I take it back - Reacher

Just got back from seeing Reacher and the movie hardly resembles the previews which is a very good thing.

Cruise still misses the boat quite a bit to the Reacher character in the book, but not nearly as much as the previews would have you think.

For a movie adaptation of a book it was reasonably true to the story and facts, although they did throw in a lot of car chase scenes, which is good, except not quite in character. For those that haven't read the books you'd like it for the car scenes and the fact that he's a different type of action hero.

Bottom line is that my wife and I enjoyed it. Cruise didn't jump on even one sofa!!

we almost saw that on sunday- it was Reacher, Django, or a movie about a creature called a Hobbit, some dwarves, and an old wizard that were going on some sort of a quest.. or something.. we saw the last one.. apparently, it is a prequel to some other similar movies that i've never seen, so i had no idea wtf was going on or why i should care, and since it just abruptly ended right before something was apparently going to happen- after 3 freakin hours of really not much happening- i'll never know how the story turns out...

novaderrik wrote: apparently, it is a prequel to some other similar movies that i've never seen, so i had no idea wtf was going on or why i should care, and since it just abruptly ended right before something was apparently going to happen- after 3 freakin hours of really not much happening- i'll never know how the story turns out...

Funny... I had a feeling the 1st Hobbit movie would be like that would you think about how Jackson is stretching a relatively short book into a trilogy. It just reaks of pure greed. I'm damn tempted to ignore all three movies until the DVD's come out and I can watch them all at once.

Saw the Hobbit on IMAX 3D over the hols, it was OK and I'm a massive LOTR and all the books fan. Went to see Django last night with Tom Spangler as SWMBO doesn't like Tarantino's violence, man what an amazing movie, I think I liked it even more than Inglorious Bastards, you must see it. I plan on seeing Reacher soon, I've never read the book or even heard of him before the movie came out, (although strangly my mother has?!) but I do like Cruise as an action hero actor, despite the fact he's bat E36 M3 crazy he's good at those kind of movies.

I have never read Reacher, so I had no pre-conceived notions going into the movie. As such, I really enjoyed it as an action movie. Now I want to read the books, which will be an upgrade rather than a letdown.

My favorite character in the movie is of course the City of Pittsburgh! The auto parts store he goes to is my local Pep Boys! It's cool to see the sub shop you go to at lunch in the background behind Tom Cruise. And I know that bar. And that tunnel. And that house. I guess it's pretty old hat to people living in NYC or LA, but I was pretty geeked out.

Watched it on Tuesday. I was pleasantly suprised that they kept the fight scenes true to the books... never use your hands/fists, fight to win, not fair and make it over as quick as possible.

I still think TC was the wrong choice for a character, but it was still really good.

for those that have seen it, Lee Childs (the author of the books) is in the movie. He's the desk sergant when reacher gets let out after being jumped at the bar.

carguy123 wrote: Just got back from seeing Reacher and the movie hardly resembles the previews which is a very good thing. Cruise still misses the boat quite a bit to the Reacher character in the book, but not nearly as much as the previews would have you think. For a movie adaptation of a book it was reasonably true to the story and facts, although they did throw in a lot of car chase scenes, which is good, except not quite in character. For those that haven't read the books you'd like it for the car scenes and the fact that he's a different type of action hero. Bottom line is that my wife and I enjoyed it. Cruise didn't jump on even one sofa!!

which book ? all I've seen ( or am likely to see ) is the previews, but it doesn't seem to follow any of the Reacher books I've read ( I think there might be a couple of the earlier ones that I don't have)

It follows "One Shot" fairly well. It moves it from Southern Indiana to Pittsburg, and some things change but it's pretty close for a movie adaptation. The "feel" of the movie is what was the most "correct" part of the movie.

Bobzilla wrote: It follows "One Shot" fairly well. It moves it from Southern Indiana to Pittsburg, and some things change but it's pretty close for a movie adaptation. The "feel" of the movie is what was the most "correct" part of the movie.

Weird! Where in southern Indiana? Nothing ever happens here! I did geek out a little when in "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter" the beginning took place in Pigeon Creek, Indiana. There's no such town, but Pigeon Creek starts and ends in Evansville, so they were actually supposed to be here! Although it looked nothing like here, but whatever.

Bobzilla wrote: It follows "One Shot" fairly well. It moves it from Southern Indiana to Pittsburg, and some things change but it's pretty close for a movie adaptation. The "feel" of the movie is what was the most "correct" part of the movie.

if you've read most of the books you'll remember that Reacher doesn't drive much/well ( his admission) at all .. the army did all the driving for him .. so that makes the car chases a bit of BS ..

the previews didn't give me the idea that it was One Shot ... so I'll take your word for that .. ( since I don't plan on seeing the move) thanks for clearing it up for me

My wife commented on his driving. I know he doesn't drive much, but I can't remember reading anything where he didn't drive well. He didn't own a car in the books, and he doesn't own one in the movie. As I said, the previews give you a false impression of the action and story line.

