Reacher - Never Go Back

[Blue One]

Well as bit of a Reacher fan I went to see the second outing of our hero portrayed by pintsize Tom Cruise, oh dear...

The first film he did kind of worked because they seemed to stick (within reason) close to the book and Cruise seemed to play the role well (despite his physical challenges viz height, heft and presence).

This second film mashes the plot the book 'Never Go Back' quite badly, with the child playing a bigger role, too much running and plot baggage and characters that didn't appear in the same way as the book, also just too much in your face car chases and a plot that was barely there.

Lee Child did his second cameo appearance, and is presumably still too happy with his bank balance so isn't yet questioning the wisdom of trashing his franchise by allowing Cruise to take it over. Hopefully he'll do the same as Ian Rankin did with Rebus and pull the right for this to carry-on (Rankin did this with the ITV series Rebus which saw that hero as a non-smoking/drinking/designer suited character, although Stott was a great choice of actor).

So Never Go Back gets a 3/10 from me.

Anyone else share this view of the film?

[Pesty]

Disappointing, I loved the first one. Has some great scenes.

Would I be correct in assuming it's a different director? If so it was always going to be hit and miss.

[Halmyre]

Blue One said:

Well as bit of a Reacher fan I went to see the second outing of our hero portrayed by pintsize Tom Cruise, oh dear...

The first film he did kind of worked because they seemed to stick (within reason) close to the book and Cruise seemed to play the role well (despite his physical challenges viz height, heft and presence).

This second film mashes the plot the book 'Never Go Back' quite badly, with the child playing a bigger role, too much running and plot baggage and characters that didn't appear in the same way as the book, also just too much in your face car chases and a plot that was barely there.

Lee Child did his second cameo appearance, and is presumably still too happy with his bank balance so isn't yet questioning the wisdom of trashing his franchise by allowing Cruise to take it over. Hopefully he'll do the same as Ian Rankin did with Rebus and pull the right for this to carry-on (Rankin did this with the ITV series Rebus which saw that hero as a non-smoking/drinking/designer suited character, although Stott was a great choice of actor).

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.

[Blue One]

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.

[Disastrous]

Blue One said:

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.

I disagree with that generally.

What's the point in remaking a book as a film? People will just unfavourably compare it to the book and film is a different medium to books, so why not write to the strengths of both?

Blade Runner is a superb example of a film that is NOTHING like the (fantastic) book it's based on which is utterly brilliant in it's own right, and succeeds on it's own merits.

I do broadly agree with you on Reacher though (having only seen the first) as Lee Child effectively writes screenplays, rather than books. In my minds eye, he would be akin to Marv out the Sin City films - Tom Cruise just doesn't quite cut it.

[IanH755]

The first film was a better "Reacher" film than this new one as it had a "police" story narrative (detective work, evidence etc) and stuck much closer to the book whereas this is a bog standard "fugitive on the run" chase story which doesn't suit the Reacher narrative very well (methodical yet unconventional police work followed by brutal take down of the bad guys).

Tom Cruise actually looks tired during the movie which, at his age, he probably is as he spends most of the movie being out sprinted by the lovely Cobie Smulders who holds her own but is definitely still only co-star material. The fight scenes are as brutal as ever but suffer from "set piece-itis" where you can see them coming a mile away as the location shoot swaps to a stage and the faceless bad guys never look like putting Reacher in any trouble.

The "boss" bad guy was wasted in a virtual cameo role, the "head henchman" was brutal but very poor written and was more like a caricature than a real person. The young girl was highly punchable through-out, in fact it was one of the few films where I wish "the girl" had died, as it would have given Reacher more rage to play with.

[Guffy]

Yeah, I was disappointed with this, a bit too predictable and the young girl was annoying and her acting didn't convince me either. I was moderately entertained at times, so 5/10

[Quickmoose]

I concur.
The first was sharp, witty, well paced and involving....but didn't test the brain
This struggled to hold my attention in any way and the annoying brat doing the whole Hollywood "goodbye" to her "dad" was just awful...

I like Tom Cruise stuff, but the more I see him of him lately the more I think he's the new Roger Moore... eye-brow acting, karate chop death kill...

New director should jog on, bring back the 1st one...

[boxsey]

Haven't yet read the book the second film is based on (i'm up to book 13 - Gone Tomorrow). Having read the previous 12 I'm not surprised the latest film deviates from the book because I would say the average Reacher novel is quite low on action. It takes a while for a passage to build, there's a sudden burst of action which is short lived and then a long period before the next piece of action/brutal violence and so on. Not really the type of storyline that film makers like hence they decide it needs actioning up. Also, I can't recall any full on car chases in the books. In fact Childs portrays Reacher as some one that isn't that keen on driving cars and where possible gets his co-character to do the driving.

I'll probably get the latest film when it's on DVD but I'm not expecting it to live up to the Reacher that I know from the books.

As a by the by I would say that the first book (the Killing floor) was one of the best I've read so far and would have thought that one would have made a good Reacher action movie.

[jbudgie]

Don't understand why they made a film from this book--not one of the best by a long way.

[HD Adam]

Forget the source material and miscasting.

Just pretend his name is Zack Bleacher or something and take the film on it's own merits.

[marcosgt]

jbudgie said:

Don't understand why they made a film from this book--not one of the best by a long way.

Not seen the film yet, but agree on the book - The one that precded it was MUCH better, but obviously isn't going to translate to a film as they seem to have changed the presumption that got Reacher to 'Go Back'!

M

[Dick Dastardly]

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.

[Hol]

marcosgt said:

jbudgie said:

Don't understand why they made a film from this book--not one of the best by a long way.

Not seen the film yet, but agree on the book - The one that precded it was MUCH better, but obviously isn't going to translate to a film as they seem to have changed the presumption that got Reacher to 'Go Back'!

M

I think the Hard Way would have been a better choice.

[marcosgt]

Hol said:

I think the Hard Way would have been a better choice.

I've not read that one

M.

[Disastrous]

marcosgt said:

Hol said:

I think the Hard Way would have been a better choice.

I've not read that one

M.

I've read them all so must have, but honestly can't tell one from the other, especially from the title!

[RC1807]

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 read them all so must have, but honestly can't tell one from the other, especially from the title!

Ditto.
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 st house.

[Fastchas]

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 read them all so must have, but honestly can't tell one from the other, especially from the title!

Ditto.
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 st house.

Same here apart from 61 Hours which was my first read and Persuader which I know relates to the armoury he was carrying!

[Disastrous]

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?

[louiebaby]

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?

I think I've read that book, which one is it?