By the time I finished the last book I read (the one before the flashback book, which I haven’t read) it had become clear to me that Lee Child doesn’t think much of the US as a whole.
I’ve read them all, my favorite by far is the first one, The Killing Floor. I didn’t get the impression Child doesn’t like the US in any of the books.
I will wait until the Jack Reacher goes to the cheap theater, though.
I like the books, they are very good for the genre, I think, and maybe I’ll see the movie when the DVD is released, but I can’t pay good money for Cruise as Reacher. Of the alternate casting choices mentioned (of the actors I recognized, which was qbout half), I think Adam Baldwin works best - Reacher is basically a smart Jayne.
Yeah, but if wishes were horses, we’d all be eating steak.
That, and he knows nothing about the military in general and MPs specifically. I loved his thoughts about how MPs are trained to take down Green Berets. Comedy gold. Also the line about about everyone in the Army being trained killers. During my time in the USAF, I did lots of cross-training. All the Marines were indeed well-trained and potentially killers. While there were no doubt some well-trained potential killers, most of the Army I met were just trained, and given the small number who had actually seen combat at that time, not killer material.
Two books was all I could take. Someone said the books were like potato chips. I think they are more like Pringles. Have one or two, put down the container, and realize you want potato chips.
I think I read one of the Reacher books a few years ago when my brother left it here after a visit. Don’t really remember much of it though.
That said, I liked the film quite a bit - good action/adventure film with a few funny lines. So perhaps the “trick” to liking this film is not to be an avid reader of the books and getting swayed by the book’s physical description of Jack Reacher.
Even our local free rag, Las Vegas Weekly, liked the film - and they pretty much hate all films that appear in top ten box office lists.
OK I enjoyed it. I’ve read a few of the books but I’m not a big fan. I like the way movie Reacher reasons things out. I judge Cruise movies by weather I forget its Tom Cruise I’m watching, and I did, so this was a good Cruise movie to my mind. I also liked the cameo by Lee Child as the Desk Sargent – only caught that when watching the credits.
How old was Jack Reacher in the series? I mean it sounds perfect for Clint Walker who is 6’6."
Unless 85 is too old.
He was born in 61 or 62 in the books (which I just started reading).
I went to see this movie based on previews. I have not read the books, so had no preconceptions. I think Cruise in his personal life is nutty as a bag of nuts, but he can act well. I took that into consideration, not knowing the producer until the opening credits.
Overall, I enjoyed the movie. They did not make being oversized an menacing an important aspect of this character for the movie. Tom did manage to pull off a convincingly tough and somber character. He pulls of the physicality of the film. The acting is good all around, the bits of humor appreciated without being farce. The mystery is interesting and creative, although the conspiracy angle a little hackneyed.
Two things did stand out that don’t mesh with descriptions from the book character. First, there is a comment where the cops are asking someone if there is anyone around who “looks like he could kill with one punch”, and the clerk mentions a name that turns out to be Reacher, with the explanation “you’ll see” - basically, when you see him it will be obvious. Enter Tom Cruise. That line does not fit at all, even with Tom in badass serious mode. That line conveys size more than determination, and while Tom had the determination for the role, the size wasn’t there. That line jumped out as a WTF except I had seen this thread, so I knew the book Reacher was a big man.
Second, several times in the movie Reacher walks into a crowd, and various women are all looking him over like he’s, well, Tom Cruise in 1990 (before being wackadoo). I get the impression that Reacher, while huge, is not really good looking. So having the women fawn over him is an odd choice. It feels like masturbation fantasy character - Reacher is a genius and a badass, all the women want him, all the men wish they could be him or try to beat him to make themselves feel better but fail. He takes what he wants (a couple different cars) and goes where he wants and can do anything (like be an expert marksman and fight off 5 neighborhood thugs and dodge bullets).
Except from descriptions above that all sounds like novel Reacher even more.
Overall I enjoyed the movie, accepted Cruise as this Reacher, enjoyed the mystery and the action. Solid B movie seems fair description.
Now I can understand that someone with a love for the novels and expecting a character with a specific physical description could be annoyed that the movies don’t retain that essential element of the character they love. Like making John Shaft a chicano.
