"I mean to beat you to death and drink your blood from a boot."
First, I want to say this. I was surprised by how similar this film felt to Dirty Harry. The story shared some similarities, and the score sounded comparable to Lalo Schifrin's score for that film. And some aspects of the filmmaking, like the pacing and camera work, mixed with the score, created an almost identical-feeling atmosphere that felt like Dirty Harry. Tom even reminded me of Clint Eastwood in that film; his voice and delivery of a line.
With that said, I want to say something else. Maybe it's because I watched the show before this, but that seems more appropriate. A TV show seems perfect for Jack Reacher. And there is one now, thanks to this film and Tom Cruise. I'm not too sure about it; the first season, anyway. I do think the budget/scale of films/this film would be better on top of a TV show format, although that'll never happen; the difference between films and shows is too significant: and Tom Cruise brings more to the screen than Alan Ritchson, but at least, to a certain extent, a TV show feels more appropriate/works better.
Now, while that may seem to imply not liking this film, it's the opposite. Well, not to the extent of love, but that's beside the point. It was immersive, which affected me that way, and surprisingly, the writing and direction were super solid, meaning I was along for the ride, unable to predict. I was more surprised to see how it was the opposite for many people and how there were loads of clichés/it was predictable. Some of that seemed to stem from/include Tom Cruise, giving me the impression that some people have a bone to pick with him, playing into their opinion of the film.
Yes, his height doesn't fit the character. Yes, his overall size/physique is too small/doesn't fit the character. Yes, Jack Reacher is super intimidating in the books (?), while in this film, Tom wasn't, necessarily. Yes, Tom's portrayal, personality/acting-wise, may not have been Jack Reacher, in a sense. Yes, Tom seems to play similar characters or act similarly in different roles, which DOESN'T make him a bad actor, and this sentiment seems taken too far sometimes.
Did I get all of them? All the common ones? Let me know.
So what?
My point is that, when it comes to Tom Cruise, too many people seem to get their panties in a bunch. If hating his films is more about his personal life, there's more merit. I still think it's too much to allow to affect how you perceive his movies.
Back to what I was talking about: being surprised that many people thought this film was predictable and cliché-ridden, having other problems with it, and not enjoying it as much as I did. The more I think about it, the story/antagonists were a bit bland, which didn't stand out while watching it. But not to the extent of negatively impacting the film, in my opinion.
Besides that, the dialogue was crisp and well-written. The direction by Christopher McQuarrie was good: specific moments regarding the camera work and certain shots. That's two for two by him. Well done, Chris. Josh Olson may deserve a little credit, too, depending on whether not all of what he wrote was re-written by Christopher.
The two things that stood out the most were the score by Joe Kraemer and the cinematography by Caleb Deschanel. The latter was at its best during the car chase sequence, which was also one of the film's best parts, if not the best.
And the action, what there was of it, as this was more story-driven and a thriller, was pretty good. The stand-outs (to no one's surprise, I'm sure) were the fight sequences, specifically the one against Jeb (and his friends) and the one in the bathroom; the latter being the best; the comedic element was golden.
All the performances were serviceable. Tom Cruise and Rosamund Pike (and their general chemistry) were the highlights in that aspect, although her American accent sounded, at times, rough around the edges. Jai Courtney and Werner Herzog were underwhelming as antagonists. Richard Jenkins and David Oyelowo were alright. Robert Duvall subtly cashed in a decent performance. An honorable mention, and someone who probably went under the radar, whom I thought did good, was Joseph Sikora. His acting at the end shot him up to Tom and Rosamund, performance-wise. He should've had Jai's role or even Werner's as the main antagonist. And Alexia Fast/Michael Raymond-James delivered decent enough performances as well.
Ultimately, this film was held together by quite a few elements. Christopher McQuarrie's direction and screenplay, Tom Cruise, Joe Kraemer's score, Caleb Deschanel's cinematography, and while the story was slightly bland, especially compared to everything else, it still managed to hold its own. It was one of the better films of the previous few I've watched, although I wouldn't say it was better, as shown by my rating, which is my most common one. But it got the job done.
