Guarantee this would be rated 8.0+ if you discounted fans of the books

Same. I just can't be moved by anyone's concern for their interpretation of the source material here. It's weird for me to be on the opposite side of this, as a fan of so many comics and video games that haven't gotten the best treatment, but I loved this movie, and totally appreciate Cruise's hard work and dedication to the craft.

I couldn't imagine a better fate than a long and lustrous winter! 

The movie had 3 things going for it, and nothing more:
1. -the car chase scene
2. -Rosamund Pike's breasts
3. -Werner Herzog chewing up the scenery every time his character was on-screen


The movie was tonally inconsistent. While dealing with a dark subject matter, the main protagonists had half a smile on their face, all the time. That and the toned down violence makes this look like an unsuccesful adaptation of a 1980's cheesy detective show.

Tom Cruise really plays Mr. Wise-ass Action-Hero here, smirking his way through the whole thing, to be sure any possible screenshot of him would look good.

Rosamund Pike's blonde bimbo-in-distress performance really stood out like a sore thumb. Unless she was supposed to impersonate a fish, with those facial expressions.

The only real stand-out in this film is Werner Herzog, playing Zec in such an over-the top, hillarious way, as if he's the only cast member realising what a cheesy mess this is, and embracing it fully.

One has to wonder who the target audience is supposed to be, with shootout scenes that look like people simply passing out, characters that crack jokes only moments after tackling serious issues or "Laurel and Hardy"-type of assassins that start knocking each other out for the sake of goofiness and "humour".

The movie itself is well shot, the opening scene followed by the investigation all being without any dialogue was proof of skilfull directing but shortly after everything falls apart.

I have never read the novel, but if it is indeed as good as people say, this movie is a poor adaptation of it. In my opinion, that is.

1. There are such things as books whether you know how to read or not. 2. Reacher is a terrible driver. 3. His fighting skills are compounded by his great size and physical strength, so that in A Wanted Man, he picks up huge man (7' tall, 400 lbs.) and drops him on his head, whereas, my sister could kick Tom Cruise's ass.

Irony is like goldy or bronzy, but it's made of iron.

My biggest problem isn't actually the height, it's the fact that Tom Cruise simply isn't Jack Reacher.

Reacher is cold and calculating, his mind always working on problems and conundrums. He thinks everything through, even when he's killing people, and dissects the information like a scientist studying molecules.

The height is the most recognisable aspect of the character, but his attitude is what makes the character so endearing. Reacher simply doesn't take *beep* from anybody, even his superiors, if he thinks they're wrong or stupid. He'll happily mouth off to a gang of thugs because he knows they're trash, and that he can take them all with one hand tied behind his back. It's not cockiness, it's logic.

And truth be told, I simply do not see Cruise in that kind of role. To me, he feels like he's trying too hard to be like the character, like a fanboy, rather than simply being the character as an actor should be.

Fun thing: I love the books, and I liked this movie. Honestly, I did. It was a solid flick, with good acting, most of the key elements of the book being adapted with care, intelligence and attention, and yet it still managed to be entertaining to someone who had read the book literally a week before seeing the film (me).

But that being said I'd still only rate this film a 7, maybe 7.5 if I was forced to. It's just a typical action flick with guns, cars, a creepy bad guy, a good looking damsel and a tough gritty hero. Which, ironically enough, is what Reacher sets out to destroy.

In every book he dismantles some kind of Hollywood cliche, sometimes even multiples in one go. The entire crux of Reacher's character is that he's not an action star, he's just a guy who wants to be left alone, but if people start *beep* with him, it's the Liam Neeson quote game: he has a very particular set of skills, and he uses them to inflict misery on the people who just couldn't let sleeping dogs lie.

In particular though I had a real problem with the scene where Reacher beats up Charlie, or whatever they changed his name to in the film. I know Reacher said he was going to kill him with his bare hands, but I have two issues
1. In the second book, Reacher explains in great detail to the reader why 'fighting honorably' is a good way of getting yourself killed. He mentions how he considered saying something cocky or cool or the name of a victim, but in the end he just shoots the villain through the head and it's over with. Reacher is sensible, smart and clever. He doesn't do something if it's too risky. In particular, he doesn't throw down his gun to scuffle with someone.
2. The book had Reacher fighting the guy all hand-to-hand style, mano-y-mano, except there it was justified since Reacher had no gun and was creeping through the large house the villains owned, using stealth and surprise to kill them all individually. It was incredibly tense and well-written and made the entire thing feel more personal.
But Reacher's point in the second book is if you CAN kill someone, then just *beep* kill them already. Don't pussy-foot around making it personal, just end them, fast and efficiently.

But overall, this film wasn't bad. Compared to other adaptations I've seen, this was damn close to the source. It kept the convoluted plot as best it could while shortening it for a 2-hour movie, it kept Reacher's character (for the most part) the same as the book, but while I dislike Tom Cruise in the role, it's not for his height, I just don't see him as that competent of an actor. Maybe it's just me but every time I see Cruise in a film, I never see anyone but Tom Cruise playing a role. I've never once ever been sucked into his performance, he's always just Tom Cruise to me. But again, maybe that's me.

All in all, I liked the film. Wasn't great, definitely prefer the books, but I'm no book-obsessing perfectionist. I'm aware *beep* has to change and that sometimes a film can improve upon the source's work, but in this case it was just a mediocre action film with a decently intelligent plot, but again, that's due to the book.

I know right, they make out like the books are some sort of masterpiece and belong in the same realm of Blood Meridian. No. The books are average at best and the film was a lot better and thats what they don't like.

I completely disagree with this. I've never read any of the books, and I thought the movie and Cruise were both mediocre. Everyone I know who has seen the movie did not like it as well. I couldn't give this movie more than a 6/10. Action doesn't make a movie. One scene doesn't make a movie. There were a few good action scenes, but overall, the movie was very average.

Well, for me at least, Reacher being a small guy in the movie, only made the story work better, for it was taken as a surprise that he could beat all those thugs at once.
(a huge, twice the size muscular guy doing the same isn't so impresive).

So here, I said it, kill me