Tom Cruise as Jack Reacher? WTF?

[Tangent]

Originally Posted by 3:20:59 or bust

The trailer confirmed all of my fears - they've turned Reacher into a short action hero with a muscle-car fetish.

It's Burn Notice - The Movie

[BigT]

Originally Posted by PlainJain

Have I done something to offend you? How is offering my opinion on a topic you started threadshitting?

Because your opinion was that he was stupid for daring to even think that caring that the movie is not like the book. That's declaring the topic to be beneath you.

[BigT]

Originally Posted by RickJay

It's difficult to explain why the Mission: Impossible movies did well without citing Cruise's involvement. The movies were extremely middle-quality action fare of the sort that gets released every month. Knockoff movies from TV shows are not exactly a revolutionary idea, and there wasn't anything spectacular about them, nor were there any huge A-list actors aside from Cruise. Nobody was paying $12 to see Philip Seymour Hoffman, and I say that despite thinking he put on a sensational performance in MI3.

Nevertheless the films made absolute gobs of money. "Ghost Protocol" has raked in $700 million. I believe Tom Cruise was the main reason.

Look, it is inescapably true that Tom Cruise pulls in money. YOU may not like him, but that does not mean someone doesn't. I watch no reality TV, not one minute of a single show, but it would be insane for me to conclude reaity TV isn't popular. There is a limit as to how far you can claim an actor is getting work for no reason. An actor can have a few bombs, but sooner or later if they don't demonstrate marquee value the phone calls will stop.

Yes, but most of that stuff was a long time ago. The question is if he's still pulling in people now. It's possible, of course, but most everyone I know thinks that he sucks now.

[DxZero]

Originally Posted by BigT

Yes, but most of that stuff was a long time ago. The question is if he's still pulling in people now. It's possible, of course, but most everyone I know thinks that he sucks now.

Actually I did a little IMDBing the other day just on that subject to compare Cruise's estimated budgets vs. domestic gross. Going back 16 years (skipping Tropic Thunder and Magnolia because he wasn't the main star), we got.

Rock of Ages: 75mil budget/35m domestic (BOMB, but it was a bomb from the get-go and not even Lawrence Olivier could have saved it)
MI:IV: 145/209 (Probably did real well overseas too)
Knight and Day: 117/76 (Bomb)
Valkyrie: 75/83 Middling success, but I'm sure it did real well overseas
Lions for Lambs: 35/14 (Smaller film and poorly marketed)
MI:3: 150/134 (Slight loser domestically)
War of the Worlds: 132/234 (Big success, but Cruise wasn't really the sole draw)
Collateral: 66/100 (Success, though you could say he co-headlined)
The Last Samurai: 140/111 (Slight bomb domestically)
Minority Report: 102/132 (Not a huge number, but made its money back and then some)
MI:II: 125/215
Vanilla Sky: 68/100 (Surprisingly made a decent profit)
Eyes Wide Shut: 65/55 (Slight bomb domestically, but made 160 worldwide)
Jerry Maguire: 50/153 (Uber success)
MI: I 80/180 (Yeah)

1.425 B - Estimated budget
1.697 B - Domestic Gross

Though most of that came from the earlier years. Of his last five movies, 2 were bombs, 1 was a big hit, 1 was a decent success with probably greater overseas reach, and 1 was a small budget loser.

His success to failure ratio is getting smaller. His pull certainly has gotten weaker.

[vislor]

Based on this thread, I started the first book. Wow. The opening scene with Reacher and the cops needs someone who looks intimidating from the outside, not knowing anything else about him. How is that Cruise? And then from there, we go to the prison scene. Again, having a tough time seeing Cruise being able to do that without changing everything to fit him and then it's not Reacher.

So, I get what people are saying about TC's ability to be Reacher.

DXZero - Wow! I didn't realize that Cruise had slowed down that much in domestic pull. I wonder if worldwide is what helps? (http://www.the-numbers.com/people/TCRUI.php)

[DxZero]

Originally Posted by vislor

DXZero - Wow! I didn't realize that Cruise had slowed down that much in domestic pull. I wonder if worldwide is what helps? (http://www.the-numbers.com/people/TCRUI.php)

Yeah I was kind of shocked too. Those numbers may not be completely accurate, but they at least give you a sense.

