I don't really understand this whole idea that a sequel has to be "bigger and better" than the first film. Without knowing any of the source material, I really liked Jack Reacher. For the same reason I like the Bourne films: it was grounded and the action seems legit and make you feel like it really is a struggle for the protangonist. Now everything just gets blown up into Fast and the Furious x Mission:Impossible and becomes an assault on the senses rather than an interesting movie.
I don't really understand this whole idea that a sequel has to be "bigger and better" than the first film. Without knowing any of the source material, I really liked Jack Reacher. For the same reason I like the Bourne films: it was grounded and the action seems legit and make you feel like it really is a struggle for the protangonist. Now everything just gets blown up into Fast and the Furious x Mission:Impossible and becomes an assault on the senses rather than an interesting movie.
Sort of related, I did enjoy the first Reacher movie too, but I always liked the books better since it captures the character better. Nothing against Cruise, but Reacher is suppose to be a giant of a man who is also often the smartest guy in the room. Picture Gerard Butler with a mind of Sherlock Holmes as a drifter that wanders across America.
__________________
The Following User Says Thank You to LChoy For This Useful Post:
Sort of related, I did enjoy the first Reacher movie too, but I always liked the books better since it captures the character better. Nothing against Cruise, but Reacher is suppose to be a giant of a man who is also often the smartest guy in the room. Picture Gerard Butler with a mind of Sherlock Holmes as a drifter that wanders across America.
So casting Cruise was a bit of a reach?
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Flaming Choy For This Useful Post: