John Wick Vs. Jack Reacher?

I was curious if anyone else gets these two characters/movies mixed up. It feels like a Dante's Peak, Volcano sort of situation. I personally adored John Wick and have never seen Jack Reacher. Is this just a coincidence or are they actively competing with each other now that both are getting sequels?

Bill Pullman is the one that hangs from the roof of the cave, while bill Paxton is the one that comes from the floor of the cave.

In all seriousness, though, I never got John Wick or Jack Reacher confused.

As someone who has seen both, John Wick is a stylish linear action movie that was competently shot and edited. Jack Reacher is a muddled mess based on a character whose personality boils down to "what if Tom Clancy's 'Jack Ryan' was more alpha?"

To be fair, I never really equated the two. A better example would be "The Equalizer" starring Denzel Washington. Those movies have roughly the same hero, same villain, and came out a month after one another.

Complete coincidence. The movies aren't all that similar really, but I guess it's an inFamous\Prototype situation.

Don't watch Jack Reacher. But if there's a supercut of Werner Herzog's performance give that a look. He reads his lines for all their worth.

I've only seen bits and pieces of Jack Reacher and not enough to get a full picture of the movie, but from what I have seen, it is absolutely nothing like John Wick except for the fact that they both fall under the term "action movie".

No, but only because John Wick is amazing and Jack Reacher was terrible

Wick, but the first Reacher wasn't as bad as people will now say it was

Jack Reacher was fine. Just... okay.

I don't know if it's because we're comparing it to John Wick, but it's nowhere near as bad as people here are making it out to be.

Hell no. John Wick is the finest action film created in the last ten years. Jack Reacher is a good film, but not even close to John Wick.

This is almost offensive. John Wick is a great action movie, the likes of which have not been seen since the 90s (at least in Hollywood). No slow mo bullshit, no cheap ass looking cgi, just straight up great editing.

On another note, if you guys enjoy John Wick, check out "Man from Nowhere". Its a great action korean movie. That movie is on par with John Wick imo. @danryckert you should check it out too dan. A few years ago when I was still in the US, it was on netflix. Not sure about now.

I keep thinking that Jack Reacher also stars Matt Damon, for some reason. There's no way I would mix it up with John Wick though.

Could twenty books be written about John Wick?

Should twenty books have been written about Jack Reacher?

Is Tom Cruise a more commanding screen presence than Keanu Reeves?

Do you have any regard for the opinions of Stephen King?

These questions and how they are answered govern opinions on this matter.

I liked Jack Reacher and look forward to its sequel.

Partway through John Wick I was tired of John Wick. But I watched it all, found its concluding fight absurd and then watched Nightcrawler, which resonated with me much more-so.

This was my experience.

The Man from Nowhere and also A Bittersweet Life are two damn fine Korean revenge action movies.

John Wick is a very fun action movie, although in the end it's not that much above the direct-to-video-action level.

Jack Reacher on the other hand is just a Tom Cruise power fantasy trip. Not a bad movie, but it gave me too much of a hey-look-I'm-Tom-Cruise-I'm-awesome vibe.

I just saw the trailers for both these sequels in the last 24 hours and at no point did I connect the two in my mind.

God damn than John wick 2 trailer is hype

I love both of these movies but they're going for pretty different things.

Well, seeing as how Jack Reacher is fucking garbage, it's pretty easy to keep them separate.

I keep seeing the trailer for Reacher where he punches through a car window and knocks a dude out, and the only thing that comes into my mind is Goldberg punching through that limo window, nearly severing an artery and almost losing his arm. Makes me laugh every time.

It just goes to prove my theory that Tom Cruise is the worst part of every movie he's in.

I can't speak for John Wick, but Jack Reacher is a profoundly dumb movie. In a good way I guess, but it feels like the most straight forward action protagonist parody I've seen this side of Last Action Hero. Its watchable just to see how goofy a character can brood. Its like the store brand version of Jason Bourne. I don't expect its sequel to be any different.

They are both not my kind of movie, but they are different kinds of not my kind of movie that I would not get confused with one another. And Tom Cruise is not like Keanu Reeves.

