that, he first has to free Major Turner from her detention facility, while also trying to protect Samantha as well. And, given Samantha's rather rebellious nature, this is no small matter. Now, rather than reveal any more, I will just say that this turned out to be a decent action film due in large part to the acting of Tom Cruise. Admittedly, there were a couple of scenes that were highly unrealistic and strained credibility--but that's Hollywood for you. In any case, while I don't consider this film to be quite as good as its predecessor, I still enjoyed it for the most part and I have rated it accordingly. Slightly above average.

While far from flawless (with an uneven script, an anaemic and anti-climactic ending, a few too padded out moments and Rosamund Pike, an actress who impresses me usually, giving one of her worst performances in a disastrously indecisively written role) the first 'Jack Reacher' has a lot of great things still and judging it as a standalone is very enjoyable.

'Jack Reacher: Never Go Back' is not an awful sequel, but what was done well in the first 'Jack Reacher' isn't done well here. If there is one word to sum it up, it's routine. Apart from some direct-to-video-like production values in some of the action sequences, it's a reasonably well-made film. Stylishly and atmospherically shot mostly with a neo-noir feel while there are some good use of locations and the editing is tight and crisp, and not resorting to the often seizure-inducing shaky cam technique. The music is energetic and haunting without being brash or overly-bombastic, with very effective use of silence.

Some of the dialogue is dry-humoured and witty, and a few parts are clever. Parts of the film are very energetic, and some of the action unyielding and adrenaline-pumping. The cast are a very mixed bag. Starting with Tom Cruise, as said talking about the first film, whatever has been said of him being physically completely wrong (often described by detractors as one of the biggest miscasts ever), he still makes for a charismatic and intense hero that has steel in his eyes and plays it appropriately straight despite the campiness of some of one-liners. Am amazed at well he deals with the action, his energy and dexterity are enviable. Patrick Heusinger does inject some quiet, brooding menace in a rather underwritten role.

Generally though, the supporting cast are not close to being as memorable as in the first (which had Robert Duvall and Werner Herzog). Cobie Smulders tries her hardest but comes over blandly in a role that limits her to doing barely anything. Robert Knepper is similarly wasted. On the other side of the acting spectrum, Danika Yarosh's truly irritating performance, in an annoyingly and indecisively written stereotypical plot device role that is abused to overkill effect here, made me appreciate Rousamund Pike's performance in the first film better.

Ed Zwick directs competently but not much more, nothing inept, just missing something and there was the sense that he was not right for the material. There is some nice interaction between the characters, but mostly as characters individually they are either annoying (Samantha) or sloppily underdeveloped (the villains, Knepper's character being a cipher practically). There are a few good action sequences here, but there are also just as many that reek of getting the job done competently but with not much spark or imagination.

The dry wit and cleverness that is sprinkled sporadically in the script is overshadowed by the amount of dialogue that's forced, long-winded and bloated, while other humorous parts come off cheesily. The story has enough pep to stop it from becoming completely dull but there is a distinct lack of fun, mystery and suspense here, parts also feeling padded and convoluted. Again, nothing unbearable, nothing to get wowed or excited over, just competent paint-by-numbers plotting but not much more.

Overall, the first 'Jack Reacher' was flawed but enjoyable, this sequel 'Never Go Back' is hardly amateur hour but feels routine and like something was missing. 5/10 Bethany Cox

'JACK REACHER: NEVER GO BACK': Four Stars (Out of Five)

Sequel to the 2012 hit action movie 'JACK REACHER', also starring Tom Cruise in the title role. Both films are based on novels, written by Lee Child, about a former US Military Police Corps major, named Jack Reacher, that now takes on odd jobs as a vigilante drifter. In this film Reacher is framed, and trying to uncover a giant government conspiracy; with the help of a current military major, that's also been framed and now a fugitive from the law. The movie costars Cobie Smulders, Danika Yarosh, Patrick Heusinger, Aldis Hodge, Holt McCallany and Robert Knepper. It was directed by Edward Zwick (who also teamed with Cruise on 2003's 'THE LAST SAMURAI'), and it was written by Richard Wenk, Marshall Herskovitz and Zwick. The film has received mixed reviews from critics, and it's only been a modest hit at the Box Office. I enjoyed it as much as the original (if not more).

After busting a human trafficking ring, Jack Reacher (Cruise) returns to the Military Police Corps headquarters, he used to work at, in order to meet Major Susan Turner (Smulders); who he has possible romantic feelings for. Once there Jack learns that Turner has been arrested for espionage. Despite the fact that she asked him not to get involved, Reacher begins to investigate the crimes she's accused of. In the process he becomes framed as well, and the two both go on the run from the law together; while trying to clear their names. Jack also learns that he might possibly have a 15- year-old daughter (Yarosh), who also becomes involved in the conspiracy.

I don't really understand the negative reviews for this movie, I found it to be highly entertaining. It does lose it's way, a little bit in the middle, but for the most part it's a solid action thriller. I love the Jack Reacher character, and Cruise's conviction to the role is impressive. I also think it's awesome that the film has a really strong heroine character as well, and the relationship between her and Reacher is never sexual (or overly romantic). It's just a really well made movie, despite the fact that it drags just a little.

Watch our movie review show 'MOVIE TALK' at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GhHTPB4y30

The second Jack Reacher movie is directed by Edward Zwick and it stars Tom Cruise as the Jack Reacher. It is based on Lee Child's book "Never Go Back". The movie tells the story of falsely accused Reacher of murder along with his friend Major Turner. I didn't read the book, so it's hard to say how much of the story is by the book. But this movie plot was hard to follow and it feels there are many holes in the story.

If we compare it with the previous Jack Reacher movie, this one is much worse. For me, it is especially true with the executing the scenes to tell the story. Even Jack Reacher as a character seems like another action hero who just beats some random bad guys. Action scenes are okay, but there is nothing in this movie that stands out. Just watch the first one.

It's just so so so bad. Cliché, No action and dreadful production.

I had heard about how bad this movie was from a friend, but since me and some other guys were stranded in a shopping mall with nothing to do for 3 hours, I decided to just let go and enjoy an action blockbuster for once. I was so wrong. It's an atrocious piece of filmmaking, which has literally EVERY cliché in it, from the stroppy teenager to the Afghanistan reference to 'These people were under my command!!!!!!!' to the person in the control room shouting 'I want eyes on every asset they've got / I want to know everywhere he's slept in the last four years, I want to know how he takes his eggs, what his favourite flavour of ice cream is...'. This is why we need to stop Tom Cruise from producing his own movies, because he can't carry a whole movie on his own. The directing is atrocious and the script is disgusting. Tom Cruise is okay, but everyone else might as well have been picked straight from the street. There is literally NO ACTION UNTIL THE LAST SCENE. Anyone who says this movie is 'Action Packed' is lying. Just don't watch it: these people don't deserve any more money after putting such sh*t in my face.