They only want your money and their agenda pushed. Producers of Reacher and Bourne either don't understand why the first films were good, or don't care. Like a band's first album - they simply seemed to be trying to nail the small details in addition to the big ones. Yet the first films in Reacher and Bourne still stand out so much more.
123MOVIES JACK REACHER NEVER GO BACK 123 MOVIES PLUS
However, Zwick and Greengrass wouldn't be cheap, plus top actors are still there and production levels alone keep the budgets high. Sequels tend to not be as good as the first, but usually because producers shamefully try to maximize capitalization on the success of the first film by skimping on big details like the director, the script and top actors in the followup film. That's why I think it is an agenda thing from the producers. Jason Bourne, which came out the same year, had the same problem even though is had the same director as previous sequels.
It seems clear to me that there was a shortsighted agenda by producers to change the direction of the feel, politics, rhetoric or something, but it was a bad idea. In contrast, Zwick, who directed the sequel, has an Oscar-sprinkled director resume, but is known for drama epics. Despite his short director resume, he has been consistent in action films. McQuarrie, who directed the first, is known more for his writing resume and has limited directing time, yet seems to understand the concept of satisfying action film fans while maintaining the continuity of a good overall film. I think this film suffers very specifically from two problems - its comparison to the first film and its director. This sequel falls flat in all those other aspects. However, the first film more than satisfies all that too, but then outshines the sequel in every other way, making it a complete film in my opinion.
I gave this one a 6 because it satisfies fundamental aspects of an action film, and those who rated the sequel higher than 6 or liked it, consistently to gravitated to that point. Yet it's the collective of many small differences and attention to detail that makes one film great and the other a dud. There is little difference between the first and second films in terms of production level, casting, story line, etc. The disappointment I felt then is still palpable today, especially after recently re-watching the first film.
I'm reviewing this long after seeing it in the theater and I haven't seen it since despite its availability on Netflix, Hulu, Prime. Who can be trusted? - Claudio Carvalho, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil They decide to protect her since a skilled assassin is hunting them down while they try to find the motive of the conspiracy. Jack also learns that Samantha is in danger and Turner and he rescue her. Soon, they realize that there is a conspiracy involving military people from the army and a government contractor that is a powerful arms dealer. He sees that Turner and he have been framed and also that Turner will be killed by two assassins. When Moorcroft is murdered, Jack is accused of being the killer and sent to a prison. Further, he also tells Jack he is being sued, accused by a woman of being the father of her fifteen year-old daughter, Samantha. Jack seeks out her veteran lawyer, Colonel Bob Moorcroft, who explains that Major Turner has also been accused of the murders of two soldiers in Afghanistan. However, he meets her substitute, Colonel Sam Morgan, who explains that Major Turner has been arrested and accused of espionage. On the run as a fugitive from the law, Reacher uncovers a potential secret from his past that could change his life forever.After accomplishing the assignment of dismantling a human trafficking organization, the former military and drifter Jack Reacher goes to Washington to invite his liaison, Major Susan Turner, to have dinner with him. Jack Reacher must uncover the truth behind a major government conspiracy in order to clear his name.
0 kommentar(er)
