Reacher: Never Go Back - Book vs. Movie... Meh?

Okay, so I finally got around to watching "Jack Reacher: Never Go Back." As you guys know, I always come at these things from a book reader's perspective, and... well, it was okay. I mean, Tom Cruise IS Jack Reacher at this point, I gotta admit. But the movie felt kinda…generic? Like a Reacher-shaped hole filled with action movie tropes. The book (which I devoured, btw) had this really compelling conspiracy element and Susan Turner's character was way more fleshed out. Danika Yarosh as Samantha Dayton was a weird casting choice. Samantha has a certain toughness in the novel that I didn't really get from Yarosh. And the whole "is she/isn't she" Reacher's daughter storyline felt rushed and a bit forced in the film. I thought the scene where Reacher figures out the password to Turner's account was clever, but even that felt less impactful than it did in the book because we didn't get enough of their relationship to really care about it. The action sequences were fine, I guess. The New Orleans setting was cool, visually. But honestly, nothing really stood out. It felt... formulaic? Like they just went through the motions of a Jack Reacher movie without really capturing the essence of the character or the story from the book. Anyone else feel that way? Overall, it's an okay action flick if you're bored, but as an adaptation, it falls short of the source material. I'd recommend reading the book over watching the movie any day of the week. What did you guys think? Am I being too harsh?