MovieChat Forums > Jack Reacher (2012) Discussion > The movie was much better than the book

The movie was much better than the book

posted 8 years ago by successor13326
2 replies | jump to latest

Typically, it's the other way around. But I just finished the book and didn't like it anywhere near as much as the movie. Which is strange, because I liked Persuader a lot. One Shot was a real slog, though. The plot was too slow and there were too many side characters who weren't really all that necessary: Franklin, Eileen Hutton, Rosemary Barr, Ann Yanni. Christopher McQuarrie did a fantastic job adapting and even improving the story.

There were things in the book that I just can't understand why Lee Child put in there. For example, why did Child include Reacher making love to Eileen Hutton at the hotel? Especially when he was on the run for Sandy's murder. If you're on the run, are you really going to stop and have fun with some woman you knew from the army? Thank goodness the movie got rid of that pointless subplot and character.

Plus, Ann Yanni's character was absurd. She just gives up her car to a wanted murderer and doesn't call the cops afterwards? Yeah, right. Beyond that, Child makes a big deal of Reacher evading Detective Emerson and later getting arrested. Then he just goes scot free a short time later because Yanni gave Reacher an alibi, claiming she slept with him. Just unbelievable.

The final shootout in the movie was much more exciting and satisfying than the house assault in the novel--which felt like a retread of Persuader's finale. And Reacher didn't even kill Zec in the book. So frustrating.

I'd suggest skipping the book and sticking with the movie. IMO, it was a far more enjoyable version of the story.

[–] Beauq81 8 years ago

No it wasn't. I would go as far as saying that your statement that "McQuarrie improved the story" is insulting, but Child signed off on it, so it's his fault they butchered both books.

Why wouldn't Reacher sleep with Hutton. She was his ex girlfriend, she was in town as a witness, willing...

Yanni was an ambitious reporter. He promised her a story and she went along.

The shootout in the movie was DUMB. How is driving a car in reverse watching the bumper cameras, throwing a loaded gun and fighting the bad guy, then shooting the unarmed boss better and more logical than sneaking into the house, taking the bad guy one at a time and then arresting the boss? The final shootout was the apex of absurdity in the movie used to portray Cruise as tough and mean and failing at it.

The book was a good noir style crime novel. The movie tried to be, but was too clean and polished to do it.

Fighting a religious war is like fighting over whose imaginary friend is better.

[–] successor13326 8 years ago

I disagree with everything you just said.

Why wouldn't Reacher sleep with Hutton. She was his ex girlfriend, she was in town as a witness, willing...

Because he's on the run from the law, and he has to solve the crime. Not fool around with an old flame. Also, how can he be sure she wouldn't turn him in? That whole scene could've been easily excised with no harm to the plot.

As for Yanni, her character was more of a plot device than a person. She existed solely to move the plot forward and her actions make no sense. Any sane, normal person would've called the cops on Reacher.

In the novel, Reacher slowly walks right up to the house and only succeeds because the bad guys are too stupid to simply watch the thermal security cameras and catch him instead of falling for an obvious ruse from Helen Rodin. Bear in mind, these guys are trained killers, not amateurs. Yet they make amateur mistakes solely for the sake of the plot.

Plus, the one character has Reacher dead to rights with a shotgun...and he lets the cops arrest Reacher?! Why not just blow him away and flee the scene? Because then the book would be over. It's so painfully contrived it's ridiculous. And they no problem killing five other people to get one, yet they let the police handle Reacher. Just absurd.