Jack Reacher (McQuarie, 2012)

[Serhal]

I wasn't terribly interested in this film, but I got free passes so I figured what the hell. I ended up being pleasantly surprised at how much I enjoyed this. It's a generally solid thriller that has more going on than what the trailer makes it sem. There's some great work from McQuarie as writer/director (the wordless opening where we watch the assassin almost leisurely size up his targets and a great car chase scene are standouts). The performances are uniformly strong as well. The film's major shortcoming is that some major plot points the conspiracy reveal, the policeman's backstory are breezed over, so there's a sense of incompleteness. But for everything else, the enjoyment level and great genre snap I'd give this a B+.

[RRA]

This sounds like the sort of movie I enjoy as among the many flavors of "fast food" movies, if you will. Problem is the marketing campaign makes this look like not necessarily a BAD movie, but like the sort that you don't want to pay $10 and instead wait for Netflix.

Anyway my old man called me yesterday and said he wants to see this. So I guess we'll be seeing it this weekend.

I've said this observation before, but before LINCOLN my audience no sold the ZERO DARK THIRTY trailer. No buzz or murmur, good or bad. Meanwhile JACK REACHER, my crowd responded and laughed well to it. Doesn't meant anything I suppose, but none the less a local had the same experience.

This friday we have JACK REACHER. Next Christmas its studio Paramount is coming out with Ken Branagh's JACK RYAN (another Tom Clancy reboot) w/ Chris Pine. If both movies do well, we could have a cross-over eventually, remake FACE/OFF as it JACK/OFF.

(Thank you Internet for that.)

[Serhal]

I totallt agree, the marketing has been awful. It's why I had no interest in seeing it and only did since I got free passes.

[RRA]

I totallt agree, the marketing has been awful. It's why I had no interest in seeing it and only did since I got free passes.

Well this might actually be better than it looks. Currently 80% on RT.

(don't worry folks I won't do a day by day RT scoring like I did DREDD.)

[Robie]

Saw this at a screening yesterday entirely for Herzog's role. Turns out his role is quite small, much smaller than I thought it would be! He has only 2 major scenes I think, but his first scene is full of presence and his character has a great "movie villain" backstory. I would have liked it if they'd fleshed out his role and given him more to do.

As for the film itself, tragically it is just way, way too familiar to the current tragic events we're dealing with in the U.S. The whole plot with the sniper makes the film difficult to watch at many points. Some might say even inappropriate.

However, my audience seemed to enjoy many parts of the film, such as fight scenes or humorous lines that got a big reaction (they ate up the scene from the trailer where the guy hands Cruise his hat to hide him from the police, it's very effective in context), and there was some applause at the end.

I was wavering between giving it a 6/10 or 7/10, but decided on 6/10. Plotwise I don't think it's that much worse than Skyfall, but Skyfall had much better performances from its lead characters.

[cassius]

I liked it, but ultimately it lacked whatever magic thing it is that lifts a movie from good to great.

Of course, the whole thing is preposterous. The character is preposterous. (You try wearing one outfit repeatedly, washing it nightly in the sink, and see if you look like Tom Cruise; does Jack really engage in Tom Cruise's fitness regimen while homeless?, when has a homeless man ever had that well-trimmed a hairstyle?) The conspiracy makes sense only in the way things do in bad movies. Ditto the final action scene. Ditto most people's responses to Mr. Reacher. (Yes, I'm a capable attorney, I'll hire this stranger to be my investigator.)

But so what? Tom makes an engaging hero, he gets a cool car, he's got some great fights and car chases. Chris McQuarrie is one of my favorite writers, and since he only seems to get a movie with his "stamp" about once every 10 years, I better enjoy this one while it's here. Hopefully Mr. Cruise does give him a boost in the Hollywood system. Much like Joss Whedon, he's one of those guys with a distinctive writing style, which is a pleasant change from the disposable writing which usually haunts a movie like this.

The action is fun. We are never subjected to chaos-cam, as is so common mowadays.

Tech is strong. When I think of Caleb Deschanel shooting a movie, I usually think of gorgeous epics that scream "nominate me for Cinematography" (and he's deserved every nomination he's gotten. But shooting a tough, hard, bare-knuckle actioner is not something I expect from him, and the results are strong. Sound design is clear and bold without being overdesigned. Editing keeps things moving at a solid pace and the action clear.

