Jack Reacher: Never Go Back

Mr E

First full trailer has been released.

I'm still not on board with Cruise as Reacher, but the first movie was fun.

Out October 21st.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoCP_JHzBUM

Duggy747

I didn't mind the 1st one too much but what the hell was that bathroom scene about? It came out of nowhere and felt like it should've been in a Farrelly brothers movie :pac:

Reg'stoy

Duggy747 wrote: »

I didn't mind the 1st one too much but what the hell was that bathroom scene about? It came out of nowhere and felt like it should've been in a Farrelly brothers movie :pac:

Having read the book (big fan of Lee Childs Reacher novels) it makes perfect sense. For me Cruise has the cold detachment and while he may be 8inches too short, he's a pretty good match; nearly as good as Karl Urban to Dredd.

Will definitely be watching this and thankfully doesn't seem to be a word for word adaptation of the book.

Agent Coulson

Never Go Back the book is ending/follow up to a four book story I wonder will this be a mix of all four books or a completely new story just using the title.

Second trailer.

corkgsxr

The midget Tom as Jack reacher makes me irrationally angry.

And seen the clip in the cinema yesterday. Do they have alot car chases?

Across all the books he maintains he's a piss poor high speed driver.
Happy out tipping around or crusing down interstate but not comfortable with anything more than that

mikhail

corkgsxr wrote: »

The midget Tom as Jack reacher makes me irrationally angry.

I had the opposite experience. I've read a few of the books since watching the first movie, and occasionally find myself picturing wee Jack in scenes where that makes for an absurdity. It doesn't bother me; good for the odd chuckle.

And seen the clip in the cinema yesterday. Do they have alot car chases?

Not in the first one. There are a couple of scenes in cars, but not really traditional car chases. As for this one, you've seen the same trailers as me - he takes one corner at speed. Hardly cause for panic.

Across all the books he maintains he's a piss poor high speed driver.
Happy out tipping around or crusing down interstate but not comfortable with anything more than that

I've read a good few now, and don't remember it ever coming up.

Agent Coulson

Reacher being a non driver or a guy really not comfortable driving is part of the character from the books

mikhail

Agent Coulson wrote: »

Reacher being a non driver or a guy really not comfortable driving is part of the character from the books

I read Persuader a few weeks ago, in which he drives assorted cars and vans a dozen times, and not once did it mention any reservation about it. I really think this is either being overblown, or is flat out inconsistent in the books.

Agent Coulson

A decent sequel to Jack Reacher and stuck quiet close to the book surprisingly.


Cruise still isn't Reacher but as a run of the mill action movie its enjoyable.


I did find it funny they never had Cruise or Smulders side by side nearly every shot of them was at angles to make Cruise equal in height to her I'm guessing if they stood side by side she would tower over him:D

JP Liz V1

Has Tom had some work done to his face?

p to the e

I really enjoyed the first one but remember thinking that it shouldn't have been a 12's film. Is this the same?

Tigger

Reg'stoy wrote: »

Having read the book (big fan of Lee Childs Reacher novels) it makes perfect sense. For me Cruise has the cold detachment and while he may be 8inches too short, he's a pretty good match; nearly as good as Karl Urban to Dredd.

Will definitely be watching this and thankfully doesn't seem to be a word for word adaptation of the book.

it wouldn't bother me soo much if Child didn't repeatedly discribe how big and strong Reacher is and the current weight and how he achieved that current weight at the start of every book. Never go back is the one where he worked out how to dig swimming pools for maximum strength i think?

jonon9

Just home from the film, I loved the first one but I thought the second one was a bore to be honest a typical rinse repeat run from the bad guys/beat them up.

johnny_ultimate

No Herzog, no deal.

It still fills me with great joy that a major Tom Cruise action movie had Herzog as the bad guy.

Kirby

Agent Coulson wrote: »

Reacher being a non driver or a guy really not comfortable driving is part of the character from the books

Which is why the left the crash in the first movie during the car chase. Cruise was supposed to take that bend at speed....he wasnt supposed to crash there.....but it was a happy accident so they left it in as it fit the character.

mikhail

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

No Herzog, no deal.

It still fills me with great joy that a major Tom Cruise action movie had Herzog as the bad guy.

