Some thoughts on Jack Reacher

Well first off the bat I will say that I have read a total of three of the Jack Reacher novels in the past, including the novel "One Shot" on which this film is based. They are hardly what you could call masterpieces of the genre, but they are a decent option for a travel read as they are quite enjoyable and generally good fun. Spoiler warning ahead - I will be covering some of the plot details in this review.

So in a similar way to the Hobbit I will a first of all cover off the one piece of controversy that has been trawling the rounds of the Internet prior to the films release - namely that of the casting of Tom Cruise to play the titular character. In summary - it's fine, it does work, so just shut up and enjoy the film. 

In more detail, for any fans or even casual readers of the books, the notion that the comparatively diminutive Mr Cruise can play Jack Reacher is a bit of a stretch given the man is portrayed as 6'5" and 220lb+ and yes this is actually a very important part of his character in the book. So at face value you would think this is indeed a travesty of epic proportions, but in reality you have to go a bit deeper and ask why is his size so important in the book? The reason is fairly simple to surmise and that is intimidation. It is important for the stories that the audience perceives the character as a bit of a bad ass, and in addition it is important for the reader to accept that the other characters in the book are readily intimidated by him. Now in the film this is still all very important, although with the role of the reader replaced by that of a viewer, which is very slightly different, and in this case it is accomplished on a very slightly different way. Sure if they had a cast a nobody actor who was the size of Tom Cruise it would not have been successful, but Cruise brings something of his own to the screen - that of notoriety. The viewer knows who Tom Cruise is and thanks to his action pedigree in films like, The Mission Impossible series, Collateral and even things like Knight and Day (where in a way he parodied this very factor), his role as "bad ass" is already established. He doesn't need intimidating size for the audience to accept him as such, as they already associated the actor with such status. So yes it is fine. Really!

So how about the film itself? Well it was “all right”. Nothing really to write home about, but probably a very slightly above average crime thriller. Probably the first thing to cover off is my use of the term “crime thriller”, as this is in fact very much what this film really is. If you’ve just seen the trailer and the various advertising associated with this film you might be forgiven for thinking this is an out and out dumb action film, but it very much isn’t. Like the book that it is based on, the real crux of the film is the antagonist (Reacher) seeking to explain what has actually happened in the opening scene of the film, and how he works the discrepancies, and the pieces that don’t seem to fit, until the truth can come out. It does have a few bits of action in it (4 bits by my count), largely orchestrated around Reacher, but it is very much a crime thriller first and an action thriller second. Of course the bits of action that were in the film were done well, and the 4 set pieces all fitted really well into it with the car chase scene in particular was really well done. Reacher is hardly Hercule Poirot, and the film is very much along the same lines as something like Dirty Harry, where the investigator is hardly opposed to utilising violence when required. Fundamentally though this is a film that resolves around a mystery, and specifically an inconsistency, that the antagonist picks up on, and forms the central conflict of the film.

Now this is personally where I think the film ends up somewhat weaker than the book, as this version pretty much gives the audience the solution to the mystery right from the beginning. Major spoiler alert time now - in case you haven’t been warned enough! From the opening scene you see that it is not Barr who shoots the rifle, and straight away Jack Reacher is on the scene and the audience knows that it is some kind of elaborate frame job, even though the characters are yet to discover this. The problem with doing it this way, is that the audience is therefore effectively waiting for the main characters to catch up with their own understanding and actually make progress on figuring out exactly how it all fits together. The book on the other hand disguises the true shooter, so the reader only starts to make those leaps at the same time as the antagonist does, and often just slightly behind - something that gives a much better sense of mystery and intrigue with the audience / reader and actually ties them into the progress of the character. In the film there is much less sense of shared accomplishment as the audience already knows and are just waiting for Reacher and co to get to the same conclusion. Now I’m sure that this may well have been more difficult to pull off in the form of a 2 hour film film - but I would have hoped that one of the guys behind the Usual Suspects (a film with possibly the best example of show the audience one thing and then reveal something else ever) would have managed to pull off such a feat, and the film would have been better for it.

On the plus side though (and anyone who has read the book will appreciate this), the film did manage to mostly avoid the one really, really huge plot hole that was contained within the book (it is in fact still there, but it is far less obvious, and much less important in the film). I won’t bore you with the details as I’m not reviewing the book, but suffice to to say it did annoy me somewhat and the film does a much better job at keeping the inconsistencies to a minimum. 

So how about the rest of it? Well acting wise Cruise does a decent job - he is at times very much the Jack Reacher of the books(*), and when required he is the Jack Reacher that is required for this film. Rosemnd Pike was (yet again - I don’t think I have yet seen something that has impressed me) somewhat disappointing in the role of Helen, largely playing the dumb counterpoint to Reacher. The two bad guys were for the most part forgettable, but Rubert Duvall certainly rocked up and nailed his role.

The general feel of the film is good, and certain scenes really do a good job at ratcheting up the tension and getting the audience involved. The opening sniper scene in particular is particularly well done, and anyone who has every shot a rifle will appreciate the soundtrack solely consisting of the shooters breath sounds, initially monotonous as he surveys the scene and then that dreaded pause before the first shot is made. Other scenes however do come across as having sacrificed content for style points.

The final result - walking out of the cinema how did I feel? Well I’ll go back and say that I felt that as a film it was “all right”. I couldn't exactly walk in there with high expectations, Lee Child is hardly the most revered author ever, and in some ways I was impressed and in some ways I was disappointed. I felt it missed a trick or two in terms of making the mystery as compelling as it could be, but Cruise was good, the set pieces were good and the general feel of the film was good - so the end result was it was “all right”. Don’t rush out and see it - but if you do I think you will still walk away thinking it was exactly that.