If anyone deserves a nomination in this year-end melee, though, it would be at the Artios awards for casting. Here is one of the movies where our hero is surrounded by a cast of interesting characters. Each thug has his own personality and look, so we never get confused as to who Jack is beating up in this scene. Standout performances are from Werner Herzog as the creepy baddie, Jai Courtney as his grinning muscle man, and Alexia Fast (or something like that)as the local temptress who works by day at an auto parts store, but tries to pick up extra cash leading Jack into trouble.

Also, it's kind of nice to see the biggest star in the world make a reasonably small movie. I liked it, I'd go see a sequel.

[RRA]

Yeah I kinda enjoyed this too, a decent time at the movies.

It's main problem (if you want to call it one) is that it's a good Airplane novel or a cheeseburger movie in that you get caught up in the familiar plot template and enjoy (or don't mind) the cliches, but once the movie ends that sensation quickly fades away. I'm reminded of DREDD from ealrier this year, except that one in reflection I can admire it's anti-comic book movie ambitions (no origin story, no love interest, etc.). JACK REACHER isn't even blessed by that luxury to really stand out. You don't need this movie in your life, as much as you need another hot dog or blowjob, but you want something like this perhaps at times when you do want mildly divergent entertainment. Also like DREDD.

But yes I'll admit it, I did get caught up and get engaged by the murder mystery along with the movie's obvious influences (most successful) as a pseudo-throwback to the 1970s, specifically DIRTY HARRY as a mixture of right-wing taking the law into your own hands fantasy and crowd pleasing action/one-liners. Hell the nicely produced opening with the sniper scoping out his prey as a high-tech predator reminded me of the Scorpio killer from DH. My crowd reacted well at the intended audience interactive moments.

Let me give kudos to that car chase though. What we see isn't necessarily anything new, but I thought it was nicely produced and effective. And that's from someone who's seen countless movie car chases because they're dime a dozen. No a quarter a dozen. Too bad the punchline of that sequence has been spoiled in trailers and TV ads.

I even liked that really ridiculous storypoint that gun range owner Robert Duvall refuses to talk to Cruise, unless he can hit a target three times. I even liked that uber-ridiculous early scene of the DA/police talking about Cruise and doing an action movie tradition of using exposition to detail how badass so and so is, then after that thick line of saying this ghost pops out of nowhere, there is Cruise. Truely silly, yet it amused me. You know what else also amused me? That atrocious line Cruise says ("I want to drink all your blood out of a boot!") is so goofy, a mixture of the sentence and his delivery, unintentionally makes it hilarious instead of a menacing threat as the filmmakers intended I guess.

I have two real problems with the movie.

(1) I hate that comic book ending scene, really doesn't gel at all with the rest of film's set-up and delivery. Setting up the hero with expositional dialogue for future potential sequels, what the fuck is this Spider-Man or Batman? Now in terms of action heroes, this could've worked for say the Punisher since that character is sorta iconic, represented by the blunt symbolism of his basic name. JACK REACHER...doesn't have that same simple powerful ring, no? In fact at the end you don't see a new franchise launched, you just see Tom Cruise doing another Tom Cruise picture getting to pretend play Buford Pusser or Jason Bourne or whatever.

(2) Well the rest of the ending before that last shot fucking boggles my mind and it's nagging me. So Cruise just walks away, no big deal that he did shoot up alot of bad guys, including a cop? Sure that cop was corrupt, but a cop none the less. Also does that patsy sniper actually go to jail or not? All that shit just made no fucking sense. Sure alot of the plot/actions beforehand when met with close inspection would probably also fail the smell test, but in movie logic they made sense or at least were believable enough to get by. Also what about the people behind Herzog? Would they go after Cruise and D.A. and everybody anyway or was he the boss?

JACK REACHER (2012) - ***1/2 out of 5

Cassius, I do agree with you about the supporting casting. Herzog should really be up to do more movie acting. I loved that scene when he tries to get that henchman to eat his own fingers.

[erikdean]

I kinda super loved this.

[RRA]

OK I lied, this is now 61% at RT. I liked the movie, but I can't say that surprises me.

Fun Fact: the scene when Cruise lists what cops don't do, the cop at the desk is played by Lee Childs, who wrote the source novels for this character.

Chris McQuarrie is one of my favorite writers, and since he only seems to get a movie with his "stamp" about once every 10 years, I better enjoy this one while it's here. Hopefully Mr. Cruise does give him a boost in the Hollywood system. Much like Joss Whedon, he's one of those guys with a distinctive writing style, which is a pleasant change from the disposable writing which usually haunts a movie like this.

Deadline reported a month ago that Paramount wanted him to direct the next MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE movie or possibly adapt Tom Clancy's WITHOUT REMORSE w/ Tom Hardy. So don't worry, I think he's going to direct again pretty soon. And honestly with what I saw in JR, he could pull off a M:I movie.

