I commend Dr. Seuss for his creative writing that intertwines silly and ingenious rhyming with a heartfelt message and story. In Hollywood, you can't just let talent like that be untouched, so what's Hollywood gonna do? They've gotta transform his book into a movie, and you know what? Surprisingly, this animated adaptation stays true to the source material... to an extent. Let's set this on a scale: the movie's an hour and 26 minutes long while the masterfully written counterpart hits less than 50 pages. An adaptation of the book would hit a mere 20 minutes. So, to prolong the running time, the creators of the adaptation decided to bring on additional writers to fill in the gaps. Let's say this: these writers hardly compare to Dr. Seuss. It's the same old "MTV-esque" jokes and pop culture references thrown in just so kids could get a quick laugh. Don't get me wrong though, the movie follows the same twists and turns as the book, but in between those turns are prolonged sequences of average dialogue. And the quality of this dialogue sticks out like a sore thumb especially when the film itself has sequences of Dr. Seuss' own writing within the mix. As you can see, there's two jarringly different types of dialogue within the film: one is witty, sharp, and smooth while the other is like any other average everyday type of banter. It gives the entire film an inconsistent tone. The original story had an incredibly pure and powerful message that was both direct and deeply moving. Fortunately, Hollywood didn't strip it out, but because of these tonal inconsistencies, by the time the film reveals its message, it isn't as powerful. As a matter of fact, even the 1970 TV adaptation of "Horton Hears a Who" executes its message and story more cohesively than this film.

All in all, Dr. Seuss' writing was so creative and influential that in fact, it brings out the rough edges to what may seem like Hollywood's attempt to revive a "non-relatable children's book", when in fact, the original children's book is the best version of the story. But, there's no doubt that if you haven't even touched the original story, this version'll suffice.

I was surprised -- I didn't expect it to be so much of a mystery movie instead of a balls-to-the-wall action flick like the trailers made it out to be. Sadly, that's where all the surprises comes to a screeching halt. "Jack Reacher"'s a film that -- yes, is very formulaic -- does everything without delivering the goods of a formulaic flick. It's entertaining, I'll give it that, but it doesn't try to reinvent the wheel, nor does it try to add flavor to the cards it's dealt with (except for one scene).

I don't know too much about the details of its production, but all I know is that it's based off a series of books on a character named Jack Reacher. I don't mind that Tom Cruise doesn't fit the physical build of what Reacher was described to be, or if it follows the book to the T -- I just mind if this is a good movie or not, and for the most part, it failed to deliver a narrative worthy enough to be written (based off of the movie of course). It goes somewhere along the lines of Reacher, a badass who takes the law-by-the-balls with no sensitivity for upholders, finding the hardline truths behind a homicide scene. From here, the film takes the linear route of point A to B, which I don't mind at all. It's not a character-study; it's not a compelling art-house flick with idiosyncratic shots; this is a mystery-thriller. Hey, as long as this journey to point B is a palpable journey for the audience members, I'm all ears. Unfortunately, "Jack Reacher" -- though entertaining for its action sequences -- is a generic mystery movie with flatline characters at best -- so flat in fact, that it makes me wonder why Jack Reacher is such a compelling character worthy enough to have a book series lined up for him. I understand that these are merely problems from this movie itself and not the books.

I get it: Jack Reacher is a bad ass. Omg, Tom Cruise is such a bad ass. Why's he so baaad? He makes me tremble in fear before him... NOT. "Jack Reacher" falls under the same problem "John Q" had: the characters on-screen talk too much about how Reacher is a force to be reckoned with. How 'bout show the audience how he's such a "ghost" that stays off the grid? How 'bout show the audience his unique skill to take anybody out and how he is a reckless outlaw fixated on doing his own thing? Unfortunately, the problem is because the script is mediocre and Tom Cruise doesn't bring enough to make the character, Jack Reacher, the interesting character he's made out to be. Cruise does a fine enough performance, but he's merely playing himself. What I'm trying to say is that I watched Tom Cruise kick ass -- not Jack Reacher. But hey, I'm not making Tom Cruise the punching bag here -- the rest of the cast fails to bring flair to their characters, especially David Oyelowo who played as the detective named Emerson.

As for the technical aspects, it does the bare minimum. Camerawork shows what's going on and the editing is fine. What's not fine is the dialogue. Wow, some jokes fall way flat with some of the worst one-liners from recent memory. It's not that the delivery was bad, but it's just that the humor is way too silly for its cause.

I'm tearing "Jack Reacher" a new butthole, but I've gotta hand it something: The car chase scene and the shooting sequences are done superbly with incredible crane shots. There's no fast editing to hide the blemishes and in fact, it was breathtaking to see all the stunts were not done by a stunt-double look-alike for Tom Cruise -- it was literally Tom Cruise behind the wheel. These sequences aren't afraid to slow down and take a breath nor is it trying to shove down explosions in your throat -- it just manages to carry a good amount of tension to make it an entertaining set-piece to help "Jack Reacher" stand out just a bit from the rest of the generic action flicks.

No matter how great the action set-pieces are, it isn't enough to call "Jack Reacher" an above-average thriller. There's just too many problems to claim and though it seemed like I tore this film apart, it's merely an average movie and an average movie gets a 2 1/2 stars out of 5. For the average Joe, the average movie will do enough to entertain, and that's what it did for me -- it entertains, nothing more, nothing less.