Of course he had nowhere to go but down. His first big starring role, Risky Business....$6 million budget, $63 million domestic gross. I'm assuming thats not inflation adjusted either.

[DxZero]

Yeah those are some insane overseas grosses. The Last Samurai for instance, basically tripled its domestic box office. As did Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol

He still can put butts in the seats, not just American butts.

[JSexton]

Originally Posted by 3:20:59 or bust

Who cares if Cruise pulls in the fans? There's no goddamn way you'd ever mistake him for Reacher. Not in a million years. The trailer confirmed all of my fears - they've turned Reacher into a short action hero with a muscle-car fetish.

Actually, I just re-read One Shot, and he does actually borrow a muscle car. A Mustang, to be precise. So as long as he doesn't roll into town in it, we're fine on that score.

I also ran across this quote from Lee Child on Amazon froma few years ago.

Q: Jack Reacher gets compared to James Bond, Jack Bauer and Jason Bourne, each of whom now has a "face." In a movie, which actor do you think could fill Reacher's shoes?
A: That's the toughest question. The thing about Reacher is he's huge; he’s 6'5" tall and about 250 pounds. There aren’t any actors that size--actors tend to be small. So we aren't going to find a physical facsimile for Reacher because there aren't any. We have to find someone who is capable of looking big on the screen. Many people have said to me a young Clint Eastwood would have been perfect--we need someone like that who has the vibe of a big intimidating man. Hopefully there will be somebody available like that. It's also a question of finding somebody ready to sign up for more than one movie. They want to make a franchise, minimum of three, and that makes it a little bit harder.

[Fiddle Peghead]

Originally Posted by Chefguy

I can't believe they're casting this runt as Lee Child's 6'5", 250 pound wrecking machine. Worse, this could turn into a series of films along the James Bond or Jason Bourne line. What's next, Daniel Radcliffe as The Terminator?

"Do you not know that King Kong the first was just three foot six inches tall? He only came up to Faye Wray's belly button! If God could do the tricks that we can do he'd be a happy man!"

From The Stunt Man, with Peter O'Toole.

[BladeSparkles]

I have read every book in the series and will definitely not be going to see this movie with Tom Cruise as Jack Reacher. I think Liam Neeson or The Rock would have been much better choices. Though I can also agree with Liev Schrieber and Viggo Mortenson.

[Chefguy]

Originally Posted by BladeSparkles

I have read every book in the series and will definitely not be going to see this movie with Tom Cruise as Jack Reacher. I think Liam Neeson or The Rock would have been much better choices. Though I can also agree with Liev Schrieber and Viggo Mortenson.

They will have to completely change who the character is. They can film Cruise on top of a step ladder and he still won't look intimidating. I can only read one of those books about every six months or so, as the plots are so over-the-top, so I don't have much invested in this, but Tom Cruise? Really?

[Floater]

I think that Swedish actor Mikael Persbrandt might be able to do it. He is more or less typecast for such roles.

[BDBoop]

Originally Posted by Maserschmidt

Fassbender is too lean for me. I'm still thinking Adam Baldwin or Chris Hemsworth.

Yes. OR Alexander Skarsgård. IMO, he would have been perfect. Height, build, and perfectly comfortable playing either good guy or villain.

[Floater]

Not Alexander Skarsgård. He's too short and too thin and too little menacing looking. His father, had he been younger, would have been better.

[BDBoop]

Originally Posted by Floater

Not Alexander Skarsgård. He's too short and too thin and too little menacing looking. His father, had he been younger, would have been better.

Wrong guy.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0002907/

[BDBoop]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

We're used to see Vaughn now in comedies. But he started out as a "heavy" and played murderers in Psycho, Clay Pigeons, and Domestic Disturbance. So he can do menacing.

What about the other 6'5" Vince? D'Onofrio? Or is he too old.

[BDBoop]

Originally Posted by Corcaigh

I saw him [the author] being interviewed on TV here [Ireland] and they were commenting on casting Tom Cruise as Reacher and how ridiculous it was to have Cruise playing a character known mainly for his hulking build. Child shrugged it off, but I got the impression he had no say in the matter and there was nothing he could do about it, so he was going along with it.




This was part of Child's argument for Cruise, that there aren't any 6'6" actors in Hollywood






Was my first thought when I heard Child's [above mentioned] comment.

There are many in the 6'4", 6'5" range. It's ridiculous to lead with that, then wind up at "and therefore, we're going with that big box office shrimp over there."

[The Other Waldo Pepper]

Originally Posted by DxZero

Actually I did a little IMDBing the other day just on that subject to compare Cruise's estimated budgets vs. domestic gross.

Why are you limiting this to domestic gross?

You point out that MI:3 was "a slight loser domestically", but it made $397 million on a $150 million budget. You say LAST SAMURAI was "a slight bomb domestically"; it made $456 million on a $140 million budget. You figure the domestic gross for MINORITY REPORT was "not a huge number" -- but $358 million is a big fine return on investment from a $102 million budget.

And after "skipping Tropic Thunder and Magnolia because he wasn't the main star", you ding him for ROCK OF AGES and LIONS FOR LAMBS, where he wasn't the main star. You rightly count KNIGHT AND DAY against him as a bomb -- in that it made only $261 million on a $107 million budget -- but you don't fully factor in just how big a hit GHOST PROTOCOL was, earlier this very year, clearing $694 million on a scant $145 million budget.

Near as I can tell, that's the biggest gross ever for a movie with Cruise as the star: bigger than the half-billion-plus WAR OF THE WORLDS brought in, bigger than the half-billion-plus MI:2 brought in, you name it, he topped it.

[Floater]

Originally Posted by BDBoop

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0002907/

That cute face could never be appropriate on Jack Reacher.

[BDBoop]

Sure it would. That's who I pictured when I read the first book last week.

[Floater]

If we limit ourselves to Swedish actors, this is more what Reacher looks like in my opinion: http://www.google.com/imgres?hl=en&a...r:3,s:22,i:223

[DxZero]

Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper

Why are you limiting this to domestic gross?

You point out that MI:3 was "a slight loser domestically", but it made $397 million on a $150 million budget. You say LAST SAMURAI was "a slight bomb domestically"; it made $456 million on a $140 million budget. You figure the domestic gross for MINORITY REPORT was "not a huge number" -- but $358 million is a big fine return on investment from a $102 million budget.

And after "skipping Tropic Thunder and Magnolia because he wasn't the main star", you ding him for ROCK OF AGES and LIONS FOR LAMBS, where he wasn't the main star. You rightly count KNIGHT AND DAY against him as a bomb -- in that it made only $261 million on a $107 million budget -- but you don't fully factor in just how big a hit GHOST PROTOCOL was, earlier this very year, clearing $694 million on a scant $145 million budget.

Near as I can tell, that's the biggest gross ever for a movie with Cruise as the star: bigger than the half-billion-plus WAR OF THE WORLDS brought in, bigger than the half-billion-plus MI:2 brought in, you name it, he topped it.

Because A) Foreign box office is not always readily available and B) I did talk about foreign box office about 2 posts later. Now Lions for Lambs probably shouldn't have been included, but as I mentioned that wasn't Cruise's fault that failed. Rock of Ages however while an ensemble piece certainly had Cruise as the main draw. He was the center of the pre release publicity shots. Neither of which Magnolia or Tropic Thunder would claim.

And if anything my post was complementary toward Cruise.

[BDBoop]

Originally Posted by Floater

If we limit ourselves to Swedish actors, this is more what Reacher looks like in my opinion: http://www.google.com/imgres?hl=en&a...r:3,s:22,i:223

Agreed, but again I'm seeing too old. Why is it so hard to find somebody in their mid/late-30's for this role? I don't even think we'd be having this discussion if somebody had read the damn book. I've only read the first one, and what I know thus far is he is a BIG man, 6'5", and blond. That is NOT Tom Cruise.

[Nametag]

I'm no expert on Jack Reacher, but going by what Mr. Child said, I wouldn't get married to the tall and blond part, and would focus on the intimidating part. There are plenty of short guys who are damned intimidating -- the Navy and Marine Corps are full of them. What's needed is muscle and attitude. For that matter, is there really any reason he can't be black?

