Started By
Message

re: "The Movie was actually better than the Book."

Posted on 2/13/14 at 12:09 pm to
Posted by SoGaFan
Member since Jan 2008
5956 posts
Posted on 2/13/14 at 12:09 pm to
quote:

you can't be serious? The movie wasn't "bad" (I actually enjoyed it), but Tom Cruise completely butchered Reacher's character.


yeah, I do think this. I admittedly saw the movie without realizing there was a book series it was based upon. I went back and ended up reading quite a few of the books, and after doing so, I really don't care about the physical differences. I thought the character in the movie was more compelling and more realistic that the one in the books.
Posted by elprez00
Hammond, LA
Member since Sep 2011
29467 posts
Posted on 2/13/14 at 1:23 pm to
quote:

but Tom Cruise completely butchered Reacher's character.

No he didn't. People had a hard time getting past the fact that he didn't "look" like Jack Reacher. But he did pretty well capturing the presence.

quote:

I went back and ended up reading quite a few of the books, and after doing so, I really don't care about the physical differences. I thought the character in the movie was more compelling and more realistic that the one in the books.


I picked up One Shot at DFW on my way back to NOLA looking for something to read. I was entertained. I ended up reading a bunch of them. Child is so all over the place. Some of the novels are great, others I find myself asking "Why is he here?"

As far as actors go, capturing the presence of Reacher is more important than the physically imposing figure. They could've gotten a guy like Hugh Jackman to play Reacher, but I don't think Tom Cruise did horribly. I enjoyed the movie.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram