By Mack Doebler
Online Editor
When it comes to Director Edward Zwicks’ newest action film “Jack Reacher: Never Go Back” the title really says it all. I’ll never go back to watching that movie in my life, if I can help it.
“Jack Reacher” is a sequel, although you wouldn’t be able to tell that by watching the movie. It picks up with a drifting Mr. Reacher (Tom Cruise) as he gallivants across the nation saving the day and frequently talking on the phone with his friend, Major Turner (Cobie Smulders), who he has never met in person. The plot thickens when he arrives at the military base she runs to say hello and finds her taken into custody. He knows she’s been set up and breaks her out, together the two of them pursue the clearing of her name.
“Jack Reacher: Never Go Back” falls flat on almost every category imaginable. Several of the actors are as wooden as my oaken desk which is mainly due to poor portrayals of military personnel. On top of this the cinematography is simple and calculated with no variety, it’s the same frame with a different object which gets boring.
As we were sitting in the theater my friend commented to me, “In every frame there is something that is out of focus.”
This may sound normal to some, usually in a shot there is the focus and the background, but that is not always in the case. We’ve seen several films that give off much broader visual direction by keeping everything in frame focused. “The Revenant”, “Mad Max: Fury Road”, and “Free State of Jones” are perfect examples of films that are spatially aware and use both their environment and cast to tell a story, not one or the other at any given time.
Next we face the score of the movie which is more forgettable than the ending of the Mighty Morphin Power Rangers television series. It’s cut and paste, dry and is not needed whatsoever to convey the story. This is exactly the opposite of good filmmaking. The score should tie in with the film to the point that the two become inseparable through watching. If you are looking for an example of this just take a look at any Hans Zimmer project. “Pirates of the Caribbean”, “Interstellar”, “Inception”, “The Dark Knight”. These are films that use music and use it well. With “Jack Reacher: Never Go Back” it might as well have been absent from the final product.
The worst part of the movie by miles, however, is the writing. It’s cliche, boring, occasionally nonsensical and painfully ignorant. Several times the writers were probably patting themselves on the back for using a witty callback to previous dialogue, usually to try and foreshadow the subsequent action, this is not impressive. It’s hardly nuanced with barely any space between initial dialogue and call back. The only clever aspect of the movie is, I’ll admit, very well done, but it is the only type of it’s breed in the whole film.
Aside from middle school foreshadowing techniques the dialogue is painfully edgy and not at all self aware. The saving grace of most commercial action flicks is that they are self aware and just strive to put out a no brain, high octane fun watching experience. “Jack Reacher” just takes itself too seriously to achieve this effect. The serious aspects are laughably edgy and because of this the jokes always fall flat. The antagonists are forgettable despite having the potential to be really fascinating bad guys.
So from this mountain of flaws, what does “Jack Reacher: Never Go Back” do well?
Although it takes no risks with its camera work and follows style sets to an uncomfortably boring T, it is a pretty movie. The environments are fascinating, when they are in focus anyway. Also in one of the opening montages there is a cute dog so that’s always a plus.
I hate to say it but that’s all I can say for the good in the movie. When it comes to “Jack Reacher: Never Go Back” my advice is never go see this movie.
Senior Mack Doebler can be reached at [email protected].
