• Watch Out for Scammers!

    We've now added a color code for all accounts. Orange accounts are new members, Blue are full members, and Green are Supporters. If you get a message about a sale from an orange account, make sure you pay attention before sending any money!

Movie Theater Jack Reacher

Re: Jack Reacher

In a recent interview Lee Child said that Tom Cruise did a great job as Reacher. On another note, "No Way Out"was set in Washington, DC and was about a Naval Officer investgating a death...
 
Re: Jack Reacher

They could have let "Gunny" kill some of them and not Tom take them all out himself.

Other than that was a decent movie.
 
Re: Jack Reacher

They had their gun tech down pretty well. I enjoyed the close-up of the reloading tech especially the Forster co-axial press. I think that Hollywood is again perpetuating the psycho ex-sniper bullshit. The military is pretty good at weeding the 'get paid fer killin' people' retards out. Rosamund Pike...ya, I kind of don't recall what anyone was saying when her cleavage was in my face.
 
Re: Jack Reacher

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Marcus85</div><div class="ubbcode-body">They could have let "Gunny" kill some of them and not Tom take them all out himself.

Other than that was a decent movie. </div></div>

I was so ready to see him smoke some bad guys but it didn't happen. I was disappointed about that.
 
Yah, Tom Cruise should not take his t-shirt off. Always ruins it for me. Kinda weird...
 
I can't believe no one mentioned the reloading scene until the second page of this thread. Sure, it perpetuated the myth that people who reload are psycho killers, but it is not often you see a Forster Co-ax on the big screen.
 
I read ONE SHOT which the movie was based. Never thought they'd actually make it a movie...but had imagined in my mind how they were gonna do the scene in the book where Jack Reacher keeps himself concealed from their night vision optics in order to get to the bad guys TOTALLY clever but not plausible (he was cooling off his body temp by going through these sprinkler like things in a field)...ibut I was like 'how will they translate that?" and they stayed true to the book "sort of" by having him try to get the bad guys and using rocks as concealment... that was PLAUSIBLE and well done in my opinion.

But Robert Duval had one of the best lines ever when he came to back Reacher up.
Reacher's car chase scene ended with two 'bumps" for the character to get away unscathed...and those two bumps were comical, clever and made the chase awesome (and it was an old school chase)

Like a lot of people, I was buggin that Tom Cruise was gonna play a character known to be physically formidable specimen of a man... but in the diner talking to the attorney for the defendant... Tom was totally acting with the props and he was "in" character... I'd never before seen him act like someone other then the essence of Tom Cruise coming out... I mean...it was as if he'd studied a real "operator" in the tactical community.. from the way he tilted his head to the way he put his fork to his mouth...and I would know this...cause in my research efforts for my own screenplay that I've been writing... I've spent time with various members of the tactical community (military based) and I've broken bread with these folks and studied them and really absorbed how they can be ...cause they are human and normal people...but at the same time... they have a a situational awareness that never ever leaves their guard...and that's how he was behaving in that diner scene... and I was really impressed.

but just like in the book and in the movie...I like a movie with a strong female lead who does not have to become romantically involved with a male character...and this movie had that (think Nichole Kidman and George Clooney in The Peacemaker...they never dumbed that movie up with those two getting it on and I liked it for that reason...respects the woman...and just makes her a colleague..)

This movie is a total keeper and the book is really good... I totally enjoyed it and am gonna reread it (since I mailed my original copy off to my former sniper instructor...I got a new one with Tom Cruise on the cover)...

What was good about the movie? It unfolded the mystery really well and kept you interested... but I already knew what was gonna happen...and just like in Shooter... I read POINT OF IMPACT before I saw the movie...and the first time I watched Shooter...I hated it...cause it was NOT the book...but I'd had enough time pass between when I read ONE SHOT and actually watched Jack Reacher... that I wasn't watching the book.. .cause after the second time of watching Shooter... I LOVED IT...and own it and consider it a keeper too...
 
Last edited:
Someone mentioned being inspired to read the books. Good.
Read them in the order published, or in no order at all.
The back story is introduced a little at a time, both as Child develops Reacher, and as we get to know the character. Same way we learn about our acquaintances. We don't know them chronologically, since even childhood friends are not with us at all times, we learn bits and pieces about them.
After the softcover story "The Affair" is a short story of Reacher when he was a kid. That was one of the best Reacher stories I ever read.
Child is a Brit, living in the US, and seems to have gotten a good grasp of his Army terms, American life, life on the road, human nature, etc. Some of his recurrent characters are pretty strong, even if some of his situations are a bit of a stretch.
Never mentioned in the narratives, but I think Reacher has a bit of a mental health problem, to wit PTSD. He distrusts authority (usually with good cause) travels incessantly and doesn't own anything if he can avoid it. He is dealing with getting screwed by the Army, and several losses. However, Child deals with this realistically, since his character is reasoned, considers all the factors, and is clearly (to the reader) not a loose cannon, regardless of his coiled spring setting. He has a couple of idiosyncrasies, That don't get introduced (chronologically) until later, and it is fun to watch the writer play with those. There is also a ending to one of the stories that caused a great deal of controversy, since so many don't think Child dealt with it in the beginning of of the next story adequately. You'll know it when you see it.
As to the actor choice, I am sure Cruise brought a bunch of money into the early negotiations, and said basically, "I'm the star." If someone like the Rock, had more gravitas, and was a bigger wheel in Hollywood, he might have made a better Reacher. The role requires someone with a smoldering heat, and Cruise telling someone he better walk away, just doesn't carry the threat of Reacher doing it.
 