You bring up the writing, I was disapointed by the whole old fashioned "I'll throw my gun away, you're without a piece, I want to kill you but I want to do it as a MAN!" cliche that I really wouldn't mind never seeing again in a movie. I mean if Cruise's character is scripted to want to KILL this fucker personally, why not cap the guy in the knee then go all smashy smashy? It's also unintentionally funny when a vertically challenged guy like Cruise is the supposed kickass machine, Dianetics clears your body of Thetans and gives you killer 50 year old abs too apparently.

[siowafc]

This was slick fun - a perfect calculus-like formula of Taken + The Lincoln Lawyer + 1/2 (Drive). Tom Cruise is basically the last remaining action star and I'm not sure why I continued to be impressive by his commitment to these kinds of roles, but he always manages to knock them out the park in ways that Liam Neeson or Jason Statham really wish they could.

The Cruise + Pike pairing is really fun. They have good chemistry and the strengths they bring to the case are complimentary in a back-and-forth kind of way.

What really fascinated me about the film (and it's probably a topic worthy of a lengthy editorial) is just how startlingly this film fits into the current "debate" going on about guns, between the military analogies (Cruise line: "My job was just like yours, except all my suspects were trained killers." was great), the nauseatingly-verite sniper scope opening killing spree, and the fact that a significant portion of the filmliterally takes place on a shooting range. I just that the film maybe had a bit more to say. Sure, Reacher is going after those who have done horrific wrongs, but the nobility of his attitude and his actions is very...questionable. And the film does a poor job of illuminating everything that is going on underneath the surface. I liked the scene where he tried to save the girl, but that's a very minor story beat in the grand scheme of kill, kill, punch, kill.

The ending is horrifically sloppy (especially for a 2+ hour movie), but I would definitely like to see more out of these characters, if this ends up being the franchise that Paramount hopes for. It's a good, if not great, attempt at the kind of adult entertainment that the multiplex is solely lacking these days.

[erikdean]

This was slick fun - a perfect calculus-like formula of Taken + The Lincoln Lawyer + 1/2 (Drive).

LMAO this is exactly right.

[RRA]

What really fascinated me about the film (and it's probably a topic worthy of a lengthy editorial) is just how startlingly this film fits into the current "debate" going on about guns, between the military analogies (Cruise line: "My job was just like yours, except all my suspects were trained killers." was great), the nauseatingly-verite sniper scope opening killing spree, and the fact that a significant portion of the filmliterally takes place on a shooting range. I just that the film maybe had a bit more to say. Sure, Reacher is going after those who have done horrific wrongs, but the nobility of his attitude and his actions is very...questionable. And the film does a poor job of illuminating everything that is going on underneath the surface. I liked the scene where he tried to save the girl, but that's a very minor story beat in the grand scheme of kill, kill, punch, kill.

This is the sort of movie Clint Eastwood used to make in his heyday before he got too old (the DIRTY HARRY series especially comes to mind) with the action and refined one-liners, along with the shoot don't think right-wing politics that go along with such stories. Like JACK REACHER, I also enjoyed alot of those Eastwood movies. (Except producer Clint wouldn't have let JR go on that long nor tolerated such a sloppy as fuck ending.) Not excusing JR, but one must also remember the source Jack Reacher books (which I've never read) from what I've gathered are airport novels, the sort of disposable, trashy superficial entertainment that aren't interested (or don't bother investing) in the philosophical/political insight that you're hoping.

It's a cheeseburger movie, and a good one.

[RRA]

OK I was wrong, it's still borderline fresh at RT (61%). Inexplicably only 4% behind THE HOBBIT BEGINS.

So....yah?

[Aaron Leggo]

This was fun. It definitely stumbles in areas and it's kind of forgettable, but damn do I get a kick out of Tom Cruise being an angry badass. And creepy Werner Herzog who chewed off his fingers! Here's my review:

JACK REACHER

The controversial decision to cast a diminutive actor like Tom Cruise in a role written as a hulking guy on the pages of Lee Child's novel One Shot might just be writer/director Christopher McQuarrie's best and brightest call in his enjoyable and easily digestible action thriller Jack Reacher. Sure it's a dull title and an almost brazen bit of casting, but while Cruise is physically small, he still has huge screen presence and an ability to sell the driven hero persona without letting the shtick devolve into parody. It helps that he's armed with an arsenal of angry one-liners. "I mean to beat you to death and drink your blood from a boot," Jack tells a villain over the phone without cracking a smile. The line is both hilarious and completely convincing as a deadly serious threat, a multi-tasking talent that Cruise still has in spades. It's a good thing too, since the success of this movie rests almost entirely on the little guy's shoulders.

