Tom Cruise=Jack Reacher. What?

Movies
181

Great comment, Mr. Cavalier, and good points all around. And I’m happy to discus this! I hope I don’t come across as too dismissive.

I would like to clarify that I didn’t find the movie “distasteful” so much as just bad. I don’t think the gangrapers were supposed to be indicative of the Iraq invasion, for instance, so much as a convenient plot twist for our heroes.

Also, I’m about as pro-military as a non-Republican can get. Which isn’t very pro-military in some circles, so take that as you will. I think the pro-military angle in Jack Reacher comes from this idea – and I haven’t read the books, so I have no idea how much of this is Lee Childs’ book and how much is Christopher McQuarrie’s script – that the military is a special breed of people that “normal” people can never understand. There’s truth to that, of course, more so than how normal people might not understand police officers, doctors, and school teachers, because the men and women of the military are asked to do more than any other human being in nearly any other profession.

But I don’t believe that soldiers are fundamentally different from normal people. I don’t believe that Jack Reacher’s history as an MP makes him any more qualified to understand the evidence than the cop, or any more qualified to understand the investigation than the defense attorney or the DA, or any more badass a fighter than the trained ubersniper villain, all of whom he handily trumps in various ways. The basic premise of the movie is that because he’s a hardened bad-ass former vet, he has special skills and special insights that no one else would have. I don’t really pretend to know where the Mary Sue leaves off and the pro-military begins. But I get the sense from watching that the fact of his military service is played up as, essentially, his “superpower” in this power fantasy of a movie. Hence, pro-military, just as The Hobbit is pro-halfling, X-Men is pro-mutant, and Hanna is pro-genetically engineered pre-teen girl.

As for the other points you bring up, about Reacher leaving the military, I consider that more an element of the movie’s anti-government (“gummint”) paranoia. Jack Reacher leaves the military because the bureaucracy/brass covers up a mess. He goes off the grid because he’s worried about the government tracking him. And the gun stuff, portraying the movie’s gun range owner as a preternaturally wise and uniquely skilled cantankerous Yoda figure who is unflinchingly loyal to his clientele and his hardware, is really awkward. Do gun range owners threaten police by suggesting the people practicing shooting will come in and shoot investigating officers? More to the point, do they hide evidence when they discover one of their customers may have been guilty of a mass shooting? And is the associated deep-seated distrust of the entire legal system (i.e. “gummint”) something that is given a value judgment in the movie when it’s represented by an obviously heroic figure like Robert Duvall’s character? I think so. I find it all very pro-gun control and anti-government, an aspect of the same line of thought that the Second Amendment exists so that we can hold our own – guns blazing righteously! – when the government comes to take our guns so they can then take away our rights once they’re disarmed us, and then we’re living in the equivalent of North Korea.

And, ultimately, I don’t mind this stuff in Jack Reacher regardless of whether I agree with it. I just think it makes for a very “red state” action movie. Which I don’t intend as a criticism so much as an observation. My overall criticism is that I think Jack Reacher is poorly written and directed, and I wish a “red state” movie didn’t have to be a bad movie. It’s sort of like Christian rock. Why do Christians have to listen to bad music?

-Tom
182

And I’m just going to pretend you didn’t even go there. :)

-Tom
183

I would say that the “more able than a regular cop” thing is much less to do with the military angle, and more to do with Reacher himself. The fact that he is recognized to be one of the best mp investigators during his service, and the fact that he’d investigated the guy previously for an almost identical incident would obviously give him a bit more incite right off the bat.

So it’s supposed to be portrayed that Reacher is a naturally talented investigator, AND has experience (a lot of which comes from his service), but is never presented like the military itself is the main defining reason for his abilities.

So I doubt there was time to really make that stand out in a single film, assuming they even tried (which I sort of doubt).

184

Hmm. Speaking from the other side, as someone who has read all the books but not seen the movie, Reacher is first and foremost an observational asthetic (Jesus could fucking Chrome get a better dictionary? It makes me second guess my spelling constantly because it’s geared to ten-year-olds) who believes in the hard and fast rules of the military but understands the failings of the men and women who make up that entity.

If there’s a consistent theme to the books it’s that Reacher wants to be left alone but once presented with a puzzle or moral offense will stop at nothing to answer or right it. He doesn’t do it out of anger, typically. It usually starts as him being simultaneously nosy and immune to intimidation. This leads to the bad guys trying to intimidate him, he fucks them up (per the mantra of him being big and an MP, which means he’s big, strong, fast, and mean to counter small, strong, fast, and mean people) and subsequently gets mad, and then he usually decides to kill everyone that’s been naughty.

Granted, the world of Jack Reacher is not a subtle one. The bad are usually bad through and through, the good are usually good and simple and wholesome and just trying to get by, darnit! It also shares the main cliche with a lot of detective series where the protagonist wanders through a complex situation seemingly obtuse to everything until it all magically clicks and he somehow knows everything, down to the last detail. The Reacher series is actually one of the worst at this for several reasons, not the least of which is that the protagonist has been granted a perfect clock in his head despite unconsciousness, drugs, or sleep. But in the end he makes an honest conclusion about the facts as laid out; it’s not an unfair detective story, and we’ve all read those.

So why do I like the books? Well first, I’m a whore for noir, and they are very much written in the sparse noir fashion. Second, they have a loving detail when it comes to fighting and weapons, something sorely lacking in most media that relies on them. Third, I really appreciate the general presentation of stoicism as a positive trait. I’m not that way myself, but I like that someone is trying to do it. Last, ultimately, it’s a positive series about the military, independent folks, rural folks, and the value of being solid. I like reading about a guy who just tries to make things right, and occasionally cracks a skull doing it, and then moves on. It’s big white guy Kung Fu.

185

I kind of wish you’d see the movie, Houngan, because I’d be curious to hear whether you think this stuff comes through, which is much more interesting to me than how tall Tom Cruise is. There are some half-hearted attempts at what you’re writing about, but they’re just as likely to be confusing. For instance, in an early scene, we see Jack Reacher going to a Goodwill, buying second-hand clothing, paying cash, and then dumping his old clothes in the trash.

Huh? What that was about? Was he trying to get rid of fiber evidence? Did he get bank robbery dye on his old clothes? Was he making a dramatic statement about the clothing industry?

Unless I’m misremembering the scene, I don’t think they explain that this is how he changes clothes. It wasn’t until reading the Wikipedia page – I was curious how closely the screenplay kept to the book – that I found out that’s how he does his wardrobe in the books. He wears the same outfit for several days, and then just buys new clothes, and throws out the old clothes. In a later scene, I think the movie is trying to point this out, but it just becomes a scene about Tom Cruise being all hot and shirtless in front of a flustered woman. Who he’s not the least bit interested in, which seems like an aspect of the stoicism you mention, but comes across as, well, confused. Is he too dedicated to the job? Involved with someone else? Not into hot lawyer chicks? Gay? The movie doesn’t really comment.

And, frankly, I would have welcomed and been fascinated by a good “red state” action movie. Something like 24. Something that neo-conservatives wish they had with the Batman movies. I’d welcome some sort of alternate political perspective underneath the usual car chases and shootouts. But it still has to be a good movie.

-Tom
186

Yeah, the throwing away clothes, like the black coffee, and Yankee 2nd basemen I mentioned upthread, are things readers of the books recognize.

It did not dawn on me, since I was familiar with them, that the movie did a poor job explaining some of Reacher’s idiosyncrasies.

One thing it really missed on though, is that Reacher reacts to many situations by observing without speaking.

“Reacher said nothing” does not film well!

187

Well hey, if you know the book reason and the movie didn’t do it, then I’m going to side with you. I mean, how fucking subtle a point is the gradual decline of a capable man into an astheticism (fuck you Chrome) that simultaneously illustrates our ridiculously high standards of living while mocking the value of the individual pieces?

FWIW, Reacher usually falls into bed with women after they have a bunch of extremely terse and insightful conversations. It’s like he logics them into bed. (If only that worked.)

But yeah, I’ll watch it when I have a reasonable expectation of no money going to Scientology, and I’m sure it will be decent-to-good like all Cruise films. It still wanted 80s Berenger, though. Or today Hardy.

188

I still don’t see the books translating that well to film, 75% of teh stuff happens in his head.

As a book folowing his train of thought is interesting, from how he’s looking at the issues through to how he’s going to deal with this fight and so on

in some ways it’s good they have made a film but it was never going to be easy to portray Reacher in film.

Two issues re the film against the book, first all of us that have read the books and like them were put off by Tom Cruise getting the role as he didn’t fit it. Second those that have never read the books get a Tom Cruise movie rather than a Jack Reacher movie as you don’t really know Jack and you can’t expect people to go and read 3 or 4 of his books to get a feel for him and maybe if you did you would have issue number one.

Having not seen the film yet and unsure I want to I wonder if I would still enjoy it more having read all the books or if not enjoy understand it’s nuances more.

189

That’s not what I got from that scene. To me it looked like Jack Reacher was despairing over how the situation in Iraq has degenerated, where a psychopath randomly kills a group of people who in the end turn out to also be savage psychopaths in their own right. I didn’t see any approval there. Or something.

Overall, I couldn’t really take the movie seriously It reminded me of some of the more cheesy westerns I used to watch as a kid.

190

Sounds like it would have been the perfect opportunity for Terrence Malick to try his hand at an action film. Does Reacher spend much time looking at sunlight through the leaves in the books?

191

Man, if you knew the MPs I did in the Army you’d laugh at how badass awesome Jack Reacher is supposed to be. The premise is astoundingly dumb.

Most MPs are good folks that want to do a good job, but they’re like cops anywhere. Underfunded, underpowered, and overworked. They handle a lot of traffic stops, domestic abuse cases, and DUI arrests.

192

Yep and they would make for awesome books and films, that’s why there is so many of them to choose from!!!

193

Reacher looks at things via a very narow cone, unfortunately it’s not a Tom Cruise 99 Flake cone.

194

Saw this over the holiday. I knew I was in for a truly awful time when one of the main cop characters burst through a door and posed for almost a full 10 seconds, gun raised to his chin with both hands and profile shots for both sides prominently displayed. It was as if I was watching a Simpson’s parody a la McBain.

After that it just got sillier and sillier. Every woman that meets Reacher, wants Reacher. No one ever calls the cops when a drifter threatens them with physical harm. Cops are allowed to show civilians the evidence room in the police station (evidence contamination anyone?). Everyone in the cast is 2 foot 8 inches.

…okay, that last one is just me being catty. 4 foot 3 inches.

Question: if you’re a villain with a history of killing anyone who works for you in order to cover your tracks, aren’t you going to eventually reach a point of diminishing returns when it comes to finding employees?

195

Now see, McBain could have been a good Reacher . . .

196

What really sold the movie for me is when Cruise threw the chair through the window and then totally busted his ass on it.

197

Jack Reacher is a badass because he’s a badass. He’s by the far the smartest MP ever, he’s a better shot than a sniper who loved sniping and did nothing but practice for two years straight, and he’s sexier than guys who actually care about sex. You might as well ascribe his superpowers to the breakfast cereal he ate as a kid, because nowhere else in the film do you see other military guys doing anything remotely as badass as him.

198

The real question is: how was Werner Herzog in this?

199

Because they offered him a paycheck?

-Tom
200

Fair enough.