Meh in action
The various social media circles and movie meme accounts I follow have settled on a term for this kind of film: “Netflix slop.” Sure, that phrase works. These are over-budgeted films produced by the streaming service, and they are discouraging for lovers of the art form of film. The incentives are totally different: The viewer barrier to entry is the click of a button on the streamer rather than a $15 cinema ticket. In a movie theater, you’re in your seat for the full 100 minutes through a story’s ebbs and flows. But on Netflix, all it takes is the tap of a remote controller for a viewer to bail. The adrenaline needs to be non-stop.
It’s not a great model for storytelling, but it works as the cinematic equivalent of a bag of Skittles. Grab a piece, chew it, sugar rush, swallow, repeat. Every 10-20 minutes is a new mini-set piece with just enough of a hook to bring you into the next one. But Skittles are not satiating, and almost all of these movies are bad. I constantly point to Ghosted as the Platonic ideal of this form (derogatory): content for the streaming machine to pop up the charts for a week, burn a few subscriber bucks, etc.
With all of that as prelude, Back in Action is much closer to the peak of Netflix slop than the gutter. A combination of charming stars playing to their strengths, a story shamelessly and functionally modeled after charming forbears, and a pleasing variety of settings and scenarios make it eminently watchable for its 100 frictionless minutes.
The film serves as the return of Cameron Diaz to Hollywood after a decade-long hiatus. Hey, you might say she’s “back in action!” The story is about two retired spies (Diaz and Jamie Foxx) getting pulled into a job. Hey, you might say they’re “back in action!”
Matt (Foxx) and Emily (Diaz) are former spy partners who fell in love then disappeared when a mission went south and their handler Chuck (Kyle Chandler) presumed them dead. Emily was pregnant, and the pair decided to vanish into suburbia as “normal” parents. Fifteen years into their hiding, they have a teen daughter Alice (McKenna Roberts) and a tween son Leo (Rylan Jackson), and have leaned into being dorky upper-middle-class parents. They conceal their past from their kids.
Following an inadvertent viral TikTok video, the spies get outed. Immediately, they are on the run. For half-baked reasons, they decide to finish the mission that went bad in the first place. They suspect their former MI6 collaborator Baron (Andrew Scott) as the one who betrayed them years ago. They fly to England to retrieve the McGuffin, called “the ICS key.” It’s located at a manor owned by Emily’s mom (Glenn Close), who is an ex-spy herself. The whole McGuffin hunt is a little underdeveloped. It exists simply as a vessel to get the characters to London. (The script insists that Diaz is English, but lacks an accent as a result of going to boarding school in the US. But I still don’t buy it; Diaz is extremely Californian.) Before long, Baron tails the spies. Sinister phone calls suggest Baron might be in cahoots with evil Russians.
The story goes about where you’d expect from there: chases and kidnappings and trickery and a couple of gadgets leading to a big climax at a black-tie event. Characters reveal their pasts to each other and bicker. Comic relief arrives in the form of Jamie Demetrious, an English comedian who appeared in Fleabag, as Glenn Close’s amusing boy toy. Generational tensions are addressed. Mediocre CGI explodes. Et cetera.
It’s a diverting time. Whatever charm the film offers comes mostly from Foxx and Diaz’s star power. You wouldn’t guess Diaz has been out of the game for years. She is not remarkably good or bad. She is comfortable and nonchalant, which is perhaps surprising. It does not feel like a big comeback performance, which is probably intentional. It’s like she never left. But the pair have solid chemistry and good quipping chops, though Foxx is occasionally a little flop-sweaty in his delivery. But the pair very much register as young-Gen-X parents who haven’t entirely given up on their youth. I know a few people just like them. Foxx and Diaz look several years younger than their respective 57 and 52 years, and director-writer Seth Gordon’s script casts them as early-to-mid-40s.
Where the film flounders is in the direction, which is illegible and mostly boring. The films include a couple of fun moments. One signature stunt involves Diet Coke and Mentos, which are a a mid-’00s viral relic — hey, you might say they’re “back in action!” But anything hand-to-hand is poorly shot and edited to ribbons. It’s the opposite of Love Hurts (which is not “Netflix slop” though it looks like it): the action here weighs everything else down rather than outclassing everything surrounding it in production quality. You could probably combine the strengths of each and end up with a half-decent movie.
One recurrent trait of “Netflix slop” with stupidly high budgets (I’ve seen $100+ million reported on this) is luxurious and gauche needle drops — ten seconds of soul classics in the background for character introductions, for example. They are distracting here. The one I actually enjoyed is the cheesy dancing to “Push It,” which fits in with the corny parents aesthetic.
Close, Chandler, and Scott are all here for a paycheck, but are never anchors weighing down the movie. The kid actors are exactly replacement level. It’s a shame, because Spy Kids — one of the obvious touchpoints for this film — found success in balancing both the charm and plot responsibility of the kids and grown-ups. Back in Action is more Mr. and Mrs. Smith with kids.
It’s a disposable experience, but it has an unobjectionable tone and spirit. Of all the kinds of movie “slop,” Netflix or otherwise, I don’t mind a boilerplate family story with charming stars who offer relatable, self-deprecating turns. I would never mistake Back in Action for good cinema, but given the outright drubbing it’s received elsewhere, I didn’t hate myself as I watched nearly as much as I expected.
Is It Good?
Not Very Good (3/8)
Dan is the founder and head critic of The Goods. Follow Dan on Letterboxd. Join the Discord for updates and discussion.
8 replies on “Back in Action (2025)”
But where’s Daffy Duck and Brendan Fraser?
I thought of doing a double feature actually. I saw that in theaters as a teen but haven’t seen it since. Maybe with the new Looney Tunes movie in theater the time is right.
We really liked this movie! Action and comedy
4/5 stars. Great to see Cameron again! Great to see Jamie Foxx and of course Glen close.
Having it on Netflex is a plus. Don’t listen to negative Nelly, it’s a good movie!
Glad it worked for you Bonnie! 😁 Thanks for stopping by even though I was harsher than you would have liked!
I cannot possibly disagree with your review, since one can agree with every point – I will say, however, that I particularly enjoyed Mr
Dimitriou’s character being a surprisingly strong candidate for ‘New Grandpa’ and was only genuinely disappointed on learning that Mr Andrew Scott would NOT be our villain for this evening.
I was so looking forward to seeing him bounced around by the stunt team and/or Our Heroes!
Haha spoiler alert! But yeah Dimitriou left a good impression on me. I would not mind seeing him pop up in more movies. Scott is a good actor – I’ve enjoyed him since he was a quirky Moriarty in Sherlock!
I have no problems with Mr Scott as an actor – my Inexplicable Anathema is aimed at Mr Jack Whitehall, who for no very discernible reason is an actor I LOATHE.
Not ‘Love to Hate’ Loathe and Resent for no explicable reason (and if you think that’s
Weird, my father’s Inexplicable Anathema is Mr Peter Falk, COLUMBO himself).
On the other hand, I’m always happier to see Mr Scott appear in a villain role for the very simple reason that his character is far more likely to be humiliated – which I consider fair vengeance for his having played the shoddiest Moriarty of them all.
Oh weird, I read your comment as liking him rather than disliking! It’s a pleasure of movie fandom to have a familiar face you love to see punched.