I'll start by saying that I've never read them, and I don't plan on reading them because I don't have the time or the in
-
vaneyck — 10 years ago(June 03, 2015 11:24 AM)
Well, I'm a fan of the books and I never got around to watching this till it came on Amazon Prime because I, too, thought Cruise was wrong for the part. Even so, I gave it an 8 because it's really a pretty good movie despite the miscasting. And maybe if I hadn't read the books I'd have given it a 9, so I figure my casting doubts cost 1 point.
-
hnt_dnl — 10 years ago(June 06, 2015 02:41 AM)
Even if a book weren't involved and this were an original offering, it would still get a low rating because it stars Tom Cruise! I think
Rain Man
and
Magnolia
are the only two films on this site that Cruise stars in that get an 8.0 rating and I can think of several more Cruise films that deserve at least that! -
Beauq81 — 10 years ago(June 08, 2015 01:37 AM)
I really don't like Cruise, but I like a lot of of his movies. This isn't one of them. I like the way it was made, McQuarrie knows his way around a camera, but, as someone else here put it, it is very forgettable. And, apart from all the other things that make it that way, this is one of Cruise's lamest performances in the 30ish movies I've seen him.
Fighting a religious war is like fighting over whose imaginary friend is better. -
Goranjake — 10 years ago(June 08, 2015 01:53 AM)
I don't think the movie was THAT good. It was pretty cool though and it would definitely have a higher rating if people weren't so pissed about the casting. I thought Cruise did a fine job, he fit into the character.
-
tuba-aka-odtu — 10 years ago(June 20, 2015 06:32 PM)
I have watched Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit before this one and it's such a shame that this film got only 7 while Jack Ryan got 6 something. This is so much better than Jack Ryan. I didn't like Jack Ryan.
About Jack Reacher; I didn't read the book either but the ones who read them should accept that it's a matter of interpretation. One can't expect 100 percent correlation between a film adaptation and a book. The directors keep some core features and play with the rest.
I have watched Nolan's Batman triology and I'm a very big fan of them. I have also played Batman Arkham game series and I'm a huge fan of those too but still, even between the said games and films, I can point out to many differences(also along with the comics). It has to happen. Every person interprets the art forms differently. This is as normal as breathing. I'm just saying that the book fans should look at the film with a little more open-mind. They should give it a chance really although there may be some mistakes about the film quite naturally. Because apart from some minor problems, I found the film very good as a someone who hasn't read the book. -
paynespnz — 10 years ago(June 20, 2015 07:04 PM)
This isn't a matter of interpretation. The author was so specific about the height and build of Jack Reacher in EVERY SINGLE BOOK. This miscasting is like having Hellboy or Conan played by Tom Cruise. You know it wouldn't make sense at all and nobody would ever even consider casting him in a role like that. I'd argue that Jack Reacher's size is even more essential to the story than that of Conan, Hellboy or almost any other literary or comic book character for that matter. Would you cast a fat guy to play the Flash? Of course not. Jack Reacher's stature is really that essential to the story.
For all the people who like to mention that Lee Child spoke out in support of Cruise in the movie and that he said later that Reacher's size wasn't important. You should keep in mind that he only ever said that after the movie was suck in limbo for years until Tom Cruise stepped in to help produce it. Of course he won't insult the guy who essentially wrote his pay check. -
tuba-aka-odtu — 10 years ago(June 21, 2015 12:56 AM)
I see your point but as I said before I liked the film as someone who doesn't know the book. Then we can say it's a good film but not a good adaptation. (I don't want to have quarrel over it.) But I still think it's a matter of interpretation; in this case with some problems 'according to you.'
-
sarahallen2 — 10 years ago(June 24, 2015 04:06 PM)
Harry Potter was repeatedly mentioned to have spiky, messy, black hair and green eyes. You were beaten over the head with it ad nauseum throughout the entire series. Rowling rarely went more than a few chapters without mentioning one or the other. Daniel Radcliffe has straight, flat, brown hair and blue eyes. Katniss Everdean was supposed to be unhealthily skinny and biracial, and Jennifer Lawrence is a healthy weight and is a blue-eyed, blonde-haired white girl. Tris Pryor is supposed to be tiny, flat-chested, and blonde. Shailene Woodley is 5'8", large-chested, and a brunette. Wolverine is supposed to be 5'3". Hugh Jackman is 6'2". Nick Fury is supposed to be white. He's currently being played by Samuel L. Jackson. The main characters of Double Dragon were supposed to be identical twins. In the movie, one was white, played by Scott Wolf, and the other was a darker-skinned Asian American, played by Mark Dacascos. In the new Fantastic Four movie coming out, the very white Kate Mara is supposed to be the sister of black Michael B. Jordan.