Cruise's charisma and definitive delivery of his dialogue is just enough to keep Jack interesting, both as a character and as a movie. His personality proves invaluable, since otherwise the movie is a tad generic. The plot he's stuck in is pretty mundane stuff, especially with some baffling narrative decisions that McQuarrie makes up front. When five seemingly random people are shot down in a Pittsburgh park by a rogue sniper, Jack, who pretty much lives off the grid as a steely-eyed drifter, shows up to help in the investigation. The case seems pretty cut and dried since an ex-military sniper whose prints were all over the crime scene has already been taken into custody, but Jack does some digging alongside the suspect's lawyer (Rosamund Pike) and ends up finding evidence of a potential framing.

Yes, it's a plot twist, but it arrives without any fanfare because McQuarrie spills the beans from the opening seconds. He lets us in on the fact that the suspected sniper is innocent before the opening credits sequence is through. And then a while later, he really hammers it home when the villains, led by a wonderfully creepy Werner Herzog, show up to spell out the whole framing angle, complete with red herrings. The decision is a genuine head-scratcher because it puts us in possession of plot-guiding information long before Jack and Pike's Helen are privy to it.

Any thread of intended suspense that runs through the first chunk of the movie is severed from the moment we see the suspect in custody, causing all those scenes of Jack and Helen slowly piecing together the truth to be more enraging than engaging. I'm simply baffled by McQuarrie's decision to approach the story in this manner because it puts us ahead of the investigation and prevents any great dramatic impact from hitting when the truth begins to come into focus. It's like we're halfway to the finish line, but we keep peeking in on Jack and Helen to see how far they are behind us.

Eventually, they catch up and shine a bit of additional light on the mystery plot. Some additional details leave things in mainly ambiguous territory, which serves as a significant reminder that the plot twists really aren't the point here. The fun lies in watching what Jack does with them. So as the wheels of the plot continue to turn in rather contrived ways, Jack goes to work with his own personal brand of fiery resolve and McQuarrie raises the personal stakes for the anti-hero by hurling Jack into harrowing situations and letting him fight his way out with little more than his smarts. This doesn't excuse the decision to dramatically invert the investigation earlier in the movie, but it does reveal that McQuarrie's interest lies in watching Cruise coolly control an impossible situation.

Once the movie hits this point, it roars to life as a fine piece of entertaining action cinema where the right attitude trumps any weapon. McQuarrie executes a blazing car chase that pits two different eras of vehicle against each other and showcases Jack's quick thinking in the process. Cruise keeps on playing it cool and taking charge of each situation with a professional weariness that is more humorous than alienating. Pike is mostly just along for the ride and her character finds herself in a predictable predicament that really doesn't help the movie dodge those generic accusations. But Pike herself is decent enough in the role to hold her own alongside her more seasoned co-stars. And of course, they don't get much more seasoned than a crusty ol' Robert Duvall as a gun expert with a few good one-liners of his own.

This all culminates with a fun finale that gives Jack plenty of challenging things to pull off, including letting his moral compass show its true north. Jai Courtney makes an uninteresting character on the villain side, but he passes the test as a watchable obstacle that Cruise's protagonist has to brawl with. McQuarrie doesn't really have a lot of original ideas (or any) here, but he puts a fresh enough spin on the familiar that his movie doesn't ever become overly stale. This is only his second directorial effort (and his first in over a decade), but he has managed to maintain a great eye for action and a strong sense of snappy pacing. And now he has Tom Cruise.

Jack Reacher begins oddly and ends simply, but there's a solidly enjoyable movie in between. Cruise is the key that fires up the movie's ignition, giving it a character cool enough to make up for the mediocrity of the plot and fun enough to lend McQuarrie's strong action sequences some meaningful stakes. He's strong enough to prop up an entire movie that would otherwise be missing that one piece of the puzzle that pushes it into enjoyable territory. Cruise's Jack Reacher may be small, but he certainly packs a punch. Anyone who underestimates him better beware his boot.

[Voyeur]

I enjoyed the film for the most part. But I have to ask, did anyone else find Rosamund Pike kinda terrible in this? I mean, she's pretty and all. And that weird blank expression somehow works well in films like Pride & Prejudice, but here it was hard to buy.

[Josh_The Original]

I, somewhat unexpectedly, quite enjoyed this.