When you see the movie, except for one scene where he's driving backwards using the rearview camera you'll see he wasn't driving all that well. Or was it that they were displaying the real handling characteristics of an BB SS Chevelle?

novaderrik wrote: we almost saw that on sunday- it was Reacher, Django, or a movie about a creature called a Hobbit, some dwarves, and an old wizard that were going on some sort of a quest.. or something.. we saw the last one.. apparently, it is a prequel to some other similar movies that i've never seen, so i had no idea wtf was going on or why i should care, and since it just abruptly ended right before something was apparently going to happen- after 3 freakin hours of really not much happening- i'll never know how the story turns out...

Seriously, the book isn't exactly fast paced. Hell, the "white orc" is a fake addition to add some speed to the movie. No offense, but you are the kind of person that makes Hollywood pump out movie after movie filled only with car chases.

Reacher2 - The Reacher Around

Coming to theaters this summer!

Lincoln FTW

Adrian_Thompson wrote: Went to see Django last night with Tom Spangler as SWMBO doesn't like Tarantino's violence, man what an amazing movie, I think I liked it even more than Inglorious Bastards, you must see it.

Really?

I'm a huge Tarantino fan but haven't seen it yet. I own all of his movies.

Just not sure I want to sit in a theater for 3 hours to watch it. Sitting at home in front of 65" on Blu-Ray so I can hit pause when I need another beverage may be necessary for that long of a flick.

But there is always something about the BIG screen.

z31maniac wrote:

Adrian_Thompson wrote: Went to see Django last night with Tom Spangler as SWMBO doesn't like Tarantino's violence, man what an amazing movie, I think I liked it even more than Inglorious Bastards, you must see it.

Really? I'm a huge Tarantino fan but haven't seen it yet. I own all of his movies. Just not sure I want to sit in a theater for 3 hours to watch it. Sitting at home in front of 65" on Blu-Ray so I can hit pause when I need another beverage may be necessary for that long of a flick. But there is always something about the BIG screen.

For sure worth seeing on the big screens IMHO.

I saw Reacher on the big screen, and loved it! I haven't read any of the books, but the movie was awesome. Say what you want about cruise as a person, but he the real deal in his movies.

carguy123 wrote: Or was it that they were displaying the real handling characteristics of an BB SS Chevelle?

Since the book character owns literally NOTHING except the clothes on his back (which are usually cheap work clothes bought new and thrown away when they get dirty), where does a beautifully-restored Chevelle SS come from? Besides Tom Cruise's ego and desire to show off his driving?

carguy123 wrote: My wife commented on his driving. I know he doesn't drive much, but I can't remember reading anything where he didn't drive well. He didn't own a car in the books, and he doesn't own one in the movie. As I said, the previews give you a false impression of the action and story line. When you see the movie, except for one scene where he's driving backwards using the rearview camera you'll see he wasn't driving all that well. Or was it that they were displaying the real handling characteristics of an BB SS Chevelle?

can't place my hand on the specific books, but at least once, and maybe 2 or 3 he alludes to not driving very well .. and as I said, his reason was he never learned ..as an officer he was usually driven by an enlisted soldier

I have read the books. I plan to see the movie. In my opinion Arnold Schwarznegger, of 20 years ago, would fit the books' image of Jack Reacher far better than Tom Cruise. I hope to be pleasantly surprised at how wrong I am.

HiTempguy wrote:

novaderrik wrote: we almost saw that on sunday- it was Reacher, Django, or a movie about a creature called a Hobbit, some dwarves, and an old wizard that were going on some sort of a quest.. or something.. we saw the last one.. apparently, it is a prequel to some other similar movies that i've never seen, so i had no idea wtf was going on or why i should care, and since it just abruptly ended right before something was apparently going to happen- after 3 freakin hours of really not much happening- i'll never know how the story turns out...

Seriously, the book isn't exactly fast paced. Hell, the "white orc" is a fake addition to add some speed to the movie. No offense, but you are the kind of person that makes Hollywood pump out movie after movie filled only with car chases.

nah, i'm the kind of person that allows Kevin Smith to keep making movies and wishes i was the kind of person that made Hollywood force Mel Brooks and Monty Python to make more movies.. also, movies about giant alien robots that turn in to cars every 3 years or so...

i only saw the Hobbit movie because when the beautiful woman you are with wants to see the Hobbit movie- and she's paying for you to see the Hobbit movie- you see the Hobbit movie..

Duke wrote:

carguy123 wrote: Or was it that they were displaying the real handling characteristics of an BB SS Chevelle?

Since the book character owns literally NOTHING except the clothes on his back (which are usually cheap work clothes bought new and thrown away when they get dirty), where does a beautifully-restored Chevelle SS come from? Besides Tom Cruise's ego and desire to show off his driving?

You'd need to see the show. I can't tell you without giving plot away.