Skip to main content

I’m the guy you didn’t count on.

Jack Reacher: Never Go Back
(2016)

(SPOILERS) It was probably inevitable that Tom Cruise’s dedication to his declining “brand” meant Jack Reacher would renounce his stone-cold, death-machine mantle almost as soon as he had found his footing. But that doesn’t mean we have to like it. As other commentators have noted, with nineteen novels to choose from, what were the chances Cruise would pick the one that softens the character up, giving him a potential daughter and (only ever potential) love interest to pick away at his concealed human side?


But then Cruise, amid his scientological myopia, probably thought he was playing safe, to his strengths, despite Jack Reacher getting a sequel based on the slenderest of threads (courtesy of post-theatrical income streams) and the vocal outcry about the half-pint not being of suitable altitude to fill Reacher’s heavyweight boots. He clearly felt he needed to steer the character further off piste from the self-sufficient introvert, which is hardly likely to win him acclaim from Reacher devotees. The first movie was based on One Shot, the ninth Reacher novel, while this takes a flying leap into the eighteenth. But “character development” is the sustenance of the deluded Hollywood star, so playing a stoic, inexpressive knight errant over the course of a series of movies, from a guy who really, really likes to flash that perfect grin, just wasn’t on the cards (you only need to look as far as George Miller and Mad Max to see where Cruise is fatally misguided).


It wouldn’t matter quite so much if there was any real spark to the relationships, but the friction between Jack and wayward teen Samantha (Danika Yarosh; I don’t know her career outside of this, but if she isn’t in real life she does a remarkable job of playing a highly irritating miscreant here – Reacher can count himself lucky he doesn’t turn out to be pater familias), and with his military contact Turner (Cobie Smulders, who does anything but, and is as entirely absent of personality as in everything else I’ve seen her, which to be fair is pretty much Marvel movies). Smulder’s been framed for murder, with a conveniently/
annoyingly tangential plotline regarding Samantha’s possible parentage encouraging an “exploration” of Jack’s difficult loner status (he’s like a Bruce Banner who doesn’t turn green).


For a reasonable stretch, Never Go Back is an effective-enough, serviceable thriller, even given that director Edward Zwick, never that dynamic or invested a director but big on his ineffectual and frequently self-sabotaging Hollywood version of social conscience, doesn’t add much to the proceedings. And, given the bang-up job Christopher McQuarrie did on the original, positively detracts from it in places. There’s little here that couldn’t have been replicated by a TV movie (which surely, after Never Go Back inevitably underwhelms at the box office, will end up as the character’s natural home, minus one wee Tommy boy), and while some of the action is serviceable (notably Jack extracting himself and Turner from military custody, and a sequence on a plane in which Jack proficiently deals with two assassins), others (a one-versus-four fight in a New Orleans warehouse) lack the clear, precise cutting and staging McQuarrie brought to the table.


The plot isn’t really much of a mystery, but the screenplay (from Richard Wenk, Zwick and Marshall Herskovitz) is busy enough that this doesn’t really matter until we alight in New Orleans. It’s at this point that Never Goes Back curls into a ball and admits defeat. The pace slackens, and the assembled clichés of characters are confirmed as exactly and as unflatteringly thin as they are, co-mingling with similarly unsatisfactory plot developments, ones that come from the plot bible of idiots required to do idiot things in order to imperil themselves (usually reserved for horror movie protagonists). Such that Samantha, who is so incredibly streetwise and a chip off the old block (despite being not really) in her can-do skills, manages to be stupid enough to repeatedly blunder into situations where she can be traced or hunted down. This is TV movie writing, but TV movie writing of 20 years ago (or more), complete with a snarling henchman (Patrick Heusinger, entirely one note, making you long for the charisma of Jai Courtney in the original: Jai Bless) whose entire motivation is to make Jack feel pain like he’s never felt before, and other such twittery.


Also on hand is Robert Knepper as the budget-driven B-baddie, who has so little screen time, Zwick and co probably thought it pointless to try and replicate the surprise success of Werner Herzog last time. Or maybe they were afraid any one with substance would overshadow Tom? Knepper’s the former general in charge of a rogue private military outfit (is there any other kind? I guess the operatives are just following through with what they were taught in the regular army), the easy go-to of a studio with an insufficient blank slate of bad guys these days (it’s them or Russians, since who cares about offending Russians; on the contrary, it appears to be actively encouraged!) As such, Zwick can rest assured his movie is vaguely about something: opposed to the privatisation of the military, and by inference the incremental corporatisation/capitalisation of all public services (one might take this as a Democrat stance, but we know Hillary is in favour of all those things and then some); after all, that $600bn+ per annum is money well spent, isn’t it?


How is Tom faring, in his mid-50s and attempting to look a decade younger? Well, he pulls it off, depending on how moisturised he is and the un/flattering nature of Oliver Wood’s photography for the shot in question (it varies); Cruise has a testing time ahead, as he doesn’t have a good face for aging with character. He’ll just end up looking doughy.


Which is a by-the-by, but indicative that, aside from some cool, no-shit-taken violence (it’s a little worrying, unless he meant it in some kind of untranslatably ironic sense, that Child has “done a fair amount of headbutting. It’s an awesome manoeuvre”; way to go, dude!), there’s little that leaves an impression character-wise, certainly nothing (M:I at least gives him daredevil stunts to perform) that would encourage understanding of why he’s seized on this as only his second “franchise”; one can only assume it’s down to fear of diminishing star status. We can be thankful at least that, when Jack threatens to break Heusinger’s arms, legs and neck, he actually does exactly that, even if Zwick’s too wet to really get into it.


Cruise has a reteam with Doug Liman next year for American Made (it’s always iffy putting “America” in a title; Mena may have been no more illuminating – it covers some of the same terrain as Narcos – but is far less generic) and The Mummy, which I’d be far more intrigued by if an inexperienced writer-turned-director wasn’t calling the shots. But who knows, maybe Cruise has him sussed; it worked out with McQuarrie and then some. Zwick, though continues going his less-than-bold, ineffectual way, dealing out forgettable features wherever he treads.


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Popular posts from this blog

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

I’m just the balloon man.

Copshop (2021) (SPOILERS) A consistent problem with Joe Carnahan’s oeuvre is that, no matter how confidently his movies begin, or how strong his premise, or how adept his direction or compelling the performances he extracts, he ends up blowing it. He blows it with Copshop , a ’70s-inspired variant on Assault on Precinct 13 that is pretty damn good during the first hour, before devolving into his standard mode of sado-nihilistic mayhem.

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

When we have been subtle, then can I kill him?

The Avengers 6.16. Legacy of Death There’s scarcely any crediting the Terry Nation of Noon-Doomsday as the same Terry Nation that wrote this, let alone the Terry Nation churning out a no-frills Dalek story a season for the latter stages of the Jon Pertwee era. Of course, Nation had started out as a comedy writer (for Hancock), and it may be that the kick Brian Clemens gave him up the pants in reaction to the quality of Noon-Doomsday loosened a whole load of gags. Admittedly, a lot of them are well worn, but they come so thick and fast in Legacy of Death , accompanied by an assuredly giddy pace from director Don Chaffey (of Ray Harryhausen’s Jason and the Argonauts ) and a fine ensemble of supporting players, that it would be churlish to complain.

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.