Director: Edward Zwick
Cast: Tom Cruise, Cobie Smulders, Danika Yarosh, Madalyn Horcher, Patrick Heusinger.
Jack Reacher says a lot of things, sometimes aggressively, and sometimes in a mellowed voice. None of those things are believable for even a second. The 2016 instalment of Jack Reacher could simply be another shot in the dark, perhaps it will ring all the bells for the fans of Tom Cruise, and some of them too might be disappointed. If you have been a fan of Tom Cruise for a long time perhaps you should move on now.
Tom Cruise looks tired, flabby and stout. His walk is now a tad clumsier and it is visible in long shots. His smile has the same charm and the other saving grace is his ability to seem intelligent and intense. Perhaps the intensity is a sign of his maturity; it is a decline of adrenaline. Perhaps it is time for him to stop taking his shirt off.
Jack Reacher: Never Go Back is a strange story with so many disjointed pieces that are arranged with a strange kind of logic. The motivation of a character is very important in holding a story together. Surprisingly in Jack Reacher, the motivations are mixed. The Hunter’s (Patrick Heusinger) transformation is one such moment in the movie. He is supposed to be a professional at what he does, one fails to understand how then can his task of eliminating Jack (Tom Cruise) turn into a personal vendetta even after the guy who is paying him for the job is no more. This is a very interesting study though for personality traits and psychological analysis.
Similarly, the transformation of Samantha (Danika Yarosh) who appears to be unusually cranky in the beginning and unexpectedly mellowed towards the end. Perhaps this was all a setup, because this isn’t the natural way in which people react, it is a forced behaviour meant to communicate something specific, so let’s get in to the specifics now.
Major Turner (Cobie Smulders) is an interesting character in the story and though it is hard to look at her and not remember Robin, one starts believing her after a point. She plays a major in the US Army and has all the moves for the part, but then there is a moment when she is downplayed. Perhaps the audience is not yet ready to see a woman who is as competitive and even better. A minor argument breaks out between the two on who is going to pursue the Hunter in an attempt to establish whether women are as good as men.
Jack wants Turner to babysit while he goes after the Hunter, this infuriates Turner and even though they have an argument the result is same. Turner stays back and Jack goes in pursuit. This scene is what brought the complete story to its knees and one wonders why?
Both characters are well established and capable of handling their share of shots, they trust each other and so have risked their lives and careers to save each other why then would they have to argue over superiority. While this was a perfect opportunity to lead by example, this very argument puts everything back to square one.
If two perfectly capable and idolised characters cannot have clarity on gender parity, how are we to expect the audience to ever take the leap? Perhaps this was an attempt to bring out the discussion but it got over before it even started.
The movie suffers similar moments of forced conversations and it all seems like a twisted plot with predictable characters and obvious deductions simply to arrive at the climax where two grown-up professionals have a show down. Both individuals have serious anger management issues. What surprises me is that in stories like these the heroes are easily exonerated, thereby nullifying the presence and the need for a justice system and creating a need for more aggressive, high-adrenaline and self-professed executioners who never get stuck in any litigation even though they break rules, steal things and kill.