Review by LineageBlockedParent2022-07-20T18:20:37Z
"I mean to beat you to death and drink your blood from a boot."
First, I want to say this. I was surprised by how similar this film felt to Dirty Harry. The story shared some similarities, and the score sounded comparable to Lalo Schifrin's score for that film. And some aspects of the filmmaking, like the pacing and camera work, mixed with the score, created an almost identical-feeling atmosphere that felt like Dirty Harry. Tom even reminded me of Clint Eastwood in that film; his voice and delivery of a line.
With that said, I want to say something else. Maybe it's because I watched the show before this, but that seems more appropriate. A TV show seems perfect for Jack Reacher. And there is one now, thanks to this film and Tom Cruise. I'm not too sure about it; the first season, anyway. I do think the budget/scale of films/this film would be better on top of a TV show format, although that'll never happen; the difference between films and shows is too significant: and Tom Cruise brings more to the screen than Alan Ritchson, but at least, to a certain extent, a TV show feels more appropriate/works better.
Now, while that may seem to imply not liking this film, it's the opposite. Well, not to the extent of love, but that's beside the point. It was immersive, which affected me that way, and surprisingly, the writing and direction were super solid, meaning I was along for the ride, unable to predict. I was more surprised to see how it was the opposite for many people and how there were loads of clichés/it was predictable. Some of that seemed to stem from/include Tom Cruise, giving me the impression that some people have a bone to pick with him, playing into their opinion of the film.
Yes, his height doesn't fit the character.
Yes, his overall size/physique is too small/doesn't fit the character.
Yes, Jack Reacher is super intimidating in the books (?), while in this film, Tom wasn't, necessarily.
Yes, Tom's portrayal, personality/acting-wise, may not have been Jack Reacher, in a sense.
Yes, Tom seems to play similar characters or act similarly in different roles, which DOESN'T make him a bad actor, and this sentiment seems taken too far sometimes.
Did I get all of them? All the common ones? Let me know.
So what?
My point is that, when it comes to Tom Cruise, too many people seem to get their panties in a bunch. If hating his films is more about his personal life, there's more merit. I still think it's too much to allow to affect how you perceive his movies.
Back to what I was talking about: being surprised that many people thought this film was predictable and cliché-ridden, having other problems with it, and not enjoying it as much as I did. The more I think about it, the story/antagonists were a bit bland, which didn't stand out while watching it. But not to the extent of negatively impacting the film, in my opinion.
Besides that, the dialogue was crisp and well-written. The direction by Christopher McQuarrie was good: specific moments regarding the camera work and certain shots. That's two for two by him. Well done, Chris. Josh Olson may deserve a little credit, too, depending on whether not all of what he wrote was re-written by Christopher.
The two things that stood out the most were the score by Joe Kraemer and the cinematography by Caleb Deschanel. The latter was at its best during the car chase sequence, which was also one of the film's best parts, if not the best.
And the action, what there was of it, as this was more story-driven and a thriller, was pretty good. The stand-outs (to no one's surprise, I'm sure) were the fight sequences, specifically the one against Jeb (and his friends) and the one in the bathroom; the latter being the best; the comedic element was golden.
All the performances were serviceable. Tom Cruise and Rosamund Pike (and their general chemistry) were the highlights in that aspect, although her American accent sounded, at times, rough around the edges. Jai Courtney and Werner Herzog were underwhelming as antagonists. Richard Jenkins and David Oyelowo were alright. Robert Duvall subtly cashed in a decent performance. An honorable mention, and someone who probably went under the radar, whom I thought did good, was Joseph Sikora. His acting at the end shot him up to Tom and Rosamund, performance-wise. He should've had Jai's role or even Werner's as the main antagonist. And Alexia Fast/Michael Raymond-James delivered decent enough performances as well.
Ultimately, this film was held together by quite a few elements. Christopher McQuarrie's direction and screenplay, Tom Cruise, Joe Kraemer's score, Caleb Deschanel's cinematography, and while the story was slightly bland, especially compared to everything else, it still managed to hold its own. It was one of the better films of the previous few I've watched, although I wouldn't say it was better, as shown by my rating, which is my most common one. But it got the job done.