Reacher - Never Go Back
Discussion
Disastrous said:
I presume that in this one he's just passing through but gets involved in the problems of a pretty girl. He pisses off local law enforcement who do t recognise him despite his Pentagon level military career and million encounters with the law, smashes up numerous henchman who inexplicably try and fight a hulking mountain of man, nobs the girl, kills the baddie etc etc?
19/20 you'd be rightnot this time though...
Dick Dastardly said:
I've read half of the books and consider myself quite a fan. I enjoyed the first film even with Mr Cruise in completely the wrong role, so I'm sad to see the dire reviews this one is getting. Hopefully, they'll kill it off now and at some point in the not too distant future it gets a re-boot with a lead that you can believe is Reacher.
The first film I recently bought cheap on DVD. Mainly because I'd literally just finished re-reading One Shot.Reading and then watching, back-to-back it's scary how many characters were completely chopped from the story. Sister, PI, the TV news anchor. All gone, and despite thinking that Lee Child is writing books like they were screenplays, it seems that is far from the truth. I'd seen the first film at the cinema, but couldn't remember it that well. I was even worried at one point that Gunny Cash wouldn't feature!
Having said all that, I can't say that the first outing was a poor movie - but I liked the book better.
This one I've read more recently, and may even read again before heading to the cinema. I'll go anyway, and hope that the poor reviews were misplaced. I've got to at least give it a chance.
As for Mr Cruise as Reacher? Well, the miscasting didn't ruin the first film, despite my worst fears. But I'd still like to see a more 'appropriate' actor in the part. From the current crop of American actors, I see Jim Caviezel in the role myself. Although the books came along too late, it'd have been a great role for a younger Clint Eastwood, from the Sudden Impact/Pale Rider/Heartbreak Ridge period. Perhaps the producers ought to consider Clint as director for one of the film adaptations?
Get 'Personal' made would have been my choice. I've got £3.50 and a Glacier Fruit wrapper in my pocket. Hmmm? I wonder if I could trade them for the film rights???
Blue One said:
Halmyre said:
I think you're confusing the two iterations of Rebus. The first starred John Hannah and was roundly slagged off because Hannah was seen as wrong for the part. The second iteration starred Stott (most definitely NOT a non-smoker/drinker!). Rankin deliberately hasn't watched either version, not wanting to let them influence the books' Rebus, and didn't veto either of them, AFAIK his only beef with the Stott series was that the episodes were too short; each was a self-contained 45 minute episode. I'd agree with that, they always did cram too much in. I have read that a third iteration is on the cards, but that was some years back.
I don't know the 'ins and outs' of the Rebus series, but have read all the books and that Rankin pulled the plug on the TV series. What gets me, as primarily a reader of this stuff, is when real liberties are taken when a book is taken to screen and whole aspects of the character are changed to fit with the PC, or otherwise, view of the production. I was linking what I saw as some of those liberties with the Stott series that I was speculating may have been partly behind Rankin's decision, but sounds as though you know more than me on this. Shame in one way, as Stott seems to really personify Rebus, he just needed more leeway to become a slightly more seedy and deeper character as portrayed in the books.He just needs to be darker.
It's a bit tiresome, but size does seem to be most reader's quibble with the casting (If you just don't like Cruise, he could have been perfect the role and you'd still complain 
).
The trouble is most people suggest hulking people who really don't fit the Reacher mould.
The only actor who I can picture looking right in the role is Liam Nesson to be honest. Jim Caviezel is not a bad suggestion and I really like him a Reacher-esque role in Person of Interest, but he's too dark and moody in that to be Reacher.
Personally, that doesn't bother me and I thought the first film was a pretty decent adaptation of one of the better books.
I'll certainly watch this one sometime (even though it's one of the poorer books, imo), but maybe skip a trip to the Cinema for it...
M.
).The trouble is most people suggest hulking people who really don't fit the Reacher mould.
The only actor who I can picture looking right in the role is Liam Nesson to be honest. Jim Caviezel is not a bad suggestion and I really like him a Reacher-esque role in Person of Interest, but he's too dark and moody in that to be Reacher.
Personally, that doesn't bother me and I thought the first film was a pretty decent adaptation of one of the better books.
I'll certainly watch this one sometime (even though it's one of the poorer books, imo), but maybe skip a trip to the Cinema for it...
M.
Edited by marcosgt on Friday 28th October 17:02
Saw this, the first one was decent enough, this one hmmm let's see
Poor editing, the films seems to jump around sometimes with no rhyme or reason.
Poor script, some of the dialogue is cringeworthy.
Poor acting, I usually like TC but even some of his lines were woefully delivered.
The young girl, annoying as hell.
Henchman, very poor characterisation, as someone else said a cartoon cutout bad guy.
The only person who comes out of with any semblance of dignity is Smulders who does her best with what they've got.
The director and writing team need to be shot tbh.
It wasn't terrible but I wouldn't watch it again. 5/10
Poor editing, the films seems to jump around sometimes with no rhyme or reason.
Poor script, some of the dialogue is cringeworthy.
Poor acting, I usually like TC but even some of his lines were woefully delivered.
The young girl, annoying as hell.
Henchman, very poor characterisation, as someone else said a cartoon cutout bad guy.
The only person who comes out of with any semblance of dignity is Smulders who does her best with what they've got.