Good call. It's okay, but lacks any of the humour of the first one. I'm not sure how to characterise the difference otherwise, but where as I enjoyed the first one, this was duller stuff. The actors are all game, and it's shot and paced reasonably well, but it's very bland stuff - hardly a memorable moment in it for me.

Sudden Valley

Not as good as the first movie, with quite an ordinary storyline. Pretty unexciting for a wannabe blockbuster it felt like a 2hr episode of NCIS. Its not a great advertisement for the army that all the soldier characters were allowed zero charisma or personality.

FunLover18

Very disappointed in this, especially given that I felt it started very strongly. But as soon as they introduced

his "daughter"

it went downhill.

conor222

God awful film, you could guess the plot from about 2 minutes in, none of the actors had any charisma, everything that happened in it was telegraphed in advance, parts of the plot don't make any sense.
I only went along because I won tickets, wish I could have those two hours of my life back

tunguska

Saw it at the weekend and it was, as others have said, a disappointment. The first film was a lot better. This had a number of problems. There was zero chemistry between Cobie smulders and tom cruise. There scenes together where it was intended to be sexual were just painful to watch. The bad guy had some moves but he talked way too much. In the bourne films anytime Matt damon came up against a similar badass, there'd be little or no dialogue, just fighting. And so it should've been here. The plot was like something from a bad an episode of JAG. Cartoon villains left right and centre. Considering the talent involved in front of and behind the camera, its strange how limp this movie is. Tom Cruise just looks bored or just sad or bored and sad. He's dialling it in for sure. He seems to get himself up more for the MI films.

That_Guy

Instantly forgettable bore fest. I actually really enjoyed the first film but this was just a slog to get through.

Some alright action sequences but it's nothing we haven't seen before.

Mr E

Not a bad movie, but the first one was better. Cruise and Smulders did a good job, but the daughter wasn't a great character.

Out of the 20+ books, they could have picked a better one to adapt.

SnakePlissken

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

No Herzog, no deal.

It still fills me with great joy that a major Tom Cruise action movie had Herzog as the bad guy.

An incredibly unnerving performance at that, a genuinely terrifying antagonist

Gwynplaine

What has Tom Cruise done to his face?

Heckler

As a fan of the books I was disappointed at the casting of Cruise as Reacher.

No matter how Lee Child or anyone else spins it the sheer physicality of Reacher is a defining characteristic in the books.

That said I enjoyed the first film for what it was. Besides being bat **** crazy I like Cruise as an actor.

This second one however was an utter bore. Far better Reacher books that would make for an entertaining film. I know I've read all the books but I can't remember "Never go Back" at all.

4/10

Timberrrrrrrr

Heckler wrote: »

As a fan of the books I was disappointed at the casting of Cruise as Reacher.

No matter how Lee Child or anyone else spins it the sheer physicality of Reacher is a defining characteristic in the books.

That said I enjoyed the first film for what it was. Besides being bat **** crazy I like Cruise as an actor.

This second one however was an utter bore. Far better Reacher books that would make for an entertaining film. I know I've read all the books but I can't remember "Never go Back" at all.

4/10

I dread reading any of the new books now as I have Cruise in my head when I picture Reached whereas before I would have had an image of someone a mix of the rock/stratham/Vin diesel

Heckler

Someone with the build of the Rock and the face of Statham maybe.

In all the books Reacher has never lost a fight (only came close once in Persuader I think). This is down to him being 6'5 and 250 pounds.

As much as I like the books Lee Childs pathetic response that Cruise embodies the spirit of Reacher is bollocks.

He was paid a **** load of cash for the movie rights and he sold.

No problem with that just don't pretend otherwise Lee.

Agent Coulson

Ray Stevenson could quiet easily be Reacher for me he has the height he's 6'3 and just looks badass.

MilesMorales1

I thought it was boring rubbish nonsense.

spacecoyote

Heckler wrote: »

In all the books Reacher has never lost a fight (only came close once in Persuader I think). This is down to him being 6'5 and 250 pounds.

Can't remember the title, but there was one where he fought a massive security guard type who was considerably bigger than Reacher, but Reacher was more agile & had less stiff, "fighting" muscle, whereas the other guy was a giant roid-monster.

That was the closest I can remember to him losing a fight.

Even in that though, the point of it was that Reacher was aware that normally he was bigger & physically stronger than the other guys he would come up against, and this guy had to be a freak to be bigger than him

mikhail

That's in Persuader - the fight that Hecker was referring to.