Jack Reacher: Never Go Back (2016) User Reviews

OK... just OK

[bob-the-movie-man · 6/10 · 8 November 2016]

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.)

Stupid teenager...

[jakebrann · 5/10 · 19 July 2021]

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!

Not an improvement over the original

[admtech69 · 6/10 · 27 October 2016]

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.

Huge disappointment

[Vondaz · 7 November 2016]

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.

Wrong Direction

[rugb · 6/10 · 25 June 2018]

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.

Disappointing Sequel

[aji4u4ever · 6/10 · 23 October 2016]

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.

Tom Cruise struts his stuff again

[Figgy66-915-598470 · 6/10 · 25 October 2016]

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.

His Reach Fell Short

[rgkarim · 7/10 · 23 October 2016]

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

Never Go Forward.....

[s3276169 · 5/10 · 26 October 2016]

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.

More action, less mystery

[The-Sarkologist · 7/10 · 21 October 2016]

I guess it had been a while since I had been to the cinema and this film looked pretty mindless so I decided that I would spend my Friday night basically watching Tom Cruise run around beating people up (which is what he seems to do best, not that he is actually one of those fisticuffs type of characters, though he is in this one). Actually, come to think of it this movie sort of reminded me of that Liam Neeson 'I will find you and I will kill you' movie (I know the name but I can't quite think of it right now). Anyway, as I mentioned it is basically a fisticuffs action movie with Cruise running around being some sort of ex-military cop trying to bust open some military conspiracy and saving the day. Actually, it is based on a book so I suspected that it was going to be heavier on the mystery than the action.

So, as I mentioned, Cruise is this ex-military drifter that goes around doing the military's dirty work, though not actually being asked to do it, but rather cleaning up the mess that the military doesn't really have time to clean up. However when he arrives in Washington to take his successor out to dinner he discovers that she has been arrested on a charge of espionage, and being the type of guy that he is decides to investigate, despite the fact that has been forbidden by her to do such a thing. In fact he is being your typical Hollywood ex-military guy – insubordinate and definitely not a team player, but being able to get things done, and actually rising up through the ranks at the same time – in a way I suspect that this may not actually happen in the military.

Another theme that seemed to come out of this film is the nature of the drifter – that is something that is actually a reality in today's world, and in fact in anytime where the military is demobilised – they don't actually fit into a peaceful society. Okay, it is clear that Reacher was once the commanding officer of the Military Police but for some reason he retired (maybe that is in the first movie, which I am inclined to watch after posting this), but he simply cannot keep the military out of his blood, nor can he settle down. He is like the classic Amercian lone cowboy who comes into town, cleans it up, and then rides off into the sunset, not being able to form any substantial relationship (even though some characters try to form a relationship with him).

The other interesting this is that even though a part of the movie suggests that he has a daughter, a part of me is always thinking that this is something that really couldn't happen to him – Reacher just doesn't seem to be the type of person who could really get that close to a woman. In fact we see this in the movie where there he is building a relationship with another officer only to have that torn apart when it comes out that neither of them can really submit to each other – the man is always playing the role of the man, and the tom boy simply cannot let the man play the man without being slighted by the implied suggestion is that she is a woman and there are some things that women cannot do. In the end what Reacher really is about, being all the action and the fisticuffs, is the loneliness of the returned veteran.

However one thing that has left me curious – do female soldiers really wear khaki bras? I guess I'm going to have to Google that one.

Sadly this film isn't a Jack Reacher film

[Boristhemoggy · 4/10 · 13 June 2020]

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.

Good popcorn chomping action movie

[johnfuen · 8/10 · 21 October 2016]

I'll start by saying that I am one of the readers of the Lee Child Reacher novels who railed against the miscast Tom Cruise as Jack Reacher. Though I think Cruise does a good job of portraying the loner aspect of Reacher's personality, the magnitude of Reacher's Bad Ass quotient is lost due to the 10 inches or so difference in size between Cruise and the character described in the books. That said....I have to say that I enjoyed this movie more than the first

This is definitely a good "eat popcorn while watching the action" movie. There were some plot holes.....but what action movie doesn't have them. Readcer after helping in the arrest of a crooked Southern Sheriff decides to head to Washington DC to meet the current Commanding officer of the MP unit Reacher used to lead. Upon arriving in DC, he discovers two things.....the new CO is under arrest for suspicion of espionage and someone is claiming that he is the father of a teen aged girl. The movie then follows Reacher and Major Turner (the new female CO) as he breaks her out of jail to try to find out who is responsible for the murder of two of her MPs and also to help unravel the story behind his alleged "daughter'. There is plenty of action and a few good quiet character moments between Reacher and the Major and Reacher and the teen aged girl.

For those of you who were fans of the TV show Leverage....Aldis Hodge (Alec Hardison the Hacker) has a pivotal supporting role and he did pretty good. If you come to watch this movie expecting deep social meaning or superb dialogue...you will be disappointed. If you come to forget the election and be entertained for two hours.....you will have REACHED your goal (sorry...couldn't resist)

Full of Action

[claudio_carvalho · 7/10 · 30 December 2016]

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")

Please don't ruin any more Lee Child novels!

