IGX

As an avid fan of Lee Child's Reacher books, from the author's knowledge of arcane subjects, the hard to guess twists in narrative,the abbreviated approach to hand to hand, and believable bad guys, i was skeptical when Tom Cruise, who even i could dunk on, took on the role. The first movie was a pleasant surprise and pretty close to the character in the book as a slightly ADD, intense, cold and calculating righter of wrongs. Enough so that i looked forward to this second movie.

I should not have. This movie goes down the PC road on everything from enhanced interrogation to womyn's capability in the Military to men's emotions. In the first movie Cruise plays Reacher as Mike Tyson with a West Point Education and in the second movie he plays him as Phil Dunphy with a desire to have Jason Bourne extended fight scenes. Never Go Back is one of the best Books in the series. Movies have to be rewritten a bit to fit in the Big Screen. They shouldn't have bothered.

Even Mens on Film would hate this movie.

1 of 5 stars. Only for the Upper 9th ward scenes in Nola. My old haunts.

Goddammit I liked it...

Fucking love the Reacher books. Read them all at least twice. Even met Lee Child once and got a couple of signed copies.

But can't for the life of me work out why they chose that book for the first movie, or why they just called it 'Jack Reacher'. And even more confused why they chose this story for the sequel.

Jay wrote:Goddammit I liked it...

Read the books. WAY better. In fact as good as it gets in detective fiction.

To a large degree his sarcasm is carried off well by Tom Cruise. The bar scene in the first film was SO, "Pittsburgh",.. it was frightening. I'll have to view the second just to see how the narrative changed.

powerlifter54 wrote:

Jay wrote:Goddammit I liked it...

Read the books. WAY better. In fact as good as it gets in detective fiction.

I plan to and books are always better than movies... just how it is.

I enjoyed the movie a lot, solid action and solid story.

It sucked. The books are excellent.

I pretty much agree with the original post. Not as good as the first movie. I felt int he first movie, they made better use of Reacher's investigative skills, intelligence, and righter of wrongs. The second movie was simply more of a cookie cutter action flick.

aussie luke wrote:Fucking love the Reacher books. Read them all at least twice. Even met Lee Child once and got a couple of signed copies.

But can't for the life of me work out why they chose that book for the first movie, or why they just called it 'Jack Reacher'. And even more confused why they chose this story for the sequel.

Went and saw it last night. Enjoyed it, but still agree with what I said above - there are loads of the books with way better stories than this one.


*spoiler alert *

Did enjoy that this one had a little bit more of the brutal bits - like killing the guy with his hands then dumping the body straight off the roof just 'cos