same old straight to video

Rating: 4/10 (15 February 2014)

Firstly, i have not read the books and i don,t mind Tom cruise,though i think his acting ability is limited,and he fits into a particular category of movie,( oblivion was very good ).I used to have a saying in the days of VHS, if i did not want to waste my hard earned money on a movie in the cinema which i thought would not be worth the admission fee (it was i,ll wait till it comes out on video )This movie is watchable,only on a " something to watch on a Friday,with a beer and some popcorn " level.Tom cruise is not big enough,mean enough or moody enough to pull off the type of character i suspect he is being meant to portray. Were there no A-list actors over 6 feet tall who might have been interested in the audition,or does money talk? Also disappointing,is the fact that,this is clearly being set up to be a money spinning series of movies and they wanted a star to pull it along.This movie can,t be a Bourne movie,a bond movie or even a mission impossible movie.I,m not sure it knows what it wants to be.The fighting,though well staged,does not have any menace to it,you never feel Jack is ever under any real peril.The humour is misplaced and further takes away any menace instilled into the movie by the bad guys.Tom cruises" jack reacher" has an air of " i,m cleverer and harder than all the baddies"so it will all pan out as i predicted it to.Well sorry,but there are a lot of very good action/thrillers out there and sadly this is not one of them.On a positive note,it,s not a bad movie and watchable if you can,t rent your first choice,but beware of reviewers who are rating this movie as if it is the new bond/bourne movie,it falls a long way short.i can only assume these people have not seen many movies or are easily pleased.If you want to watch a good movie ,with good acting, a sense of menacing villains and realistic fight scenes,watch "A history of violence or Eastern promises " and see how it should really be done.