[paulcf-510-910462 · 1/10 · 20 November 2016]

The first JR movie was acceptable. This one, terrible! It opens with 4 guys beaten and laying in a parking lot. JR is inside a diner. We don't know what exactly happened or why it happened. But of course JR is responsible. Not even sure why this scene was there. It serves absolutely no purpose or story enhancement.

There are so MANY plot holes it is impossible to keep count. JR may have a daughter, conveniently he finds her almost instantly. Guys with guns never used them properly or hit JR.

The scene when he is in prison and talking with his attorney, at the exact moment he is looking outside the window (convenient), he sees 2 bad guys coming in. They of course look the part, and park right outside the window at the exact time JR is looking outside. He then gets his lawyer to go get him a sandwich and she leaves her briefcase and wallet behind. JR then proceeds to escape a maximum security prison with little effort.

It goes on and on like that. He spots his 'daughter' in a huge Halloween parade in New Orleans, with literally thousands of people on the streets.

It is really a terrible injustice to Lee Child and his wonderful novels. Typical Hollywood hack and slash job on brilliant novels and story.

Don't waste your money and pay to see it. If you must watch it, wait for it to be on regular cable TV shortly.

robotic story

[SnoopyStyle · 6/10 · 2 December 2016]

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.

Could've been better..

[sanjin_9632 · 6/10 · 30 December 2016]

Don't like Tom Cruise. Never have, never will. However, over the years I've come to like some of his movies. To name 'em all, Mission Impossible 1 and 3, A Few Good Men, The Firm, Eyes Wide Shut, Minority Report, Collateral, Edge Of Tomorrow and Jack Reacher. The quality of these movies mustn't necessarily be attributed to Cruise, but mostly to the rest of the cast or to the person sitting in the director's chair.

The first Reacher was actually well made. It had some twists and some funny moments, which was great. This movie however, was kinda boring, too predictable and altogether disappointing. I know that it's difficult to follow up on a good first movie in a franchise, but it's definitely doable. One scene in particular bugged the hell out of me, when they're in the hotel and arguing about who's supposed to visit the soldier's wife and who's staying behind to watch the kid. Ridiculous. She would've most certainly died if it had happened the other way around. Hell, in the real world he would've died too.

Two roles that were terribly miscast in this are the female leads. The daughter was kinda fine, but Smulders was terrible for the part. According to the director's track record, this should've been way better. He has shown that he can make great movies (Blood Diamond). I know this movie's modelled after the book from the series, but they could've added stuff to make it funnier or maybe less predictable. 5.5/10

Run-of-the-mill sequel with similar ingredients such as noisy action , violence , shootouts and fights

[ma-cortes · 6/10 · 1 June 2022]

Jack Reacher never go back is a moving and interesting but inferior follow-up with energetic action and plot twists , being compellingly directed by Edward Zwick . The picture combines action, intrigue , violence , and a twisted criminal plot . Suspenseful and intriguing thriller stars the great Tom Cruise along with a first-class support cast and in which after busting a human trafficking ring , former military investigator turned vigilante drifter Jack Reacher goes back to his old military headquarters to meet Major Susan Turner, whom he has been working with during his travels and has become his closest friend and only to learn that she has been accused of espionage and detained. This is a thrilling and exciting film with chills , thrills , pursuits and violent events . A well produced film about a two-fisted Investigator callled Jack Reacher (Tom Cruise) , he's a former military and drifter who becomes involved into a twisted criminal case while he is going to discover the killers . Jack Reacher must uncover the truth behind a conspiracy in order to clear his name while on the run from stubborn pursuers . Meantime, the obstinate military officer Turner (Cobie Smulders) is imprisoned and Reacher decides to free him at whatever cost. Shortly , Reacher sets out to confirm for himself the certainty of the Turner's innocence . Never give in. Never give up. Never go back. The law has limits. He does not. Justice is Coming. Tom Cruise is Jack Reacher.

Nail-biting and violent movie with non-stop action , chases , shootouts , spectacular scenes , fights and thrilling finale , adding some emotive scenes between Reacher and a teen . Resulting to be an attractive and mysterious thriller with action-packed , high body-count and plot twists , being decently written and directed . From start to finish the fractic movement, twists and turns are continuous . As always , Tom Cruise is very good as the ex-military and cunning investigator who is caught-up in a perilous criminal plot with fateful consequences . Cruise playing in his usual style as a tough and well-trained military veteran , a former military investigator turned vigilante drifter who's caught up in the middle of a dark conspiracy , while on the run from nasty murderers . Cruise at his best , returning to high-profile roles in big-budget films with plenty of action , suspense and violence . Costars the beautiful and good actress Cobie Smulders as the upright , honest and brave commandant . Being accompanied by a fine support cast , such as : Aldis Hodge , Danika Yarosh , Holt McCallany , Patrick Heusinger and Robert Knepper .