The point is, who cares? -
paynespnz — 10 years ago(June 24, 2015 06:17 PM)
And I actually have a problem with some of those cases. I think that Katniss being unhealthy skinny was fairly important to the story to convey the dire situation of the district. The fact of the matter though is that the majority of those differences are strictly aesthetic. With the exception of maybe the siblings but in a movie as god awful as Double Dragon that's the least of the problems. In Fantastic Four it does have an effect on the story. Sue and Johnny are supposed to be brother and sister. Obviously something in there story has to be changed to retcon the race difference. For most cases I don't feel that race is an issue unless race is an important part of the story line. Things like eye and hair color are completely inconsequential to the narrative.
As for Reacher though, his size actually plays a huge part in the story lines. No pun intended. He's meant to be the kind of person who intimidates by just being in the room. The type of person who is so physically imposing that you wouldn't question that he could kill a person with one punch but also exudes a sense of honor and gentleness that makes people feel they can trust him. I understand that it might have been hard to find an actor to pull that all off but when Lee Child claimed that they needed someone who could play intelligent, confident, kind and what not and there just isn't any large actor out there who can do that, it just sounded like another back pedal. There are plenty of actors out there with dramatic range far superior to that of Tom Cruise who also happen to be much bigger than he is.
You say "the point is Who cares?" and the obvious answer is, A lot of fans of the books. -
dbvirago — 10 years ago(July 07, 2015 03:59 PM)
Watching this for the 2nd time. It's a good movie and Cruise did a good job, but many of us watched it because we are fans of the book and it doesn't measure up. I can forget the size difference, but there are too many other things that don't remotely resemble any of the books. The little bits of comic relief aren't found in the books. It was a good car chase, but there has never been a car chase in any Reacher book. He barely drives. It was a good movie, but it wasn't Reacher. Hopefully the next one is better.
-
MZupcak-136-186936 — 10 years ago(August 07, 2015 03:04 PM)
I'm a huge fan of the books but I LOVED the movie. Granted, I felt Tom Cruise was a poor choice for the fact that he's nowhere near 6'6", but how many 6'6" actors are there, anyway? And honestly, I like Tom Cruise and enjoy a lot of his acting. I think it's just been "cool" to hate Tom Cruise the last 10 years because of that couch-jumping thing on Oprah. I'm really looking forward to more Jack Reacher movies. I hope they make excellent casting choices for cameos, like Robert Duvall. His involvement in the movie was a large part of the reason I liked it. Imagine if you just had some average schmuck actor no one knew play that part? It would have sucked!
-
Stenzer21 — 10 years ago(August 29, 2015 07:58 PM)
Here's my opinion of the movie as someone who's read the book. This movie opened up like a really boring episode of crime TV. Nothing like the tension-filled adrenaline-rush of the book at all. People seem to like this movie though so I'll give him that.
-
DracTarashV — 10 years ago(September 04, 2015 10:36 PM)
I for one, appreciate the movie on its own merits. Now I guess I can understand the outrage over Cruise's casting, but at the end of the day, book fans are very hard to please anyway. In any case, with Hollywood's remake and reboot obsession there's a good chance fans of the books will get what they want in a few years.
Hey there, Johnny Boy, I hope you fry! -
Scorpio_Sewer_Moon — 10 years ago(September 08, 2015 01:46 AM)
Same. I just can't be moved by anyone's concern for their interpretation of the source material here. It's weird for me to be on the opposite side of this, as a fan of so many comics and video games that haven't gotten the best treatment, but I loved this movie, and totally appreciate Cruise's hard work and dedication to the craft.
I couldn't imagine a better fate than a long and lustrous winter!