[toast pakora]

Well I've read several of the books and completely missed the *blond* part. Mostly it's big, intimidating. Also quiet, still, intent. No charming repartee or raffish grinning. No meta-snark. I think Ray Stevenson would be good--the guy from Punisher sequel--but he's not a big name. Liev S could probably pull it off. The problem with Cruise, aside from his height, is that when he does intense, he looks demented. The Reacher character has nothing to prove. If you don't like him, he'll shrug and think that's your problem. I don't think TC can convey that much dispassion.

[Omar Little]

My personal choice would have been Tom Hardy for Reacher.

[Nametag]

Yes, I thought about Hardy.

[BDBoop]

How about this guy?

Nikolaj Coster-Waldau plays Jamie Lannister. He was born in 1970, and is 6'2 1/2".

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0182666/

[amarone]

Now the movie is out - what do people think?

[Chefguy]

Originally Posted by amarone

Now the movie is out - what do people think?

Haven't seen it and likely won't until it comes out on cable (if then). But the review I read was pretty 'meh'. Basically, it's a formulaic Cruise popcorn flick that he hopes will become another franchise for him. His fans will probably like it, but it has a lot of silliness. He's just not believable as someone who can kick ass on six assailants (but who is), and fans of the books are probably going to be dissatisfied enough with Cruise in that role to stay away.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

I so totally don't get this thread. The one thing movies can do is make a midget tall or a tall guy short, as need be, simply by creating under- (or over-) sized sets, and by casting short (or tall) people in other parts, and by paying attention to relative heights in two-shots, etc. It would be an interesting, and not too difficult, technical challenge to create the illusion that Tom Cruise is a 6'6" behemoth and one that would impress viewers beyond the technical challenge. I would see it just to notice how well or how poorly they rose to the challenge.

[Love Rhombus]

Sven-Ole Thorsen would have been good if he was younger.

[Chefguy]

Originally Posted by pseudotriton ruber ruber

I so totally don't get this thread. The one thing movies can do is make a midget tall or a tall guy short, as need be, simply by creating under- (or over-) sized sets, and by casting short (or tall) people in other parts, and by paying attention to relative heights in two-shots, etc. It would be an interesting, and not too difficult, technical challenge to create the illusion that Tom Cruise is a 6'6" behemoth and one that would impress viewers beyond the technical challenge. I would see it just to notice how well or how poorly they rose to the challenge.

Sure, if it was an unknown actor, anybody could buy it. But it's the ranking box office midget, who everybody knows is a runt. I can't manage to suspend belief on this one.

[The Second Stone]

I saw it last night. I never read the books. They do not try to pretend that the movie character is physically large. He is portrayed as really tough and Sherlock Holmes smart. I give the movie a B. It was enjoyable. Robert Duvall was in it. As usual, he was the best part.

[chiroptera]

I'm a big fan of the Jack Reacher series and I agree with chefguy - so much of the protagonist's persona involves his size that I'm not tempted to pay to see this movie.

Another aspect of the Jack Reacher persona is his refusal to own or carry more than he needs at any given time. In fact he never washes his clothes - he just buys new ones when he needs them. And what he needs is no more than what he can carry in his pockets. He does not have a home, will not settle down (even in books where he's clearly become attached to a place or a person) and moves around the country by Greyhound bus, or hitch-hiking.

Are these aspects of his persona conveyed in the movie?

[Mahaloth]

Originally Posted by DxZero

He still can put butts in the seats, not just American butts.

I think Mission Impossible 4 showed he can put American butts in seats.

[Equipoise]

Originally Posted by chiroptera

Another aspect of the Jack Reacher persona is his refusal to own or carry more than he needs at any given time. In fact he never washes his clothes - he just buys new ones when he needs them. And what he needs is no more than what he can carry in his pockets. He does not have a home, will not settle down (even in books where he's clearly become attached to a place or a person) and moves around the country by Greyhound bus, or hitch-hiking.

Are these aspects of his persona conveyed in the movie?

Yes. All of them.