I should probably grab John Wick to improve my collection of revenge films. I say collection, it's like three movies. I need to steal a copy of Point Blank and rewatch Dead Man's Shoes.

John Wick is a fantastic movie. Can't speak for Jack Reacher.

I don't think people saying that Jack Reacher is garbage have ever seen a bad movie. I like, but do not love, Jack Reacher. In a world where we got two dog shit sequels to Taken, I wish we had more movies like Jack Reacher.

Jack Reacher is a perfectly serviceable movie and I enjoyed watching it, Cruise is nearly always likable (even in Magnolia to an extent) but it has nothing on John Wick. Maybe its the juxtaposition of them both having generic ass first names while having somewhat unusual surnames?

Having not yet seen John Wick, and having seen Jack Reacher I can say that Reacher is not terrible and not good, just very bland. In my opinion bland action movies are the worst because you so quickly forget them, give me a bad or great action movie over Reacher any day of the week.

Definitely not. As far as I'm concered they aren't even in the same league or sport.

I haven't seen either but I know which one is what one.

I've never seen either film, here's how I know which one they are

• John Wick - Not The Matrix
• Jack Reacher - Not Mission Impossible

John Wick is a great movie while Jack Reacher was merely watchable. That said I loved Werner Herzog as the villain in Jack Reacher and the subsequent Comedy Bang! Bang! where Paul F. Tompkins doing his Herzog impersonation talks about working on the movie. "Who has two thumbs and not so many fingers? This guy" still cracks me up.

If were going straight up fight than John Wick wins easily.

Jack Reacher is so mediocre compared to John Wick. Not even comparable to me.

This reminds me that I have long had a stupid idea to base a round in a trivia quiz about that film and call it 'The Jack Reacher Round'.

I'll go now.

One is Tom Cruise. One is Keanu Reeves. Duh /s

I really liked jack reacher. I thought it marked his return as action star that wasn't a mission impossible movie.

I moved John wick. I really hope they flesh out the criminal underworld that the teased you with with that hotel. It's pretty awesome and hope they pull back that curtain a little bit more.

That being said I think a wick vs reacher movie would be a tie. Both die in a standoff

I got some weird amalgamation of Jack Ryan and Jason Bourne from Reacher. I actually liked it, but I think part of it is Cruise being a charismatic actor to where I don't love his personal life or details therein, but damn if I won't watch a movie with him in it.

John Wick is a whole different animal all together, it's action-fest revenge-a-thon and 100mph almost entirely. It's also well choreographed the whole way through though, where Reacher feels a bit more generic for sure.

They're both pretty interesting in their own right, I think the first Reacher pic went underappreciated so I'm glad to see another, but the hype for JW2 is just so high because of the surprise I found in enjoying that movie.

They are both good. I can see how a normal person would get them confused.

I don't understand why so many people praise John Wick and shit on Jack Reacher. Someone kills his dog and he gets revenge /story. What the fuck did I miss? Is it because Reeves seems like a cool dude?

@moab: Granted, I like both, but I think John Wick was very unapologetic about what it was. It knew exactly what it was and kinda leaned into it. It also had a lot of style. The soundtrack was good as well.

The Jack Reacher movie is instantly forgettable, don't worry is you haven't seen it, you're not missing much. However, the books by Lee Child are some of my favourites. Don't let the film deter you from reading the books.

I just can't take Tom Cruise seriously anymore. I didn't think Jack Reacher was bad but John Wick was better.

Nope. Having read all the Reacher books, I quite enjoy that character - in the same way that I enjoyed Jack Bauer. I don't really agree with Tom Cruise's portrayal of the character, since Reacher is supposed to be a huge mountain of a man, which Cruise certainly is not. I'll still watch the new movie when it comes out, though.

But Wick is great in its own way. He is the fantasy version of Reacher/Bauer with way more stylized action. Like Hitman, but way better. I think the world of John Wick, that was only teased a bit in the movie, is really fascinating - I hope they explore that more in the second film.

