James This review comes from someone who has jumped straight to the second film, without ever seeing the first. In this "Never Go Back" instalment, Director Edward Zwick brings Tom Cruise back as Reacher - this time as an "ex-military" version of the hero penned into existence by British (no not American) writer Lee Child (who neatly takes a minor role in the movie!) And this work adds further weight to the idea that "ex-military" mostly seems a bit of a contradiction in terms (just like "ex-CIA", for that matter). Indeed, its "ex military" that Reacher is now also up against, given that our enemies here are those chief bogeymen since the 1990s - private defence/security contractors. You know, the people that Eisenhower warned us about in 1961, the people working in businesses of the kind that enriched a former Vice President of the USA, the people that Harvard's Prof. Michael Sandel likes to home in on when he asks: when did the American people ever give permission for their wars to be fought - or at least mopped up - by the private sector? Those kinds of people.Anyway, there's plenty of whizz-bang stuff here, violence aplenty with "crunchy" sound effects (yes, really), and none of it looks especially real-life, or indeed worthwhile, except maybe to keep us on our toes in wondering what those private-sector military are up to, on their own, or when they hook up with the military proper. This chunk of the wider military-industrial complex is not pretty, as it's portrayed here as black ops, devious, with fingers in every pie, casual about human life, keen to make money at all costs, and so on.So no real surprises there...Indeed, one might pretty much say that's all there is to the rather unoriginal work that is "Never Go Back" ... and bye-bye. This is not quite so, however, given the dynamics and interest of a kind of "impromptu family on the run in a road movie gone wrong" that appears for much of the film, thanks to a deliciously hot Cobie Smulders as Major Turner, Reacher himself, and sassy teen Samantha played by Danika Yarosh. Cruise is more or less his usual character here (love it or hate it, I mostly love it), but Smulders is classy and plays a more-than-one-dimensional role, while Yarosh is far, far better than we have any right to expect. Indeed, the extremely patient viewer rounded enough to be interested in various aspects of this movie beyond the "bangs for the bucks" will have a fine cinematic treat in store with a final scene played out between Yarosh and Cruise. So genuine and well done (and touchingly thought-provoking) is this that it delivered the tears to my (father-of-a daughter) eyes within moments, and it also segued beautifully into some touching music from British composer Henry Jackman. Now what to say about a film that scores best where you don't expect it, and is best of all in its - entirely untypical - last 3 minutes? For this reason, enigmatic to say the least, I've gone for a 7 here. Call me crazy if you will...

rugb 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.

Neil Welch Jack Reacher, loner ex-Military Police officer, visits Major Turner, a female officer he only knows from telephone calls, and finds she has been arrested. Reacher finds himself involved in uncovering - and being implicated in - a conspiracy: he and Turner go on the run. To add complication, they are saddled with a teenage girl who may or may not be Reacher's daughter.Tom Cruise plays Reacher in a second adaptation (out of order) of one of Lee Child's novels. The first one had an element of novelty to it - Reacher is an entertaining character, a principled loner, gifted at giving and taking a thumping, a good and dogged detective, and with a tendency towards pithy rejoinders - but that novelty is not present in a second offering. What is left is an action thriller with a plot which is effective, but which isn't going to surprise anyone who has watched more than half a dozen action thrillers in their life.Having said that, it is perfectly satisfactory as a basis for the suspense, chases, shoot-'em-up and beat-'em-up sequences which populate this movie. The trouble is that it all feels a bit generic - it's satisfactory entertainment while you're watching it, but there's an air of déjà vu to it.Cobie Smulders should have an underwear scene written into every film she appears in, as a point of international law.Cruise seldom offers less than value for money in terms of performance, and he is joined by Cobie Smulders as Turner, a women with nearly as much attitude and physicality as Reacher, Danika Yarosh as Samantha, Reacher's maybe/maybe-not daughter, plays her well, but the character is not very sympathetically written, and is hard to like. The villains are a mixture: some may as well have "villain" tattooed on their forehead. None is as memorable as Werner Herzog or Jai Courtney in the previous film.The action sequences are entertaining but, again, none is exceptional, and none matches the bathroom fight from Reacher's initial outing.If you enjoyed the first film then you are likely to enjoy this one, but you may feel slightly let down by a film which entertains but has nothing out of the ordinary about it.

gpxdlr I saw this in the theater and enjoyed it since I'm a fan of Lee Child's books. Seeing this again on DVD, I see a few errors I don't like. Tom is in another fight being surrounded by thugs and he beats them all. Just rush in and beat his a**, don't do it one-at-a-time! Same as in the 1st Reacher film. Same as in the Samurai film. The fights I felt were poorly choreographed. Huge hard punches but no bruises or blood. Tom/Jack got 'whupped' on the roof in the final fight but no blood or visible bruises on his face after 2 vicious punches and 1 kick. "C'mon, Gimme A Break!" A little more real please. Too bad Jason Statham wasn't chosen for this. He would have been 100% better and the right physical size too.