Posted on 07/31/2022 4:43:15 AM PDT by SmokingJoe
Well it took 35 years to make the sequel.
In another 35 years, Cruise will be needing glasses to read.
Chuckle.
“The whole point is that Jack Reacher is a physical giant” is not quite correct. The point is that Jack Reacher is quite intimidating. That was established very early in the Cruise films with lightning quick takedowns of multiple adversaries.
I’ve read all of the Jack Reacher books and short stories. I loved the Amazon series, but I still loved the Tom Cruise Jack Reacher films. His Jack Reacher was not a giant but he was believably intimidating and resourceful.
Whatever dude....I know evil when I see it.
Saw it once ... would like to see it again in the theater, big screen, big sound, popcorn and Cokes ... because some of those flight scenes just have to be on the big screen.
Yes you should!
It’s amazing on the big screen!
“Collateral” is one the best Tom Cruise movies most people have never heard of. He’s incredible in it and so is Jamie Fox.
When I think of the physicality of Jack Reacher, Trace Adkins comes to mind.
Tom Cruise as Jack Reacher is a travesty
Tom’s movie is Entertainment and not Reeducation
We saw it and found it enjoyable if implausible. I’d watch it again. I do not go to the movies often. I enjoyed going during the lockdown days as our movie theater showed a lot of old movies, and we took our teens to see them. We waited for the crowds to go down to go see Maverick. The theater was still about half full.
One of the best movies I’ve seen in a long time. It was awesome!! My husband and I loved it.
Tom Cruise will get maybe $30 million of that $1.3 billion haul. That leaves $1.27 billion for the real enemies of freedom, the studio and distibution owners. That is the hollywood that is the enemy.
Meanwhile, as far as going away and not annoying anyone, I am sorry to say that you may ask me to do that but I do not need to comply. I could just as easily ask you to ignore my post and not to annoy me with a reply.
To that end, please do not annoy me with a reply. Thanks.
I saw it last month—then came home and rewatched the first Top Gun. The first one was better. I’m Gen X like Tom Cruise—he was 23 in the first one and I was in high school. Great 80s flick! Great chemistry with Kelly McGillis.
The sequel had a better and more defined military mission (except that “the enemy” was a bit vague).
I appreciated that Tom cruise thanked the audience for returning to the theater at the beginning.
I haven’t bothered to see it. I saw the original when it came out 36 years ago. From my POV “Maverick” is mostly a remake/retool/reimaging of the original, which itself was only moderately entertaining and full of cliches even in 1986.
I have to give a lot of credit though to Tom Cruise. He can still play the part of a gung-ho fighter pilot after 36 years. The man must be a billionaire by now.
Simple story with plenty of F18s doing cool stuff. I enjoyed it. Twice.
Outside of the ridiculous casting, it was better than the original. Almost completely devoid of navel gazing. Pretty much every scene was filled with conflict or action, or both.
If you like to watch fighter plane stunts, this is the film for you.
Yes, adjusted for inflation, Gone with the Wind takes number one. Then the top twenty or so of the list adds in Sound of Music, Dr Zhivago, The Ten Commandments, ET, and a bunch of older Disney movies.
And he wanted to wrk with Oliver Stone. Cruise has worked with all the contemporary great directors - Kubrick, Spielberg, Stone, Scorsese, Ridley Scott to name a few.
Cruise as Reacher doomed the flick from the start.
Great flick, and Cruise worked with another great director Michael Mann.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.