It packs atmospheric and some dark cinematography by prestigious cameraman Oliver Wood , using steadicam, at times . The musician Henry Jackman composes a stirring and rousing musical score fitting perfectly to the frenetic action . The motion picture was well directed by Edward Zwick (Glory, The last Samurai) . He's a good screenwriter , producer and filmmaker . Zwick is a notorious producer , in fact he received an Academy Award as one of the producers of ¨Shakespeare in Love¨, as well as a second nomination for ¨Traffic¨. He was nominated for a Golden Globe for his direction of the 1989 critically acclaimed Civil War drama, ¨Glory¨. He received his second Golden Globe nomination as a director for ¨Legends of the Fall¨. And he also wrote, directed and produced the successful feature film The Last Samurai with Tom Cruise again. He continues to work with his partner, Marshall Herskovitz, at their company Bedford Falls where they created ¨Thirtysomething¨, ¨My So-Called Life¨ and ¨Once and Again¨. Jack Reacher: Never Go Back(2016) rating : 5.5/10 . Acceptable and passable , though neither notable , nor extraordinary . The pic will appeal to Tom Cruise fans.

Nice Action but story wasn't great. Spoilers!

[adamph95 · 6/10 · 6 January 2017]

Like all Tom Cruise films, the action is great. The first Jack Reacher and this one aren't connected meaning there in no link/mention of anything from the first film in this one. The story is basically Reacher finds out that Cobie Smulders character is in trouble or is set up and he's going to save her. Now what's cool about her character is that she's no damsel is distress, Cobie's character is a bad-ass like Maria Hill. Once Jack rescues her theirs this weird side story of Jack finding out he has a daughter and so he now has to protect a teenage girl and Cobie (sort of) because they are now on the run. The relationship between Cobie and Cruise is what I really enjoyed from the film plus the action/fight scenes/explosions. Overall I give the film a 6.5/10. I always love seeing Cobie Smulders on screen so maybe a little biased.

Routine sequel to an enjoyable film

[TheLittleSongbird · 5/10 · 23 November 2016]

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

Not bad, but it could (and should) have been better

[Leofwine_draca · 6/10 · 22 August 2017]

JACK REACHER: NEVER GO BACK is the second of two Hollywood adaptations based on the books of Lee Child. The first film was a pretty decent thriller, not amazing, and this film is much the same. It starts off very well with a strong first hour but gradually descends into becoming average in the second half. The problem I had with it is that Reacher is saddled with the stereotypically annoying/sentimental teenage girl, who constantly does dumb things in order to further the storyline. Otherwise, it's the typical conspiracy business, bolstered by good suspense and action bits, as Reacher takes down opponents in fleeting moments reminiscent of BOURNE. Cruise delivers an acceptable level of intensity in the lead and the direction from the assured Edward Zwick is fine, so it's just a pity that the story flags at times with bloated character work and too much 'hanging around' when it should be moving forward at all times.

Never Go Back is more like 'Never Go in the First Place'

[rishis-28921 · 3/10 · 19 November 2016]

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.

Enjoyable and exciting with likable sidekicks

[phd_travel · 8/10 · 20 October 2016]

The good thing about Tom Cruise action movies is the violence isn't gratuitous, the action is exciting and he isn't afraid to share the limelight with his costars. I like his costars here Cobie Smulders is a convincing Major who gets framed by some military contractor arms dealer (the villains du jour). Plus there is a likable brat possible daughter and the 3 together are a cute team. The villain is played by Patrick Heusinger - don't get why he has got it in for Jack so much. The action moves from DC to New Orleans. Tom still can pull off the action convincingly enough.

Enjoyed this action movie with it's clear simple story and occasional comic relief.

Never Going Back To Watch

[RonellSowes · 28 July 2021]

The first Jack Reacher film wasn't that great a movie, but it had a decently clever plot and was executed proffesionaly; Jack Reacher:Never Go Back doesn't even manage to meet these modest standards. Its story muddled and uninteresting and the way it navigates through is even worse. A series of mindless action and fight sequences wrapped together with some repugnant characters and dialouge that's meant to sound cool only it's anything but.

The picture's director,Edward Zwick, is a pretty average director and most of his films hover around there, except for Blood Diamond which is probably one of the finest films of the decade and this movie: which lies on the extreme opposite of the spectrum. The side of inanity and ineptness.

Just watch the first one

[add2nan · 6/10 · 11 March 2022]

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.

I wanted to walk out early

[merpman-94402 · 3/10 · 24 October 2016]

My wife convinced me to go, even though i didn't not much like the first Jack Reacher movie. I do like Tom cruise in general though.

The plot is very generic, i mean like we haven't seen something oh so very similar a thousand times. No surprises along the way.

The action was extremely poor, Jack and his sidekick consistently not carrying weapons even though their opponents are and even when they beat down their opponents (who have guns) they don't then pick up the gun and take it with them (ok maybe they did once). There was a scene where Jack is fighting the professional killer,

The dialog was boringly average, as if to just stretch out the movie, most of it not really having much to do with the plot or moving the movie along.

The girl is hyper annoying, keeps getting into trouble, Jack has to save her yadda yadda yadda, except if Jack had acted as smart as he is supposed to be, he would have made sure she didn't get into said trouble in first place.

Worst movie i have been to in quite a while.