Just watched this. Not read the book. Like a bad episode of Columbo…. A very bad episode. 😯

Childish, very childish I know – but I always want to add ‘around’ to the end of the title…

Like a bad episode of Columbo…. A very bad episode.

it was nothing like Columbo 😕 didn’t ever remember Peter Falk wielding an Assault rifle, engaging in unarmed combat, travelling on a bus or being a faceless vigilante. Did they both have a glass eye ?

jamj1974 – Member
Childish, very childish I know – but I always want to add ‘around’ to the end of the title…

Not childish at all…I do the same!

don’t you slag off Columbo like that. Werer Hertzog would have made a better Reacher than cant Reach anything cruise. Every time he said something deep and with gravity – Like I’m going to beat all of you big boys up 🙂 I laughed.

Can I only add I watched it on a plane as I wasn’t sure if I had enough time for a proper film and had see the Sound City and Rolling Stones docos already. I’ll say it had me REACHING for the exits….

I saw it recently – it was what it was, wasn’t it…

The synopsis must have been something like this..
“we want Tom Cruise to be some sort of invincible, caring but uncaring human, who against the odds is able to defeat all sorts of challenges that really should have killed him twice over, whilst having some obvious, but not so obvious sexual tension with a terrible female actress… don’t worry about acting skill,but have fights and guns and stuff…”

DrP

it was nothing like Columbo didn’t ever remember Peter Falk wielding an Assault rifle, engaging in unarmed combat, travelling on a bus or being a faceless vigilante. Did they both have a glass eye ?

Other than that it was just like Columbo. You just need to look a little bit deeper.

So it’s as naff as the books then? Quelle surprise!

a terrible female actress

If you are going to slag off the delicious Rosamund Pike, there must be something wrong with you.

It was a nonsense film, but the books seem to have a (undeserved) mythic status.

When in fact they are clumsy potboilers churned out in big lumps.

I must say my judgement above comes from 1 single book. Ain’t no way I’ll be reading any more. Scottchegg confirms I was right though 🙂

I read 2 of the books to see if I picked a bad one. I hadn’t.

I haven’t read the books either and it felt very much like a film where you needed to have to think it was any good. It constantly felt like there were details missing in the film which made JR’s actions make any sense.

Still, it was a perfectly acceptable brain off action film IMO, just not worthy of any additional status that some seem to give it.

Was a bit mediocre and Tom Cruise’s acting was pretty poor..

Still, it was a perfectly acceptable brain off action film IMO, just not worthy of any additional status that some seem to give it.

This.

Plus, acting ability, and ‘goodlookability’ are mutually exclusive….

DrP

As long as you understand the basic premise of the books, & no they won’t win any booker prizes (I’ve never read any book that has), there pulp fiction, you don’t need to engage your brain but there good fun.. “Big loaner/drifter arrives in town saves heroine while liberally beating up bad guys & moves on” (I’ve read two).
I pretty sure i’ll read more but not in a rush, and for purely brain-dead relief type reading, like the majority of ‘action’ films I watch. As for the film, no Tom isn’t quite ‘jack reacher-esk’ enough for the hard core fans, but as a ‘save the girl, beat the baddies’ premise film, it works fine

ScottChegg – Member
a terrible female actress
If you are going to slag off the delicious Rosamund Pike, there must be something wrong with you.

She may be delicious to some, but let there be no doubt…she IS a terrible actress.

[edit] Jack Reacher – mleh; watched it…wouldn’t watch it again.

Watched it, had some good bits in (the bits with guns) but that’s about it. The plot was more or less a combination of Shooter (better gunnage, better acting) and The Manchurian Candidate (well, sort of). Actually, The Manchurian Candidate (the original one) was a far better film in every way.

Ok, I agree, it was shit. Apart from the guns.

Ok, I agree, it was shit. Apart from the guns.

[quote]
even the bits with the guns were a bit lame

Go and watch Dredd if you want a properly shite moooovie!

DrP

Dredd (not the stalone one) was a great film, the characters managed to convey some sort of gravity and lack of SMILE (Star from teethTM) that cannot be achieved when shorty gets on screen.

Rosamund Pike salvaged it for me.

All day long….

Well I, like millions of others , have read all the Jack teacher novels cos I find his writing style very readable , you don’t have so many characters that you can’t remember who’s who and the story is usually pretty interesting if not very likely . Perhaps you lot are too highbrow to enjoy them . The film version , as is usually the case , was not how I expected Jack Reacher to be after reading the books but to be honest the reviews were so bad that I ended up thinking it was better than I expected .

I suspect that many of those who are having a go may well have misunderstood what they were going to see. I went expecting to see what I saw. Really wasn’t expecting Shakepeare or Dostoyevsky, and I wasn’t disappointed in that.

Personally I thought it was pretty much faithful to the books, which are basically holiday reads, you know the sort? Ones you aren’t bothered about leaving behind when read once. Films the same.

I like to think of myself as highbrow (I’m not really) but have a weakness for the books. I like the Chandleresque directness of the tone, Reacher’s love of coffee, and its escapist, so sue me.

