Jack Reacher Franchise (McQuarrie/Zwick, 2012-2016)

[zedz]

Looks like shit. Too many dwarves.

[Brian C]

Glad you didn't overthink this one. I look forward to your thoughts on The Loneliest Planet.

[Professor Wagstaff]

Looks like shit. Too many dwarves.

Even dwarfs started small.

[HistoryProf]

out of curiosity, is Cruise in the orange muscle car an indication of a thrilling car chase? With Reacher out maneuvering and driving like a stuntman through the city streets?

[Professor Wagstaff]

Yes, McQuarrie stages his Bullit-style chase on the streets of Pittsburgh in a fairly good action scene. The movie's very stripped down to its bare essentials as far as the plot and characters and McQuarrie's direction and editing deserved the comparisons to Walter Hill. Of all the airport paperback thrillers adapted to the screen in in the last few years, Jack Reacher possesses a similarly satisfying energy as far as the translation to the screen, though memorable it is not.

[Gregory]

That AV Forums review posted on the previous page was unbelievable. I wonder if anyone could get through over 5,000 words (it says so at the bottom!) of such badly written puffery. Worth it for the quotes, though.

“I’m not here to save him. I’m here to bury him.”

Wow, Shakespearean bad-ass catch phrases.

[HistoryProf]

Yes, McQuarrie stages his Bullit-style chase on the streets of Pittsburgh in a fairly good action scene. The movie's very stripped down to its bare essentials as far as the plot and characters and McQuarrie's direction and editing deserved the comparisons to Walter Hill. Of all the airport paperback thrillers adapted to the screen in in the last few years, Jack Reacher possesses a similarly satisfying energy as far as the translation to the screen, though memorable it is not.

That's what I figured. As badass and resourceful as Reacher is in the books, the ONE thing he's not all that capable at is, you guessed it, driving a car. he's never owned one and only knew military vehicles. The last book even has a a bit along the lines of "here's the thing about me and driving: I'm not good at it." About half the books work in how uncomfortable he is behind the wheel.

Just another observation on how bizarre this adaptation is.

[thirtyframesasecond]

It's a ludicrous film, main thing I remember was the director's love of Rosamund Pike's cleavage.

[domino harvey]

I had no knowledge of the books' existence prior to this thread (and vaguely recalled its existence after being reminded of this film's), so coming to it all as an impartial party, I felt this was a competent if unexceptional actiony thriller. The whole endeavor feels like a relic from the 80s though, with the infallible central hero who is such a badass that people quiver at the mere mention of his name and this lone wolf makes short order of all nefarious opponents, be they law-breakers or law-enforcers. Hell, take out the blue filter and it may very well be an 80s film that sat on the shelf for thirty years. I think the reason I have never been on board with any of the Bond films I've seen is that I don't gravitate towards dick-swinging assholes in action movies who insist on proclaiming their superiority at all junctures. Part of what makes John McClane the perfect action hero is his begrudging reluctance to get involved and constant protestations of "I'm having a bad day," "I gotta bad feeling about this," etc removing himself from positions of superiority. He's the perfect hero: skillful but selfless. Jack Reacher in comparison has a parade thrown for him before he arrives, and then he shows up and throws the confetti twice as hard as his fawners.

I thought the film got better once the movie stopped doing all the Mary Poppins/Poochie "Let's keep talking about how amazing this character is without showing it" lazy screenwriting, and there are at least a couple weird moments to break up the otherwise workmanlike goings-on: an unexpectedly comical fight between Tom Cruise and two Stooges-level meth heads that culminates with Cruise bashing the brains out of one baddie via the bald head of his partner, and an even weirder scene where villain Werner Herzog offers to let a transgressor live on the condition that he eats all of the fingers off his left hand and then watches as the man attempts to do so. Also, between this and A Good Day to Die Hard, I'm willing to assume Jai Courtney (whoever the hell that is) will bring zero charm, presence, and/or charisma to any film graced by this frat-y entity going forward.