Tom Cruise produced this so I guess that he is a fan of the books and decided he wanted to be Jack Reacharound.

Some interesting notes... I was wandering about the sniper's choice of an M1A. Not as accurate as some other choices out there. But then I milled out that targets in the first scene and they were about a whopping 110 yards away. I don't know why he was looking for a very long shooting range given the range on those shots, but if he is looking for a training ground for a shooter, that was probably a good choice.

All around, I tend to give more credit for what they got right than what they got wrong.
 
I think this is one of the best Cruise movies in years, and while that's not saying much, this one is worth your money. Go rent it or get it OnDemand. I actually enjoyed this movie a lot and hope they make a couple more.
 
The wife and I just watched it last night. We both don't care much for Tom Cruise, and neither of us read the book.

That said, we thoroughly enjoyed the movie.
 
Some interesting notes... I was wandering about the sniper's choice of an M1A. Not as accurate as some other choices out there. But then I milled out that targets in the first scene and they were about a whopping 110 yards away.

It's farther than that, I'd say probably closer to 200-300 yards if I recall correctly. The NRA convention was right there two years ago, where they filmed that scene. Drove across that bridge every day to and from the convention, parked in the same structure where the bad guy did the shooting from, and the convention center is just about a half block down from where he took the shots. Funny, when we watched the film, I recognized the highway as they were approaching the tunnel and knew immediately where they were. Little movie deja vu, which is always kinda cool.
 
I watched it yesterday. I got it based off of the comments in this thread. I thoroughly enjoyed it. I plan on sharing it with my neighbor today.

I had not read any of the books. Quite honestly I had never even heard of the books. I think I will start reading them now.
 
Incidentally, Lee Child must not have had a problem with Tom Cruise playing Jack Reacher, even if he didn't fit the physical description Child had painted for the character; he made a cameo in the movie. The desk sergeant in the scene where Reacher is being released from custody . . . was Lee Child.
 
Incidentally, Lee Child must not have had a problem with Tom Cruise playing Jack Reacher, even if he didn't fit the physical description Child had painted for the character; he made a cameo in the movie. The desk sergeant in the scene where Reacher is being released from custody . . . was Lee Child.

Let's face it ...If you had the opportunity to sell a movie you would want the biggest grossing star you could get. Hollywood has never been accused of following any story line. All that matters is $$$$$.
 
Let's face it ...If you had the opportunity to sell a movie you would want the biggest grossing star you could get. Hollywood has never been accused of following any story line. All that matters is $$$$$.

This is the point to the film industry, not accurate recreation. A movie is an investment for everyone involved, you better get a return.
 
I can't believe no one mentioned the reloading scene until the second page of this thread. Sure, it perpetuated the myth that people who reload are psycho killers, but it is not often you see a Forster Co-ax on the big screen.

Ya know...I said the same thing to my wife when we watched it - that reloading does not equal killer. I picked up on the Forster as well....

Wife and I thought the movie was good, but didn't understand how the M1A and Duval was missing so many shots...
 
This is the point to the film industry, not accurate recreation. A movie is an investment for everyone involved, you better get a return.


I'd agree, but it's not ALWAYS the case. Ever noticed how much money the Hollywood libs will put into something that spouts their POV, even if they have to subpoena people to come see it? That recent movie that Matt Damon did on fracking? Any of the several anti-Bush, anti-military propaganda crap films like "The Valley of Eli" or "Lions for Lambs" (and I'm not even sure I'm recalling the names correctly). All totaled, I suspect those movies probably grossed about $6.85 . . . but made the libs feel good about themselves.
 
I'd agree, but it's not ALWAYS the case. Ever noticed how much money the Hollywood libs will put into something that spouts their POV, even if they have to subpoena people to come see it? That recent movie that Matt Damon did on fracking? Any of the several anti-Bush, anti-military propaganda crap films like "The Valley of Eli" or "Lions for Lambs" (and I'm not even sure I'm recalling the names correctly). All totaled, I suspect those movies probably grossed about $6.85 . . . but made the libs feel good about themselves.
That's fair. I think in that situation those are people who have made their money and now can do what they want, from art house indie work to making a political statement. For a company to do a Lee Childs work, or Dan Brown (with miscast T. Hanks) they get a big star to make money.
 
"Fuck you, Hollywood libs! Oh hey, I can't wait til that new movie comes out!" You guys crack me up.
 
When I was young in the 70's I read all the Vietnam books and watched a lot of Vietnam movies. I remember talking to vets who complained about the way they were portrayed in some Hollywood movies as pyschos and killers with no feelings. And, now it is my turn to watch movies about my time in OIF and OEF and we are now being potrayed in the same fashion. Mad killers without a conscience. I did watch the movie and thought of the themes of military mad killer, military rapists and corporate greed aka, the Military Industrial Complex was on par for Hollywood's potrayal of the military as it is so foreign to them. Yes, the weapons and military advisors were pretty good at the weapons but the overall theme of the movie is not to my liking.