Back in Action: Cameron Diaz and Jamie Foxx star in 'highly processed' action film
While the 'twist' is predictable, the performances are 'fizzily watchable'

"The last time we saw Cameron Diaz on screen, it was way back in 2014," said Benjamin Lee in The Guardian.
"That year saw her lost in the juvenile comedies 'The Other Woman' and 'Sex Tape', before being horrendously miscast in a dud remake of 'Annie'; and, not long after, she chose to retire, perhaps feeling as glum over the quality of her films as those of us stuck watching them." Now, however, she has returned in the Netflix action-comedy "Back in Action", in which she and Jamie Foxx play a couple who have given up their exciting lives as spies to raise a family in the suburbs – only to be "sucked back in" when their cover is blown.
'Comfortable chemistry'
The film is pretty formulaic, and it does make you wish that a fraction of its stars' salaries "had been siphoned off for a script doctor", but Diaz is as charming as ever, and she shares "a comfortable chemistry" with Foxx, her old friend.
Subscribe to The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
This is a three-star film "made for those times at which only a three-star film will do", said Robbie Collin in The Telegraph: "vivaciously, even triumphantly, OK", it is "ideal entertainment for an afternoon or evening when the eyes and ears say 'yes' and the brain says 'thanks, but I'll probably just leave you guys to it'".
'Wasted in insubstantial roles'
Though it does feel "highly processed", you may feel, as you watch Diaz and Foxx "do their thing", a bit sad "that Hollywood ever gave up" on easy-to-please movies like this.
You'll see the "third-act 'twist' coming a mile off", said Ben Travis in Empire, and Andrew Scott and Kyle Chandler are "wasted in insubstantial roles". But Back in Action is a fun, "fizzily watchable" treat. A word to Diaz: "Next time don't leave it so long, eh?"
Sign up for Today's Best Articles in your inbox
A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com
-
Tariffs were supposed to drive inflation. Why hasn’t that happened?
Talking Points Businesses' planning ahead helped. But uncertainty still looms.
-
How can you find a financial adviser you trust?
the explainer Four ways to detect professionals who will act in your best interest
-
8 gifts for the host that does the most
The Week Recommends Show your appreciation with a thoughtful present
-
'Forever': Judy Blume's controversial novel gets a modern adaptation
The Explainer The Netflix series gives the 1975 novel all the trappings of modern teen life
-
6 elegant Queen Anne Victorian homes
Feature Featuring original diamond-glass doors in New York and a registered historic landmark in Arkansas
-
Critics' choice: Reimagined Mexican-American fare
Feature A shape-shifting dining experience, an evolving 50-year-old restaurant, and Jalisco-style recipes
-
Here We Are: Stephen Sondheim's 'utterly absorbing' final musical
The Week Recommends The musical theatre legend's last work is 'witty, wry and suddenly wise'
-
The Trial: 'sharp' legal drama with a 'clever' script
The Week Recommends Channel 5's one-off show imagines a near future where parents face trial for their children's crimes
-
Riefenstahl: a 'gripping and incrementally nauseating' documentary
The Week Recommends Andres Veiel's nuanced film examines whether the controversial film director was complicit in Nazi war crimes
-
Music reviews: Eric Church, Blondshell, and Model/Actriz
Feature "Evangeline vs. the Machine," "If You Asked for a Picture," and "Pirouette"
-
Trump vs. the arts: Fresh strikes against PBS and the NEA
Feature Trump wants to cut funding for public broadcasting and the arts, which would save a little but cost a lot for red states