Hate to burst your bubble, but I 100% know what a garbage movie is. I've been an avid horror movie fan since the late 80's, and have seen more garbage than your mind can comprehend. I've watched all of "Troll 2", which is widely considered one of the worst movies ever made. I've watched Troma movies, for fucks sake, and not the ones that can be argued for as "classics", like "The Toxic Avenger". I've seen "Terror Firmer", and "Tromeo and Juliet".

You think those "Taken" sequels were bad? Try watching "Friday the 13th" part V, VIII, or, god forbid, "Jason X". Or, maybe try the "Day of the Dead" reboot that has Nick Cannon(yup)in it, and a character who is vegan, that even after he becomes a zombie won't attack other people because he "...doesn't eat meat..."

Just pick a "Nightmare on Elm Street" movie that's not 1, 3, or "New Nightmare".

How about that last reboot of "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre"? You know, the one thats filmed in Louisiana(WTF???), and has the PROTAGONIST throw Leatherface a chainsaw and say, I quote, "Do your thing, cuz!" That dumpster fire has Trey Songz in it plugging his own garbage music! It's like garbage inception! Garbage inside of garbage, wrapped within a garbage enigma!

I'm a pro-wrestling fan(as my Goldberg reference in my first post made clear). Do you really think someone can watch wrestling since the 80's and not know garbage instinctually? Fuck, I watched the NWO ride on the back of dump trucks in the snow, too sweeting the camera, and talking about how they were gonna "..change the world as we know it...", while Sixx(Xpac, aka Sean Waltman) runs around literally screaming "Look at me!!", like a 5 year old.

No, I would argue that I'm exceptionally well versed in garbage, and that just about anything that has Tom Cruise in it is garbage. Even the good movies that he has been in, he is still the worst part of those movies.

Did Tom Cruise make Legend good?

Fuck no!

Wonderful practical FX, and Tim Curry being Tim Curry made Legend awesome.

Tom Cruise is an actor that always looks like he's acting. I can never believe that he IS a character, only that he's PLAYING a character. Keanu Reeves might not be DeNiro, either, but when given a decent script, he can make it work.

Jack Reacher movies are generally pretty bad, some of the novels are okay. John Wick was a fun time. Other than the white tough guy thing, they're pretty different characters. Plus, only one of them is in payday 2.

@samael2138: Tom Cruise is not a bad actor and he's pretty good in a lot of movies. I get if people think he's weird now (I do) but he has been in plenty of good movies, maybe not doing any outstanding acting but I tend to think a lot of actors coast by doing the exact same, even well regarded ones. He is legitimately great in Collateral as well.

People acting like Reeves is on some tier above Cruise have to make me laugh. They are both the exact same level of "fine" in basically everything they're in.

The plot to an action movie is inconsequential if you have well done action scenes and cool style. It's just a simple revenge tale that is just really well done directed by a guy that use to be a stunt choreographer.

Jack Reacher is a mediocre movie with an overly complicated plot that is coasting off of Tom Cruise's charisma and stunt casting of Werner Herzog as the villain. Say what you will about Tom Cruise's personal life but the guy is great in action and sci-fi movies.

I watched John Wick last night and it didn't speak to me on any level. I have nothing against pure action movies, but they have a very fine line to cross for me to get enjoyment from them. It's all about the action and how intense/exhilarating it is, and John Wick totally failed for me in this regard. It's weird because I don't think it's a poorly made film, --what they did probably took a lot of finesse-- but the end product feels choreographed. The moment to moment action should feel like there are some stakes involved, and I just didn't get that from John Wick.

Haven't seen Jack Reacher, so yeah.

Another Tom Cruise movie that you can compare to John Wick though is Collateral. It isn't pure action, but it deals with a similar subject with a deftness John Wick just didn't have. Michael Mann is well known for that though, so it's hard to compare.

This is my stance on Tom Cruise. While he may be nuts or whatever but basically I've enjoyed every movie I've watched with him in it since War of the Worlds in 2005. Mission impossible 3, 4, 5, Oblivion, Edge of Tomorrow, Jack Reacher, Tropic Thunder. I enjoyed all of those. On top of that, Last Samurai, Minority Report, Mission Impossible 1 and 2 (not my favorites, but still good movies)...

