Well, the first movie was mid, but sequels are always better, eh? Eh? EH?
Trixie’s Motel?
Very subtle logo.
This looks incredibly early-digital — blown out highlights and bad white balance. I had to check the date, but it’s really 2016 and not 2001. Did they film this with a vintage 2001 Canon?
Perhaps the director just hates Tom Cruise and wants him to look as awful as possible — but without making it obvious that that’s what he’s doing?
This movie looks so ugly — it’s just hard to get past that. But it’s not that bad otherwise? The plot makes more sense than in the first movie, and there’s fewer long stretches of unnecessary exposition.
I’m kinda enjoying this on an 80s cheapish action movie basis — it could, like, have been a Golan-Globus production.
OK, I take that back. It’s been really boring for the last half hour.
Man, that last hour was just … without interest? The first movie had a lot of fun action pieces, and this totally didn’t. And I understand why Cruise wanted to do the first one — it’s a fun character to do, and he really leaned into it. And in this movie, he was sleepwalking through the movie. Perhaps he just had a multi movie contract that he couldn’t get out of?
While Jack Reacher was intended to be a tent-pole for a film series, a sequel was initially reported to be unlikely due to its lackluster run at the North American box office.[6] In February 2013, a sequel became more likely after the film surpassed a gross of $200 million worldwide.
It took them years to decide to do another movie, and only after it grossed a lot abroad.
Sheesh.
Jack Reacher: Never Go Back. Edward Zwick. 2016. ⚁