I will offer a defense, of sorts, of the dialog lampooned in the last couple posts, which when taken out of context sounds ludicrous to be garnering praise, whereas in reality its no better or worse than any other patter appearing in action thrillahs. As in McQuarrie's the Usual Suspects, there are some real groaners here and there (mainly anytime this film like that film gets scatological or sexist), but nothing worth dedicating much attention towards. Although, that's kinda the overall summation of the film, period!

[flyonthewall2983]

I liked it. I'd like it even more if it weren't some attempt at a franchise.

[jojo]

If you don't have any attachment to the book incarnation of Jack Reacher, this seemed to me like a pretty solid and lean "B" action thriller. I probably like it more than I should, and also maybe because I've been trying to argue to friends lately that Cruise is one of the few movie stars left who's a reliable go-to guy for competent non-superhero action movies.

[domino harvey]

Ed Zwick is directing the sequel

[flyonthewall2983]

Never Go Back trailer

[domino harvey]

Punching that guy through the closed driver's side window is so dumb it's awesome

[domino harvey]

In one of my increasingly rare theatrical trip I managed to see two of the most mediocre films of the year both of which are completely worthless outside of the acting department. The new Jack Reacher (haven't seen the first) gives a dull paperback narrative straight out of Jack Clancy. I have no clue why Cruise chose Zwick to direct, but at times it feels like he was never there with this being the laziest he's ever been. This is just flaccid direction. Cruise himself though manages to use the muck to his advantage playing this Lee Marvin character more like Chevy Chase. It really left me with a yearning to see Cruise do a film of nothing but pratfalls since he can make violence play so hilariously. Outside of the action scenes though you get a real sense for the first time that this is an old man. In his many shirtless scenes his body hangs down in a way like Peter O'Toole in Rosebud making him look a million years old and out of place with his young compatriots. I really wonder how much longer Cruise is going to make a play at having love interests?

Tom Cruise playing a Chevy Chase role is the best movie idea I never knew I wanted

[knives]

He'd be such an amazing Fletch.

[cdnchris]

In one of my increasingly rare theatrical trip I managed to see two of the most mediocre films of the year both of which are completely worthless outside of the acting department. The new Jack Reacher (haven't seen the first) gives a dull paperback narrative straight out of Jack Clancy. I have no clue why Cruise chose Zwick to direct, but at times it feels like he was never there with this being the laziest he's ever been. This is just flaccid direction.

My wife and I saw this and both of us agree with you on how dully made it was (she never comments on directing but right after we came out she pointed out how blandly it was directed, saying it felt "by the numbers"). We actually enjoyed the first one quite a bit: it had a great pace, decent action, funny lines, Werner Herzog as the heavy, and a lot of charm from the cast. This had none of that. Just an unbelievably bland film and easy to predict.

[knives]

I really can't imagine why they didn't just bring McQuarrie back given how good his relationship with Cruise seems to be. The person I saw it with, also not terribly into movies, was confused on why the film felt so boring (though she was also annoyed that Cruise didn't just stay with the girl regardless of paternity).

[domino harvey]

I know he gets a lot of flack for his numerous personal failings but Cruise for me is still one of the most reliably engaging movie stars we have left. Enough that I will probably still watch the Jack Reacher sequel even though no one liked it

[knives]

He is literally the only reason to see it, but he provides enough fodder especially in terms of an auteur like examination of the film which is also is so tonally a mess to almost be interesting just for that.

[Mr Sausage]

In one of my increasingly rare theatrical trip I managed to see two of the most mediocre films of the year both of which are completely worthless outside of the acting department. The new Jack Reacher (haven't seen the first) gives a dull paperback narrative straight out of Jack Clancy. I have no clue why Cruise chose Zwick to direct, but at times it feels like he was never there with this being the laziest he's ever been. This is just flaccid direction.

My wife and I saw this and both of us agree with you on how dully made it was (she never comments on directing but right after we came out she pointed out how blandly it was directed, saying it felt "by the numbers"). We actually enjoyed the first one quite a bit: it had a great pace, decent action, funny lines, Werner Herzog as the heavy, and a lot of charm from the cast. This had none of that. Just an unbelievably bland film and easy to predict.

I guess you've finally developed Jai Courtney Stockholm Syndrome.

[cdnchris]

I think it's the one movie where I don't mind his existence.