Man...dude's been in a lot of good movies.

I couldn't care less about his personal life. Yeah, he's a weird little scientologist, but that's not what I judge him by. He's mediocre, AT BEST, as an actor. Reeves can be pretty damn mediocre as well. I, personally, however, just think Reeves has a better ratio of being slightly less mediocre.

"...he has been in plenty of good movies, maybe not doing any outstanding acting but I tend to think a lot of actors coast by doing the exact same, even well regarded ones."

Yeah, that's the problem. He's never done anything "outstanding". His peak is "Collateral"(I'll agree with you on that), but it's still not outstanding. He's mediocre 95% of the time. Reeves is mediocre 90% of the time.

Johnny Depp may have been "coasting by" for a while, what with his weird Tim Burton bromance. But, then he drops "Black Mass", and everyone goes, "Fuck, this Depp dude is still an amazing actor!". Cruise will never have that moment, because he's incapable.

And, like I said, I also think Reeves is pretty damn mediocre as well. Just slightly less so.

That's the entire problem with the entertainment industry these days. They push mediocre trash above actual art, because the majority of consumers are fine with "not outstanding" popcorn flick bullshit.

Why do you think they keep shitting out these tired, boring, CGI wank fest super hero movies?

Why do we have so called "musicians", like Miley Cyrus, or Nicki Minaj judging singing competitions when neither one of them could sing their way out of a paper bag?

Why are garbage shows like "The Big Bang Theory" on top of the ratings, when great shows like "Hannibal", or "Treme", were constantly under threat of cancellation, and had to abruptly end?

Why doesn't anyone give a shit about the "Fargo" series, even though it's actually produced by the Coen Bros, and is one of the best written and acted shows on tv?

As stated above, I know garbage when I see it. I like my fair share of bad things. Its mediocre that I don't like. Jack Reacher is, in my opinion, about as mediocre as you can get. John Wick might not be a work of high art, but it is far less mediocre than any action movie Cruise has done.

If you're gonna do a big dumb action movie, do a big dumb action movie. I love "Commando", and "Cobra", and a bunch of other "Over the Top"(see what I did there?) action movies. Reacher just has none of the appeal of the big stupid action movie, and yet can't elevate itself above that, either. The literal definition of....

I now very much want to watch A Bittersweet Life. I went through a foreign(mostly East Asian) cinema phase a while ago spurred on by watching a bunch of Kung Fu movies. Having watched Oldboy, I Saw the Devil, and The Man From Nowhere, I now firmly believe that Korean revenge movies are the best revenge movies. Definitely way more fucked up than the power fantasies of U.S. revenge films.

Anyway, A Bittersweet Life doesn't appear to be available, even for purchase on like anything and the Blu-ray is 150 dollars. What the hell.

@samael2138: haha I enjoy your rant of bad movies. I've seen most of what you listed and agree. The only thing you have on me is Wrestling, which I just cannot stomach.

With that said, it sounds like you just really hate Tom Cruise. You and I will definitely not have a good discussion on this since I enjoy the majority of the movies he is in.

In regards to Jack Reacher though, I went into the movie ready to hate it. I only saw it because me and my girlfriend wanted to get out of a family party of Christmas Eve and it was the only action movie in theatres at the time. I don't love the movie by any means, but I had fun with it.

@ssully: Lol, just wanted to give some reference to my bad movie qualifications. I actually envy the fact that you can stomach Cruise, because I also like some of the movies he's in(Legend, The Outsiders, Tropic Thunder,etc.), but just despise a majority of the time he's on the screen. (Thankfully, the only thing he does in "The Outsiders" is a backflip off a parked car as they are all heading to the rumble.)

My disdain for Tom Cruise is just one of many unpopular opinions I have about movies. I also think the only good "Terminator" is the first one(2 is ok, and everything after is utterly terrible), Van Damme only made one good movie, and it's "Bloodsport", and my favorite role played by Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson is the 3 minutes he has in "Reno 911: Miami", and many others that usually get eye rolls from people. So, I'm never surprised when someone disagrees.