I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

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.

This has Tom Cruise in. So it gets some stars by default. But this film is so bad. Which is a pity because the first one was watchable. The story was written by a four year old who was adamant that you were going to know the plot. It is so clumsy and idiotic. If you are just coming out of a coma then this is for you. If you have trouble understanding stories then you will love this. If you enjoy highly predictable storylines and non-sensical decision making then... yes, you know what I am getting at. Not recommended.

When Jack Reacher learns that one of his former colleagues Susan Turner (Cobie Smulders) has been arrested for espionage Reacher takes it upon himself to rescue Turner (despite her advising him against doing this). It turns out that there is a wider conspiracy involving a company called Para-Source and Reacher and Turner must get to the bottom of who Para-Source are and why they want Turner dead? Matters are further complicated when Reacher finds himself with some rather unexpected baggage...I enjoyed the first Jack Reacher film (in spite of the fact that it offered very little that I hadn't seen before). It was fast-paced, entertaining whilst also offering a fairly decent storyline. I really wanted to like the sequel, but just couldn't quite warm to it in the same way that I could with the first film...Part of the problem with this sequel lies with the story and no matter how much it tries it simply isn't as involving or engaging as it was in the first film. Despite the fact that this film runs slightly shorter than the original it actually felt much longer. The original film suffered slightly with poor character development and underdeveloped villains. This film has the same problems only they are worse in this sequel. Robert Knepper is on villain duties as normal, but he's only featured in a couple of scenes and isn't given the opportunity to make any real impression on the picture. The story is also a little weak and if I'm totally honest a little uninteresting. In this sequel, Reacher also discovers that he may have a daughter and finds himself having to protect the girl who he believes may be his daughter as well as exposing the truth about Para-Source. I presume that the potential 'daughter' may have been introduced to show a different side to Reacher and perhaps to give him a back story, but truth be told it didn't feel entirely necessary and in all honesty it's a strand of the story that I didn't much care for.Having said all that, the film isn't all bad and does still have some impressive action sequences and some of the chase scenes towards the end are moderately exciting and entertaining. However, as I've said the story is weak and uninvolving, the supporting cast don't make much of an impression leaving the action sequences being the only thing worth watching in this film.One other thing; how did the hit-man manage to get to New Orleans before Reacher and Co when they left for New Orleans before him? Unless Para-Source are sending their hit-men by private jet in order to carry out their hits? Yes it's sloppy, largely uninvolving and weak in comparison to the first film. However, when the focus is on the action then it rarely disappoints. It's not great, but it's just about watchable I suppose.

I will not accept TC as Reacher. He took WAY to much punishment and too long to dispatch bad guys. This should have been someone like THE ROCK, and someone who could flex something besides his cheeks. TC is now too old and too small for this part. 4 stars because of the skill of the ladies, not for Tommy.