I saw the movie on Friday and quite enjoyed it. I didn't go to the theater to see it. I was on my way to see The Impossible, but the bus got bogged down in traffic and by the time I got to the theater the previews were over and the movie started. I never go into a movie after it's started so I looked to see what else was playing. The only thing that worked without waiting around an hour or so was Jack Reacher. It had been extremely low priority but I figured, oh hell, might as well. Hey, it has Werner Herzog as the bad guy! That's gotta be worth a matinee price.

I'm glad I did. To me Cruise is an idiot cult dupe in his personal life, but I do like his acting, and I liked him in this. I haven't read the books, and don't care about how big the guy's supposed to be, but I liked the character of Jack Reacher as portrayed in the movie a lot. I liked his way of working, his subtle humor and dry sarcasm, his intelligence and his expert physicality. I liked his sense of fairness and justice. I liked how he really tried to talk people out of messing with him. I liked how the character was very respectful to the women he dealt with. I also liked the convoluted but interesting story. I liked the other characters, especially Robert Duvall, as mentioned by The Second Stone. I like that Rosamund Pike is finally in a high-profile film looking like herself (Wrath of the Titans does not count) because I've liked her for years and she should be better-known.

It was a great surprise for me. I'd give it a hearty B+. If I'd gotten to the theater in time for The Impossible I probably wouldn't have seen Jack Reacher for weeks, if at all.

[MovieMogul]

Originally Posted by chiroptera

Another aspect of the Jack Reacher persona is his refusal to own or carry more than he needs at any given time. In fact he never washes his clothes - he just buys new ones when he needs them. And what he needs is no more than what he can carry in his pockets. He does not have a home, will not settle down (even in books where he's clearly become attached to a place or a person) and moves around the country by Greyhound bus, or hitch-hiking.

Are these aspects of his persona conveyed in the movie?

Yes, 100%

[Edward The Head]

I saw the movie today and enjoyed it. It was exactly what I was hoping for, a fun action adventure move with an interesting mystery that wasn't that difficult to follow. I haven't read any of the books so had no preconceived notions of what he was supposed to look like. I'd give it a good solid B.

[TonySinclair]

Well, I never heard of Reacher before this thread started, but my library had all the books, and I've just finished reading them.

I have to say, with the exception of a couple (strangely, including the first of the series), they were enjoyable page-turners. But any fan of the series who says he will have trouble suspending his disbelief about ANYTHING has got to be kidding.

Reacher is basically Conan, set in modern times. He's bigger and stronger and quicker than everybody else, even though he never exercises, and his diet is mostly donuts and coffee. (To be fair, there are occasional opponents who are bigger, but in those cases, his lack of exercise is an advantage, because anybody bigger than Reacher MUST be full of steroids and artificially bulked up, without truly usable strength.) He's unbeatable in unarmed combat, no matter what the odds, and he's unbeatable with any weapon. Bullets cannot penetrate his bulging pecs (that is not hyperbole, that is straight from one of the books). And no matter where he goes, no matter how small the town, he runs into a dastardly plot and has to save the world, or at least the country, typically by killing half a dozen people. I was constantly reminded of the old Rifleman series, where peace-loving Lucas McCain lives on a ranch in the middle of nowhere, trying to mind his own business and raise his crops, but still has to kill three or four people every week.

And the police force always has a hot babe, who has been celibate for years but is in bed with Reacher within a day or two of meeting him (and who is fine with him killing suspects rather than turning them over to the authorities), and the feds are always inept, if not totally corrupt (comically so --- in one of the early books, the FBI threatened to give his girlfriend up to a guy known for torturing and killing women if Reacher didn't help them solve a big case. Reacher solved it almost entirely on his own, and after he solved it, the FBI didn't thank him, they threatened to frame him for the murder of the villain; I guess, just because they could).

Child is a good action writer. He's a horrible mystery writer. In a later book, a very small town was next to a military base, and three stunningly beautiful civilian women all had an affair with the same army captain, and they were all murdered shortly after the affair ended. What's more, whenever this captain goes overseas on some mission, beautiful civilian women are murdered there. The sheriff of the tiny town (also a stunningly beautiful woman, of course) has no suspects, but fortunately, Reacher solves this impossibly difficult puzzle. You'll never guess --- the Army captain killed them. And the senate, Army, and marines are all helping the captain cover up his crimes, to the point of murdering anybody who comes within a hundred yards of the base (that should allay people's suspicions!). Of course, Reacher's not satisfied with finding the guilty parties, he has to kill them all. Because the violence must end.

