Cruise was the star and producer. Also the film was relatively cheap to make and Paramount get another MI film from Cruise.

@DanDare said:

Cruise was the star and producer. Also the film was relatively cheap to make and Paramount get another MI film from Cruise.

OK, but is a good script not required?

Don't misunderstand - I'm a Cruise fan (anyone who says he can't act is either nuts, or just hasn't seen his brilliant work in Born on the 4th of July or even Tropic Thunder). I even love watching Knight and Day (now there's a movie that should get a sequel).

@DRDMovieMusings said:

@DanDare said:

Cruise was the star and producer. Also the film was relatively cheap to make and Paramount get another MI film from Cruise.

OK, but is a good script not required?

Don't misunderstand - I'm a Cruise fan (anyone who says he can't act is either nuts, or just hasn't seen his brilliant work in Born on the 4th of July or even Tropic Thunder). I even love watching Knight and Day (now there's a movie that should get a sequel).

I think the problem is the source material. The books are not that good.

I gotta admit i quite enjoyed it... i'm not saying it's a classic by any means... but as a run-of-the-mill action flick to watch on a Saturday night, i think it does it's job

Although to be fair, i think my mindset at the time made a difference... i had had a bad couple days health-wise... been in a lot of pain... and i just wanted to chillax with my pain meds and watch something mindless that i didn't have to concentrate much on... and i think this film just kinda fit the bill for what i was in the mood for

As a side note, i was very surprised how big of a role Cobie Smulders had... i think she may have had more lines than Cruise... he did a lot of standing-in-the-background-and-looking-tough and would then mumble a corny line and walk off LOL
I guess they were trying to make him "mysterious" or something, but it just felt weird with him not being the central character you're concentrating on... cause he's Tom-freakin-Cruise... or maybe it was just me

The first one was very rewatchable. This one? Nah.

The problem is that Jack Reacher actually doesn't do very much. He's nowhere near the action man they portray him as. In the opening scene a cop thinks the men he beat up were hit by a car. Then the whole film happens and we see him get decked a whole lot of times, and some other people chip in to help sway the outcome of battles he otherwise would have lost. He's not suave, he's not sharp thinking and calculating like Bourne or Bond, and he actually just doesn't do much at all. I think he has about 3 or 4 fights in this whole film, and none are remotely impressive. The car chases are so unremarkable they could be kids TV. It's not unenjoyable, I wouldn't hate on it, and if you do end up watching it, you'll probably be content enough, but given the plethora of really good action films out there, this one basically offers nothing of any note.

@DRDMovieMusings said:

The first Jack Reacher movie had its issues, but it also had an edge to it. I look forward to anyone sharing any insight that might redeem this sequel ever being made. In this age of Bourne and Mission Impossible and other such franchises being able to maintain a compelling screenplay, story, effects, I can't fathom how this script got green-lit.

I couldn't stand the daughter. She knows everything about fraud and stealing CCs, but have no clue a phone could be traced.

The daughter and Robin kept disappearing during the crucial fight scenes.

Especially during the climax, when they watched him tumble 8feet off the ledge but it took them both 15 minutes to respond. Immediately after the fight was over.