IIt’s funny that in the same week that the epic was nominated for an Oscar Brutalist was at the center of controversy regarding his (relatively small) use of artificial intelligence, audiences were treated to his first film entirely created by AI! Or at least what one might imagine an AI-designed movie to be: Back in actionNetflix productions as brilliant as they are sterile, which could signal a new decline in creativity in Hollywood.
Why Cameron Diaz chose this project for her first film in ten years is one of the many mysteries discussed Back in actionwhich is currently in the top 10 on Netflix. Other questions include: “When did Andrew Scott forget how to play?” » ; “How Much Karmic Debt Does Glenn Close Owe Netflix After This The Deliverance AND Hillbilly Elegies ? » ; and “What kind of return on investment can we expect from a direct-to-streaming blockbuster that hired the Tate Modern for an action sequence and staged a speedboat and motorbike chase along the Thames?” »
Still, one often wonders why the real creativity and sense of style has been lost from films like this one, which follow the usual tropes of the action genre while also echoing older, better works. Back in action stars Diaz and Jamie Foxx as a couple of spies who, after an unexpected pregnancy, decide to disappear before their past catches up with them – and the children who are innocent of their missions. 15 years later, a group of villains, vague and without identity, get hold of a mysterious object called “The Key” that can cut off the power to large parts of the city.
Diaz and Foxx travel to London with their children to seek protection from Diaz’s mother, a wealthy ex-spy played by Close, whose English accent is strangely erratic. She is involved with an eccentric Brit, played by Jamie Demetriou, in a typical “comic” role. All of these characters soon find themselves pursued not only by an MI6 spy (Scott, notably absent), but also by a CIA agent played by Kyle Chandler, who despite his status as a 21st-century TV star, finds himself here reduced to technical and terse dialogue between two shootings.
In theory, star power Back in action could compensate for all these defects. Unfortunately, there is no chemistry between Foxx and Diaz, two icons of cinema who operate on different comedic wavelengths. Additionally, Foxx was hospitalized during filming after suffering a near-fatal stroke, necessitating the use of a stuntman for some scenes. This might explain why the shots between Foxx and Diaz’s static faces shift back and forth so often, as if to mask their physical separation.
The production has an oppressive impression of disorder, bordering on bad taste and strangely humorless. But maybe that’s the point. A recent report in an art magazine n+1 revealed that Netflix executives asked writers to make sure their characters “announce what they’re doing so that even viewers who have the show playing in the background can follow them.” Apparently, they would have a penchant for “casual viewing”, i.e. content that you don’t really need to focus on. Back in action is a practical incarnation: an assemblage of sounds, images and explosions, stripped of any narrative substance or comedy. It’s a vague approximation of filmmaking, to watch while checking your phone or untangling cables in the living room.
Back in action certainly not the first film of this genre to seem so detached from its time: between Netflix, Prime, and Apple TV+, there’s now an entire subgenre of quickly forgotten movies where Ryan Reynolds types find themselves mixed with attractive women with guns and flop sarcasm Ghosted Chris Evans/Ana de Armas in action Union with Mark Wahlberg/Halle Berry. However, Back in action seems most inappropriate, perhaps because it highlights an actress literally taken from a very different period of film production. Even Diaz’s worst films had a palpable sense of style or effort, where this one seems to settle for mediocrity.
It’s not about liking the movie Back in action does not “get tired”, but rather it – and films like it – redefine our expectations of these works. The era of “casual viewing” shouldn’t mean lowered expectations or botched stories. Action movies can be better Must be better And until recently they really were best. It takes serious effort for movies to survive in a sea of content competing for our collective attention. Everything that Back in action it is accomplished to plunge the knife a little deeper.
‘Back in Action’ is streaming on Netflix
It’s interesting to think about the direction the film industry is heading today. Could it be that audience expectations are evolving at the same pace as these oft-criticized productions? In an age where every minute of content competes with constant interruptions and digital distractions, is the very concept of entertainment valued differently?
