Discussion in 'Visual Arts' started by AKA, Jul 18, 2017.
He's SHORTER dammit! What don't you get? He's SHORTER!
I found it real annoying. Greg is like 4-5 inches taller than Tommy. Greg is the all American guy making Tommy look even more of an outsider. Movie tossed that aspect out. After James got his Tommy down whoever got passed the joint next was cast.
No, the movie didn't "toss out" the way Greg makes Tommy look like more of an outsider. It sets up Greg as the "normal one" - good relationship with his mother, gets serious with a woman, etc.
Dave's height has nothing to do with any of that. Even if Greg is actually taller than Tommy, this has no bearing on the characters' relationships in the movie and it seems like a petty reason to criticize the film...
I don’t understand the pertinence of someone’s height in this movie. Did I miss something?
Some people love to collect grievances.
Apparently because the real person is tall, that makes the movie invalid because the actor who plays him is short.
Because Greg's height is the absolute key to the movie's success!
I didn't really care about the height issue but it was kind of an odd casting choice given that Franco and Franco are brothers, and look like brothers, but were not playing brothers. Granted, James altered his appearance some to play Tommy but still...
movie was ok, I think they made a mistake following gregs life story so much, the real good stuff was the onset shenanigans....gregs book is a good read but the movie on a whole suffered
i enjoyed the movie, but having the read the book, the portrayal of Sestero seemed to miss the mark. Sestero was very much aware of how awful the movie was even while it was being made, but that doesn't come through in the script, or Dave Franco's performance.
You know, I never really thought James and Dave looked that much alike. I mean, I don't claim they bear no physical resemblance, but I don't think they look so much alike that it becomes a distraction...
I think that's because "TDA" the movie really wants to be a story of an unlikely friendship/bond than anything else. Maybe the book follows that path too - I didn't read it - but I think the movie Greg's apparent inability to recognize Tommy's flaws is a character choice meant to serve an overall theme...
Nevertheless, it was kind of odd, aside from nepotism, that a guy with almost nothing in common with the real Greg was chosen for the role, especially since some effort was made to get Tommy right. And I agree to some extent that getting a better-looking Greg would've highlighted the contrast between the characters more. I thought Dave looked kind of weird much of the time, owing largely to his unnatural-looking hair.
i've read the book, Sesostero makes it clear that he knew how bad the movie was and that his participation was pretty half-hearted, particularly towards the end.
IIRC the movie doesn't totally gloss over this - Greg certainly gets more exasperated as the production plods along - but it's certainly downplayed relative to the book.
I agree that in this movie the actor's height was not relevant at all.
I still think Tom Cruise's height is a negative factor for him portraying the Jack Reacher character, because Reacher's height and size factors into key elements of the various Jack Reacher stories.
As someone who never read the Reacher books, I thought Cruise was great.
Would I feel the same way if I'd gone in with a view of Reacher as totally different than Cruise physically? Perhaps, but as depicted in the movie, Cruise works well for the character.
Honestly, divorce your feelings from the book's version and I think you can see this as one of Cruise's best performances - he gives the role the necessary strength but also has a world-weariness that works, and he abandons his usual "Tom Cruise charisma"...
I get that, and I too think Cruise did a credible job in the movie. It's hard to forget about the book version of Jack Reacher 'cause I read so many of them.
I can see that - like I said, I'm sure that if I went in with a preconceived notion of Reacher as a blond behemoth, dinky little dark-haired Tom Cruise would cause head-scratching!
I'm sure I've been put off by casting that doesn't fit the character as written in the past, too - can't think of any obvious examples off the top of my head, but I'm sure it's happened.
I just watched the first Reacher movie again a couple of weeks ago and was pleased with how it's held up - and how good Cruise was.
Hey, Lee Child cameos in the movie, so he must approve!
Tom Cruise doesn't need to be tall! He can act tall better than tall actors can be tall!
Seriously, i've read several reacher books, and really enjoyed the first movie. the second one was okay, but seemed to suffer from a lower budget.
According to Boxofficemojo, both 1 and 2 cost $60 million each...
dunno...there was one particular scene where cruise gets surrounded by bad guys, and they have the fight in a conveniently empty warehouse...kind of rolled my eyes. also the chase scene in new orleans at the end looked kind of fake to me...
Just reporting what the site says!
yeah, i hear you. maybe it's just me.
Where was 'Jack Reacher: Never Go Back' filmed? A rundown of New Orleans shooting locations
so they really did shoot the chase scene in new orleans. guess i was over-thinking it.
Oh, hai, Batman.
Tommy Wiseau's Joker audition.
Tommy Wiseau's Amazing Joker Audition Proves He's the Only One for the Role
Separate names with a comma.