But the movie was awful. And I’m not too sure why, but the bit that first broke it for me was when some random female (not Rosamund, who is lovely but not much hope as an actor) did an almost slo-mo double-take at Cruise/Reacher’s gorgeousness.

Just, y’know, to emphasise his animal magnetism. It was an odd moment and the spell was broken for me at that point.

I suspect that many of those who are having a go may well have misunderstood what they were going to see. I went expecting to see what I saw. Really wasn’t expecting Shakepeare or Dostoyevsky, and I wasn’t disappointed in that.

I was expecting (to quote Dr K) Tab A into Slot B action flick with some darkness, it was as if it was made by disney. I had low expectations, I was laughing at it not even with it. You could splice most of TC’s recent films together and have no idea who he is playing. He can’t do characters there is only TC LOOK AT ME!

Ramsey Neil – Member
Well I, like millions of others , have read all the Jack teacher novels cos I find his writing style very readable , you don’t have so many characters that you can’t remember who’s who and the story is usually pretty interesting if not very likely . Perhaps you lot are too highbrow to enjoy them . The film version , as is usually the case , was not how I expected Jack Reacher to be after reading the books but to be honest the reviews were so bad that I ended up thinking it was better than I expected .

+1.

I had heard such bad things about the film that when I saw it I was pleasantly surprised!
BUT, why oh why did they cast Tom Cruise as Jack Reacher? Nothing like how he is portrayed in the books at all! Might as well have cast Russell Brand!

She may be delicious to some…

Hark at Mr Fussy.

may well have misunderstood what they were going to see.

I understood perfectly. It was still lame.

BUT, why oh why did they cast Tom Cruise as Jack Reacher?

[Tom Cruise] he has bought the rights to all 17 Jack Reacher books, hoping to turn them into a Mission: Impossible-type franchise.
linky

a Mission: Impossible-type franchise.

Ooh, can’t wait for the next one then*! M:I films are so utterly utterly crap I don’t know how to express it in words, so I’ll just go like this (you couldn’t see that, luckily)

*haven’t seen the first!

Was a bit mediocre and Tom Cruise’s acting was pretty poor..

No change there, then. Amazing how many actors can make a career out of being crap and being in mediocre movie after mediocre movie.

Well, my reaction as the end credits started to roll was hysteria. I was genuinely and literally crying with laughter. My wife though something was wrong. It took my 3 minutes to compose myself to explain why I was laughing so much. I just couldn’t quite believe what I had watched, it was so awful, so cliched I just didn’t think that (even) Hollywood still churned out such awful awful movies anymore. It reminded me of one of those really terrible 80s/early to mid 90’s action flicks (last Boy Scout springs to mind) but without anything redeeming whatsoever.

I don’t deny I was tuned into it completely and never once hated it, but it just made me laugh. A so bad it’s good type of affair but unlike, say ‘snakes on a plane’ there was no sense of irony in it at all. They all believed they were making a good movie. It is exactly the sort of movie I woud expect a bonkers Tom Cruise to make though.

Incidentally, the first 10 minutes were actually very good. Very absorbing and tense, beautifully and creatively shot. I must have been given a false sense of security.

I’m wondering if the naysayers saw the same film I saw? Personally I like the Lee Child books (it’s fiction – therefore it is entertainment and escapism) and the book it is loosely based on is, IMHO one of the best in the series. I was dreading seeing the film as, along with everyone else, TC is just about as far away from the character you can get. However, I parked that to one side and just went along to be entertained by the film. And I was. It was reasonably faithful to the book and I thought it was quite watchable. A lot less screen time spent watching TC running or riding a motorcycle or driving a car or posing and him at least attempting to be Reacher. Overall I thought it was a reasonable film and it was entertaining. Sure, it is not a classic or an Oscar winner but really? Utterly, utterly rubbish? Have you guys never seen a film before? There are plenty of films that are much worse than Reacher. The Expendables for one – picking an example from something that was on TV recently.

the books are 4 quid a pop.. its not like they want a couple of hundred for them so you get 4 quids worth. the film is free on the telly so again you get what you pay for.. it goes in easily, smooches around between your ears and leaves.. pain free.. could you ask for more.

I find Tom Cruise increasingly creepy & struggle to watch anything with him in.

the books are 4 quid a pop.. its not like they want a couple of hundred for them so you get 4 quids worth. the film is free on the telly so again you get what you pay for.. it goes in easily, smooches around between your ears and leaves.. pain free.. could you ask for more.

Is that the basis on which we judge film then? Whether its free on the telly?

Reacher is a sort of anti hero cliché. I kinda like him(yes I know hes not real)

Reacher is 6foot 6

Tom Cruise FFS 🙄

No change there, then. Amazing how many actors can make a career out of being crap and being in mediocre movie after mediocre movie.

Hate to say it, but I think that he has been good in a couple of films. Collateral was excellent and I rally enjoyed The Last Samurai. Nothing gets close to his sensitive, nuanced performance in Days of Thunder though. Blows me away every single time…

Hate to say it, but I think that he has been good in a couple of films

I agree – Risky Business, Colour of Money, Rainman, Minority Report and Born on the 4th – all decent.

Plus of course, when he was “A Little Boy!”

Quality film 😀