And he's not just a big tough guy, he is also the most amazing genius since Einstein. He is a human computer, able to do any kind of mental arithmetic instantly. He knows the area, population, zip code, and area code of every city in the country, and probably the world. He knows the etymology of every arcane word you never heard of.

And best of all, if somebody he's looking for checks into a random motel, Reacher knows where he is. I don't mean a random motel in the city he's in, I mean anywhere. In one of the books, a little girl had been kidnapped, she had hours to live, and Reacher had to find her. The kidnappers are from out of the area, the girl lived hundreds of miles from a big city, so she can literally be anywhere in any of three states. But Reacher puts on his thinking cap, figures that since the crooks are from out of the area they'll stay next to a tourist attraction, picks an attraction that nobody in the world has ever heard of, picks a motel near there, and bingo, that's where she is.

Surely anybody with all those powers could cloud men's minds to make himself look short. What's the problem?

[Equipoise]

Wow, ok then. The Jack Reacher of the movie is very different from the Jack Reacher just described. The movie JR avoided killing unless he was being shot at. As far as I can remember he only kills one person who wasn't directly shooting at him, and that person really needed killing. There were only two hot babes in the movie, and their hot babeness wasn't a big deal. One's a smart lawyer and one's a sweet, scared teenager. Neither flaunts their bodies much. There were no babes on the police force.

The plot was fairly grounded in reality, no saving the world or country, or even county or city. It's a conspiracy that's maybe a bit preposterous but very localized to the situation at hand.

The movie Reacher is very smart and makes connections that others haven't made, but in some cases he doesn't make a connection until it's too late, so he's not a genius god among men. I liked the movie Reacher very much. It isn't that Cruise made him "likeable" (I don't remember the stereotypical Cruise grin being used at all), it's because as written and played he's an interesting, principled, intelligent human being. I don't know what I'd think of the book Reacher without reading myself and even counting for hyperbole on TonySinclair's part, he doesn't sound very realistic.

[Jackmannii]

Originally Posted by TonySinclair

I have to say, with the exception of a couple (strangely, including the first of the series), they were enjoyable page-turners. But any fan of the series who says he will have trouble suspending his disbelief about ANYTHING has got to be kidding.

Well, it's true the novels are not heavily reality-based.*

Still, you'd want the cinematic version of the superhero to at least vaguely resemble the character physically. I'd have the same reaction many if not most Reacher fans have to Tom Cruise in the role, if Pee Wee Herman had been cast as John MacDonald's Travis McGee.

*For me, the most ludicrously unbelievable plot aspect in any of the half-dozen or so Reacher books I've read (I don't think I'm revealing anything crucial here, but if you're concerned, stop reading) was how author Lee Child had Reacher & Co. traveling along the Maine coast in one novel (Persuader, I think). At one point Reacher was driving a truck south of the Portland area on I-95, and Child had the bad guys tracking Reacher via a remote electronic bug while traveling a parallel road (Route 1). Anyone who's ever driven those roads knows that I-95 is a high-speed Interstate and Route 1 is a local access route full of fried clam joints, stores, motels and red lights, where you're lucky to go 45 mph in between towns. The bad guys would have lost their quarry in the first 10 minutes. There are at least two more occasions in the book where characters have to get somewhere in southeast Maine fast and are debating whether or not to take I-95 or Route 1. Wake up, idiots!

Drove me nuts.

Oh, and there was an interview with Lee Child in the N.Y. Times Magazine today in which he fawned over Tom Cruise's performance in the movie. I suspect Child is hoping for an extended film series which will bring him mucho $$$.

[Equipoise]

Originally Posted by Jackmannii

Still, you'd want the cinematic version of the superhero to at least vaguely resemble the character physically. I'd have the same reaction many if not most Reacher fans have to Tom Cruise in the role, if Pee Wee Herman had been cast as John MacDonald's Travis McGee.

