Jack Reacher (2012 Tom Cruise Film)

I thought the first one surprisingly good. New one's getting pretty bad reviews, unfortunately, so I'll probably skip it until Paramount sends me the Blu-ray!

 

Tom Cruise - Worst to Best list, lots of good stuff here and a fair amount of crap also.

'Cocktail' (1988) - Critic's Picks: Tom Cruise's Performances, Ranked Worst to Best »

 

Local critic loved the new one. Says it plays to his strengths as an actor. I read Reacher books whenever I see a new one.

 

Those rankings almost seem random! I wonder if John DeFore actually saw all of those movies!

 

I liked the first one and bought the Blu-ray. This new one looks good.

 

I will probably end up going, but the bad reviews are currently keeping me at bay. I am more stoked about the new book, Night School. The Reacher books almost always deliver.

 

I forgot about that. Must mark the calendar to grab that at the local B&N in 2 wks

 

Funny, but when he was a client of mine (1991-2005), I never used his name when talking to his people over the phone. It was always 'the client'. I called him by his name when talking directly to him (in person or on the phone) but never when talking about him to others.

I have posted about him in threads here a few times here and I most likely referred to him as TC or just by his first name. Mainly this is out of respect, but I did once sign a non disclosure agreement for him, and I'm not sure it dealt with what to call him. Mainly I took my lead from his staff who also seemed to refer to him this way. The only exception was when we were behind closed doors.

 

I saw it Sunday and really liked it.

Cobey was very good in it and the teenager held her own.

 

Just got back from never go back. Fun couple of hours. BTW, Cobie is hot stuff!

 

I liked it.

 

I quite liked it but ultimately my mind kept going to how much better Reacher works on the printed page. Lee Child's writing can grab my attention in two sentences. e.g. opening two lines of 61 Hours. "Five minutes to three in the afternoon. Exactly sixty-one hours before it happened."

 

...and they would work better in the movies if the producers made better choices. In the first movie they ended with a generic shootout instead of the very clever ending in the book. For the second movie, they had their choice of any number of books with really good plots (like Running Blind, where a serial killer is leaving dead women in bathtubs filled with green paint with no clues as to how they died) but chose one of the least interesting. Most likely the movie series will be dead after this one bombed and it's a shame because it could have worked out so much better.

 

We went and saw it today. Yes, it's a bit predictable to say the least, but we both still enjoyed it quite a bit. Well filmed and edited - they did a great job by *not* over-extending all the action bits as is the case all too often these days in films, and that kept the film to just about the perfect time - if they'd gone over the 2 hour mark it'd be a bit of a chore to get through I think.

 

I have never read any of the books. I just watched the first film. I loved it. A friend of mine has seen both films and recommended them to me, which is what sparked my interest. As others have said, the first film does have a very strong 1970s feel to it. For me, that's a good thing. Now I have to wait for the sequel to be released for home video.

 

Fair list.

 

Didn't think the first one was strong, Tom was more convincing in Collateral.

 

Well the new one is a tad better than the first one, wasn't enamoured with the two female co stars.