The director and writing team need to be shot tbh.
It wasn't terrible but I wouldn't watch it again. 5/10
Guvernator said:
Saw this, the first one was decent enough, this one hmmm let's see
Poor editing, the films seems to jump around sometimes with no rhyme or reason.
Poor script, some of the dialogue is cringeworthy.
Poor acting, I usually like TC but even some of his lines were woefully delivered.
The young girl, annoying as hell.
Henchman, very poor characterisation, as someone else said a cartoon cutout bad guy.
The only person who comes out of with any semblance of dignity is Smulders who does her best with what they've got.
The director and writing team need to be shot tbh.
It wasn't terrible but I wouldn't watch it again. 5/10
Christ I'd hate to sit through your 4/10 and under after that review! Poor editing, the films seems to jump around sometimes with no rhyme or reason.
Poor script, some of the dialogue is cringeworthy.
Poor acting, I usually like TC but even some of his lines were woefully delivered.
The young girl, annoying as hell.
Henchman, very poor characterisation, as someone else said a cartoon cutout bad guy.
The only person who comes out of with any semblance of dignity is Smulders who does her best with what they've got.
The director and writing team need to be shot tbh.
It wasn't terrible but I wouldn't watch it again. 5/10
Fastchas said:
RC1807 said:
Disastrous said:
marcosgt said:
Hol said:
I think the Hard Way would have been a better choice.
I've not read that one M.
I've not seen either of the fillums.
Unsure if I could take them seriously as Lee Child always ensures you know JR is built, naturally, like a brick s
t house.The background story is the kidnapping of the wife of a mercenary company owner.
I'm saying no more, as you have not read it.
marcosgt said:
The only actor who I can picture looking right in the role is Liam Nesson to be honest. Jim Caviezel is not a bad suggestion and I really like him a Reacher-esque role in Person of Interest, but he's too dark and moody in that to be Reacher.
I think Tom Hardy would make a great Reacher!MYOB said:
marcosgt said:
The only actor who I can picture looking right in the role is Liam Nesson to be honest. Jim Caviezel is not a bad suggestion and I really like him a Reacher-esque role in Person of Interest, but he's too dark and moody in that to be Reacher.
I think Tom Hardy would make a great Reacher!Maybe they need an unknown actor.
Controversial opinion ahoy! I think the Jack Reacher of the books as a giant man-mountain is a bit silly. Idiots are always picking fights with him, but how idiotic do you have to be to pick a fight with such a big guy (I know, small man syndrome and all that...)?
What the hell, it's just a bit of light entertainment, not Jean Paul bleedin' Sartre.
What the hell, it's just a bit of light entertainment, not Jean Paul bleedin' Sartre.
Halmyre said:
Controversial opinion ahoy! I think the Jack Reacher of the books as a giant man-mountain is a bit silly. Idiots are always picking fights with him, but how idiotic do you have to be to pick a fight with such a big guy (I know, small man syndrome and all that...)?
What the hell, it's just a bit of light entertainment, not Jean Paul bleedin' Sartre.
It happens a fair amount of time.What the hell, it's just a bit of light entertainment, not Jean Paul bleedin' Sartre.
Loved the first film, still not seen this, but wanna! Even after reading all of the above.
I went to see it last night with a mate. Cruise is clearly too short to play Reacher but is OK in his role in the film. You really have to forget anything you've read in the books about the lead character's height and build. It's a big ask, especially as they are some of the defining details about the character. If you can put this aside then it's an OK thriller, if predictable. If you want to make a hit movie, you need a bankable star and I'd guess Cruise's production company has sunk a lot into these two Jack Reacher films over the last few years to get them made.
We all have our own views of who would be a great actor for such roles. I always felt that Willem Dafoe was a poor choice for Mr Clark in 'Clear And Present Danger' whereas Liev Schreiber's Mr Clark in 'The Sum Of All Fears' was far more what I pictured in my head when reading the books. In fact, I think Schreiber would make a good Reacher. Liam Neeson or Tom Berenger are probably too old these days.
The big challenge for these films is the formulaic nature of the books. I think it's been said above but you kind of know what you're getting: JR shows up in town, stumbles over some trouble, uncovers conspiracy, realises the local sheriff/mayor/landowner/governor is involved in drugs/guns/people trafficking etc. but gets the girl (briefly) and resolves it all single-handed then calls the cavalry in. I've read so many of them now that they all just blur into one.
How do I hide a spoiler? I have a question that I'd like those who've seen it to see!
We all have our own views of who would be a great actor for such roles. I always felt that Willem Dafoe was a poor choice for Mr Clark in 'Clear And Present Danger' whereas Liev Schreiber's Mr Clark in 'The Sum Of All Fears' was far more what I pictured in my head when reading the books. In fact, I think Schreiber would make a good Reacher. Liam Neeson or Tom Berenger are probably too old these days.
The big challenge for these films is the formulaic nature of the books. I think it's been said above but you kind of know what you're getting: JR shows up in town, stumbles over some trouble, uncovers conspiracy, realises the local sheriff/mayor/landowner/governor is involved in drugs/guns/people trafficking etc. but gets the girl (briefly) and resolves it all single-handed then calls the cavalry in. I've read so many of them now that they all just blur into one.
How do I hide a spoiler? I have a question that I'd like those who've seen it to see!
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff