I Liked Back In Action’s Cute Ending Setting Up For A Sequel But The Movie Also Highlights A Frequent Struggle Netflix Films Face

by

2025 hasn’t seen many significant film releases in January, but Netflix stands out as an exception, particularly with the premiere of the eagerly anticipated Cameron Diaz and Jamie Foxx project titled “Back in Action“. Critics have lauded the movie for its lead actors’ chemistry, charming side characters, and conclusion. However, there’s a persistent issue I encountered with the film that seems to align with many other Netflix productions.

Back In Action’s Ending Sets Up A Sequel, And Did So In A Way That Left Me Intrigued

From this moment on, beware: major plot points from “Back in Action” are revealed. I wouldn’t want you to be surprised, so here’s a heads up! In the final scenes, despite being an action movie that seems straightforward, it packs quite a punch. Nigel (played by Jamie Demetriou) skillfully seals off the barrier to contain the villain Chuck (Kyle Chandler). Dramatically, his boat blows up – typical of such films. However, we learn later that Chuck’s body was never recovered, suggesting a possible comeback in future installments.

Personally, I find myself back in the suburbs alongside my family, including Grandma (Glenn Close) and Nigel, as we support daughter Alice (McKenna Roberts) in wrapping up her soccer season. Meanwhile, my character Matt uncovers a hidden truth about his wife Emily: her father is alive and could be instrumental for a fresh mission. With the impressive ensemble from the original film, rumors of a lucrative contract signed by Cameron Diaz for two Netflix productions, and Back in Action maintaining its position atop Netflix’s charts for several days now, I can’t help but feel optimistic about the prospect of a sequel and the possibility that Diaz’s father might be a significant stunt casting choice as well.

Frankly, this type of film aligns with my expectations, and I have no doubt I’ll watch it when it’s released. However, I must admit that I’m not eagerly anticipating it. Moreover, I don’t feel particularly invested in the characters or their journeys. Regrettably, that’s a common issue I’ve noticed with many Netflix films.

The Frequent Struggle Netflix Films Face

Hey there, just wanted to share some thoughts on “Back in Action” that I recently watched on Netflix. To be clear, I enjoyed the movie and thought it was a pleasant way to spend a couple of hours. It seems like plenty of others have felt the same, given how many conversations I’ve had about it with my colleagues here. We all agreed that it was quite endearing.

Indeed, Diaz and Foxx’s action sequences are quite impressive. They share a charming chemistry on-screen, which adds an enjoyable touch to the movie. The side characters are also exceptionally well chosen, and there are humorous moments that hit the mark. Overall, the film has a light, entertaining atmosphere. While you could certainly find worse ways to spend your time than watching Back In Action, it’s worth pondering whether you’d be fully satisfied spending money to see it in theaters. After finishing the movie, have you found yourself reconsidering or revisiting it?

Netflix appears to have invested a substantial amount into original films lately, as evident by the cinematic quality of Back In Action. Featuring top-tier talent, extravagant action scenes, well-known songs and filmed across multiple outdoor locations, it required numerous large budget checks to produce. However, while it’s a decent way to pass time, it doesn’t quite deliver the impact one might expect from such an investment.

Primarily, it’s due to the script lacking sufficient quality. There are numerous inconsistencies that I can tolerate, considering this is a humorous action-comedy featuring two secret agents pretending to die and relocating to the suburbs. However, what I find unacceptable are characters with irrational motives and storylines that don’t align with logic at all.

In my perspective, Kyle Chandler finds himself jobless and dismayed at losing his pension security. However, astonishingly, he manages to rally a mob of thugs (and a helicopter pilot) to carry out acts of terrorism. Baffling as it may seem, I can’t help but move along with the narrative. Next, in an unexpected twist, Chandler abducts the children of his fellow spies, leaving no apparent justification for such actions. If he hadn’t done so, the main characters might not have pursued him with such relentless determination.

The government seems to stand idle as our protagonists chase after Chandler in a boat, while an old spy figure, who I consider my grandpa-in-spy-clothes, frantically presses buttons, aiming to activate a flood barrier around London. Predictably, the water rises, just in the nick of time for Chandler to ram his boat into the barrier, causing an immense explosion. Remarkably, this blast doesn’t result in London flooding.

As a devoted fan, I feel compelled to share my thoughts on Seth Gordon’s work directing this film. While I admire his contributions, there were certain aspects, like the head-scratching moments I’m about to mention, that left me puzzled. These are just a few instances of many such conundrums found in the movie. They’re the type of inconsistencies that could make or break this franchise for fans, as they determine whether it’s worth investing time and emotion into it.

Netflix has invested heavily in big-name talent, not just for films like “Back in Action“, but also productions such as “Red Notice” and “The Gray Man“. Executives are prepared to splurge on the stars and the kind of high-octane scenes we crave, but this significant expenditure has predominantly resulted in movies that offer decent streaming viewing, yet may show flaws if scrutinized closely.

It appears that many movies produced for streaming platforms have a tendency to focus more on big names and flashy spectacle rather than the script and substance. While these elements can draw viewers in, they often lack the depth necessary to make repeat viewings enjoyable. Despite some people watching them casually, it’s still important to craft a compelling narrative with a cohesive flow and logical structure behind it.

I found the movie “Back In Action” decent enough. I’m pleased it was part of my Netflix package, but I won’t revisit it until the sequel arrives, which should be within a few years. It’s unlikely to leave a lasting impression on me or movie enthusiasts in general.

In the event that this sequel arrives, I’m eagerly anticipating it will offer more depth. There’s an appealing blend of chemistry, humor, and action scenes here, but I yearn for a storyline that we can all take pride in as well. If not, even with all its potential, it risks becoming another forgettable Netflix production – a pattern that seems to repeat itself frequently.

Read More

2025-01-22 17:37