With Tom Cruise’s level of name recognition and box office draw? No. But there certainly are plenty of more physically similar actors that could have been cast, depending on how much name recognition vs letting the story get the draw.
But here’s the key element here that must be pointed out. The producer of this movie did not really have any qualms casting Tom Cruise despite the physical difference, because the producer is Tom Cruise. He’s bankrolling his own movie.
You see, I think the numbers from the box office counts bear out that overall Tom Cruise’s US box office draw is falling as his nuttiness is coming. Overseas audiences are less tuned in to who the actor is, so picking the movies on other criteria. As long as Tom can bankroll his own films, he will continue to be on screen. As long as he makes decent movies, he will continue to make enough to bankroll himself, regardless of how his personal antics affect his reputation in Hollywood.
The previews showed another Sci-Fi movie coming out this summer starring Cruise. It looks interesting, too. I’ll probably go see it.
Very much so.
Snerk.
When are they set? In other words, that would make him about 51 in 2012, similar to Cruise, but are the stories set in, say, 1990?
The movie talks about him serving several tours in both Iraq and Afghanistan so it is supposed to be set in current time.
That’s a change for the movie. Reacher left the army in 1997.
That’s pretty much it. He’s not a pretty boy, and it’s hard to understand how he wouldn’t be reeking with BO most of the time, but he’s still irresistible to women. I think the book the movie was based on was one of only a couple where he wasn’t in bed with a hot chick within a day or two of meeting her.
Saw the movie & liked it. It had some weak points but it had some really nice tricks to it & some nods to some classics. I’m not sure if spoilers are appropriate, so I’ll invoke the Spoiler Box of Silence.
[spoiler] “…are you sure? The Spoiler Box of Silence has never Really worked right…”
[spoiler]“No, I insist. These good people deserve their moneys worth.” activates Spoiler Box of Silence
[spoiler] I liked the concept of an invisible man paper trail wise, but I too thought the time setting should have been pushed back 10-15 years. Making him a GW-1 vet would have helped some, books or no.
The car chase was nice; party Risky Business, part Bullet, part speeding through the back roads of Jersey City at rush hour. And yes he drove that car like he just stole it. Nice. Not Ronin, but still. Nice. 
The speech in the office on why he returned to America was a little over the top, but its what an actor lives for. I would have dropped that to 3 paragraphs tops and I would have shortened the Ohio trip by half.
The bus stop scene was a masterpiece. Everyone I saw in the theater liked it. The cap & the smiles sealed the deal. If there are more movies after, Keep That level of cool with the character. It works.
The evil villain: so many questions, such an unopened box. Is his history and are his people part of movie 2? I expected him to radiate more fear… but he became very understated half-way through. The Ernst Stavlo Blofeld vibe never had time to come out.
The right hand man (son?) and main killer was very menacing & I could see someone like that at a construction company. Towards the end, though, he made some mistakes that he seemingly wouldn’t have unless he was rattled… and if he was rattled he didn’t fully emote that. I think that the undertone is that Jack just rattles people with an understated presence. I hope future movies play to that: he rattles people with a serious smile that takes about 2 seconds to sink in. Tom has that smile & if he uses it that way, he can show the dark side of Jack easily and effectively.
Loved the Rear View Camera Usage! Not a Q-gadget from Tomorrow Never Dies, but a real item on most new cars and used this way in film for the very first time.
Sandy. This character needed a makeover; she was 25 years out of date and she lost the movie its female audience (although there were some very sharp intakes of breath from a pair of 20-somethings in the row behind us when Tom took off his shirt). With some updating and re working, her character would have been a more emotional pull from the audience. As written, she might have worked in a Burt Reynolds movie from '71, but not a Tom Cruise movie in 2011. Not the actress fault, its how Sandy was written. 20-20 hindsite.
And yeah, I thought he’d kiss Rosamund Pike. I don’t remember Tom ever playing across from an actress with platinum blonde hair & ice blue eyes in the movies I’ve seen, but it worked here. There was… chemistry.
It almost makes me wonder how long he’s going to make us wait before he finally works with Jenna Elfman. insert trouble-maker emoticon here
PS- I liked the reference to Mr Rodin, our 8th grade English teacher. Coincidence? “No… no,no,no…no…no!” 
[/spoiler]
[/spoiler]
[/spoiler]
[/spoiler]