Who are you talking to? If fellow book fans, hasn't that already been established by the whinefest that comprises most of this thread? For those who haven't read the books, we don't care, because we haven't read the books, and judge the character by what's onscreen. But hey, if the whine is loud and sustained enough by those who have read the books but won't see the movie, the movie will die, and no more Jack Reacher movies will be made. That'll show the money-grubbing Lee Childs who's boss.

[Madman_777]

I remember a few years ago corresponding with one of Lee Childs people via his website, thanking him for an autographed book etc.

I recollect when I asked when a movie was coming out she clearly stated that they were very excited that they were talking to Viggo Mortensen......

So, like most people here I agree that to us "purists" TC is an inane choice but what are you going to do? We all form an image of what someone looks like when we read a book - that's one of the best things about books, the images are yours and the ones in my head are a damn sight better than anything TC has ever done!

On a side note I read Game Of Thrones after I had seen the series so most of the work was already done for me....still had issues with Ser Jorah Mormont though.

[Larry Borgia]

Casting Tom Cruise as Jack Reacher is like casting Arnold Schwarzenegger as Sherlock Holmes.

[Fir na tine]

I have read all the books. Saw the movie yesterday. The script was very well done and followed the book faithfully with minor liberties. Cruise carried off the role exceedingly well.

Rosamond Pike is hot! Love to see more of her. Lots more.

[TonySinclair]

Originally Posted by Equipoise

The movie Reacher is very smart and makes connections that others haven't made, but in some cases he doesn't make a connection until it's too late, so he's not a genius god among men. I liked the movie Reacher very much. It isn't that Cruise made him "likeable" (I don't remember the stereotypical Cruise grin being used at all), it's because as written and played he's an interesting, principled, intelligent human being. I don't know what I'd think of the book Reacher without reading myself and even counting for hyperbole on TonySinclair's part, he doesn't sound very realistic.

Other than saying "always" instead of "almost always," I don't think I exaggerated much. I actually left stuff out. I didn't mention another of his mental powers, always knowing the correct time to the second without a watch, even after being knocked unconscious (yes, he once lost a fight, when a man got the drop on him with a shotgun, and then had some 300-pound ex-Nebraska Cornhuskers hold him while they smashed a rifle butt into his face. I think that was the only time), and being able to wake up at the exact time he wanted, no matter how exhausted he was. I didn't mention the short story prequel where he was 13 years old, confronted a gang of older, bigger kids and kicked their asses, made out with a girl he had just met, and then almost casually solved a couple of mysteries that had stumped the MP's and the CID for days, saving his father's job and his brother's reputation. Or the classified file the army had on him, where they had secretly filmed young kids watching the Creature in the Black Lagoon to see their reaction to danger, and all the other kids recoiled in horror when the creature first appeared, but six-year-old Reacher jumped forward with an instantaneously produced switchblade open, ready for combat. I am not joking.

But it's true that the book they based the movie on is one of the least unbelievable, in that the dastardly plot he stumbles onto is only local in scope, and he isn't saving the country from civil war, or a 40-ton dirty bomb. I look forward to the more exciting sequels.

[Jackmannii]

Originally Posted by Equipoise

For those who haven't read the books, we don't care, because we haven't read the books, and judge the character by what's onscreen.

Sorry, but any enjoyment you might think you're getting out of seeing a movie with a miscast Reacher is illegitimate.

[fisha]

I'm a big Reacher fan, read most of the books. Horribly disappointed that Tom Cruise was cast as Reacher. Don't care for Tom much at all.

That being said, I went last night with my husband to see it. He's a big Reacher fan as well, and perhaps more outraged at the casting.

We both thought it was a solid B +
They did not try to make Tom bigger than he was with angles, casting, etc. I respect that. Robert Duvall was great.

One of the better movies I've seen lately, as good as Skyfall.

I was pleasantly surprised.

[Jackmannii]

New film project announced today:

(AP) Dreamworks Studios today announced that actresses Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen have been signed to play the leading roles in an upcoming film based on the careers of tennis greats Venus and Serena Williams.

A studio spokesman said "While we anticipate that tennis fans may be initially disconcerted by the casting of the Olsen twins, we feel that their celebrity and popular appeal will bring a new dimension to this compelling story."