Jack Reacher (2012 Tom Cruise Film)

I just Re-watched it, and still stand by what I said a while back.

Great direction, good acting that is low key enough, but cool enough to seem real, but still very fun.

I really do not care that Cruise is "average" sized without Dork lungren muscles.

Like I said before, I think a HUGE guy with muscles that was 280 lbs is SO FAR from being an officer in the military, that alone would make the character seem utterly fake.........

In action movies there are always abnormally huge muscle guys that are supposedly military. In real life military, I worked with Air Force, Army and Navy people from several countries, and NEVER once saw a huge muscle bound guy.

Almost all were between 5'6 and 6'0 tall and quite average size wise, but usually trim and fit, or occasionally a bit pudgy.

A muscle bound hulk.................

 

You have to read the books to appreciate what Child is trying to do.

As for an actor, I don't see enough contemporary movies to know if there is an appropriate actor for Reacher. I suppose Eastwood would have been the closest. McQueen would not have been bad, but the books are leavened by some humor (or perhaps playfulness is a better word) and I have trouble seeing McQueen do that.

That said, I do like the fact that the director trusted the material and his audience.

 

Aren't they "too small" for the part? Bigger than Cruise, but IIRC, Reacher is supposed to be a behemoth...

 

A behemoth - not quite, but certainly large (6'4" or 5" I think). Google tells me that Eastwood is 6'4".

Gary Cooper?

 

Child's website says Reacher is 6'5", 220-250 pounds, 50" chest.

Eastwood would've been about tall enough but he'd have needed to bulk up, I think...

 

I don't think you read the books....Reacher isn't a 'muscle guy' like some sort of freakish weight lifter. He's just a large guy that is muscular/strong but not like some sort of weightlifting freak.

Also....Reacher was an MP (Military Police)..not one of those of Special Forces/Delta guys that are usually lean/wiry strong.

 

Best I could think of.

 

Oh, I didn't mean to argue that younger Clint wasn't arguably the best match - I just meant that I'm not sure there is or has been a really good match for the part, at least not among big name actors.

Seems like a lot of the complaints about Cruise implied there were a bunch of actors who fit the role physically, and that doesn't appear to be the case. Some others might be closer, of course, but still not great matches...

 

Physically - Vince Vaughan?

 

Yeah, he's a big guy. Not my go-to for action hero, though!

 

hey I'm still here!

 

We're looking for an ACTOR to play the role!

 

So am I

 

What about Gerard Butler? He's 6'2 and proved in 300 that he can bulk up the muscles if required?

 

Your description of the 'real' Reacher is so far off the mark as to be laughable. You really can NOT grasp what the character of Jack Reacher is like unless you read the novels. I'm glad you liked Cruise's portrayal, but for me it was akin to having Pee Wee Herman rather than Charlton Heston portray Moses in The Ten Commandments. It is THAT off.

 

Ignorance is bliss for some people.

 

Yeah, I admit I've never read the books. I was just drawing a mental image based on what people were saying here.

 

I don't care what the books portray, as I went to see a movie. That I quite enjoyed, including Cruise's performance.

John K.

 

I agree. And though Cruise is not a good fit for Reacher, he did a respectable job with this role. The movie works for me and I have read every Reacher novel.

 

I was in the US Army and new several large muscle bound soldiers (I am only 5 9, 175lbs). They were the exception to be sure, but then so is Jack Reacher in the novels.

 

Worst casting EVER.
But I'm sure it only bothers us that are fans of the books.
Those of us that have been reading these books since the late 90's have a deeply ingrained picture of Jack Reacher in our heads that's been there for years.
Tom Cruise is about as far from that as you can get. It actually made me angry.

It would be like casting Ben Affleck as Batman ... oh wait ...

 

It made me angry as well. If the Cruise film failed there would be no more films. If it succeeded there would be more films with the horribly miscast Cruise (which sadly has happened.) What could have been an amazing series of films has been squandered.

 

I've never read the books but really enjoyed the film. I think taken on its own terms it's a pretty solid little film, but I can definitely understand how a fan of the books could be annoyed by the cast decision. Of course Cruise is probably the reason the film got made in the first place...

A similar irritant in my experience is Dirk Pitt. I've been reading those Clive Cussler books since I was around 10 years old and so far 2 have been adapted into films (Raise The Titanic, Sahara) and neither one got the character even remotely correct. Both were embarrassing in different ways. Oh well, both films flopped spectacularly so I doubt I'll ever have to suffer through another adaptation. Good.

 

Good point, though there's one notable difference: a lot of men have played Batman over the years, so there's a wide variety of "models" for how the character can look. IIRC, Cruise is the only person to play Reacher anywhere, so he had to compete with fans' mental images of the character based on books.

I think Affleck is a weird choice for Batman, but I thought Michael Keaton was a HORRIBLE choice in 1988 and that worked out fine, so who knows?

But it's probably easier for fans to accept Affleck since we've had so many different actors play the part - it's tougher to compete with a notion taken only from a book, I think...

 

actually they seem to re-boot everything now days.