(*) Purely for those who have read the book - there is one scene where I was very much mouthing the words “Reacher said nothing”... “Reacher said nothing”...

Some thoughts on the Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

So I took an unexpected journey... Over the road yesterday to go and see the latest output from Peter Jackson – the first in the new Hobbit trilogy. Here are some thoughts:

First things first, one of the things that has been talked about a lot is the new high speed frame rate (48 frames per second compared to the usual 24 frames per second), which combined with being shot in 3D has produced a whole load of horror stories of people feeling sick when watching it, it looking fake or “tv like” and various other things. Put simply – it’s fine. It is different, but as far as I am concerned it is completely fine. I have to say that I was somewhat sceptical that it would be a major issue given a lot of 3D you can see on TV is at a similar frame rate (British TV often is shown at 50 interlaced frames per second anyway), and sure enough it certainly wasn’t causing anyone to vomit in their seat or anything like that. What I will say is that the style that it produces is quite different from what you might be used to in films – it is all very clear, all very crisp, and the nature of the 3D image means you get a much deeper depth of field than is the norm for modern cinema. The result of this does give you an image that is more akin to what you see on High Definition TVs, and this does take a few minutes to get used to – But when you do, and accept this is just a different type of cinematography, then I do actually think it works very well. I’m not 100% convinced about it being more realistic or anything like that, but it certainly is far more akin to seeing an image you would actually see with your eyes, rather than looking through the lens of a camera. In fact the only bits of it I felt were jarring were the couple of occasions where the DP clearly decided to revert back to old school cinematic techniques, Using shallow depth of field switches in a dialogue scene for example, actually leapt out at me as not fitting in with the style of the rest of the cinematography.

So in respect of the filming technique, I think this was a risk well taken and for me at least an interesting step forward in modern cinema. It’s not going to suit everything, but this style will hopefully become exactly that – another style for directors to potentially utilise when it fits a project. The brief stuff I’ve seen on how it was all done (using fully digital Red Epic 3D rigs) is certainly interesting in itself, and a very clear sign that digital filmmaking, and 3D as well is both moving forward with great strides.

How about the film itself? I have to say it is in a lot of ways it is a bit of a mixed bag. There was quite a bit to like about the film, quite a few things not to like, but as I always consider the thing that really matters when it comes to a film is quite simply “did you enjoy the experience” – did I? Well yes. Yes I did.

So that said, let’s start with the elements that weren’t so good. First of all, purely as a stand-alone film, the story and therefore the film itself is quite weak. In adapting what was essentially a relatively short and very simplistic book into a full trilogy if films they have, unsurprisingly, had to drag the story out quite considerably. As a result “The Unexpected Journey” is by design a very long prologue to the full story. Now this may be fine in the long run when you can step back and see the entire trilogy, but stand alone (as it is now) you do feel like not a lot has really happened, despite having just sat through a film almost 3 hours in length.

You also did feel that there were probably a few too many dwarfs in play to get any kind of adequate characterisation. This is a problem inherited from the book, and having 13 dwarfs as the main adventure party does inevitably result in several of those characters being barely more than stereotypes, like “the fat dwarf”, “the young dwarf” and so on. That said the few dwarfs that do get a bit of characterisation (Thorin and Balin in particular) do come across much better.

Finally there is one set piece (the rescue of the Dwarfs from the Goblin King) that comes across as quite ridiculous. Clearly they wanted to put in at least one battle scene that was on the scale of what they got to do on LofTR and this got shoe horned in, but it was a bit silly. You are of course stuck with the fact that you can’t actually kill off any of the characters currently in play, but still it completely lacked any sense of danger or excitement as the Dwarfs effortlessly just cut through wave upon wave of stupid Orcs and bounce around the totally ridiculous architecture in a semi amusing comedy of errors. It’s a shame because the smaller set pieces with the Whargs in pursuit actually do feel much better and clearly the desire to produce something on a bigger scale was a mistake because it really didn’t work.

Moving on, what did I think was good? Well, very much like LofTR the world Jackson has created to recreate Middle Earth is amazing. The visuals and the textures of the different locations (with the exception of the ridiculous architecture in the Goblin Kings lair) are visually breathtaking. The Shire and Rivendell are stand out locations and I have to say the 3D 48fps suits this fantasy style very well indeed.

I also appreciated what (admittedly small) characterisation was in place. Thorin, Balin and Bilbo come across very well and in the absence of anything else “The Unexpected Journey” is really all about Bilbo. It’s a reasonable tack to take given you were not left with enough plot to create a proper 3 stage storyline to the film, and I think making it all about Bilbo was probably the only way to pull it off. So while it doesn’t seem like much happens in the film (and it doesn’t) you instead get an arc in the form of Bilbo’s development and acceptance into the group. Of course both Ian McKellen and Andy Serkis were once again on form reprising the roles of Gandalf and Gollum. The scene between Serkis and Freeman is absolutely brilliant and it’s a little bit disappointing to think that we won’t get to see any more of Gollum on screen.

Finally I also am fairly positive about the changes Jackson has decided to make from the book, and even the fact that this is going to be spread out over a total of 3 films (something I was very sceptical about). The changes made all make a lot of sense and really do help tie this trilogy in with the LofTR trilogy. First of all expanding on the rise of the Necromancer (Sauron) and Gandalf’s reason for participating in this quest suddenly expands what is a straight forward quest storyline, into something that actually links in with the overall story universe – important given the fundamental importance of the one ring – something which in the original book as never really made clear. It was also nice to get a proper look into some of the back-story and surrounding world that you otherwise wouldn’t get to see. So I am actually fairly positive as to how this is all going to work out moving forward.

So where does that leave us? As before I have to say as a stand-alone film this one is, to say the least, rather average. It’s not got a lot of plot, and for a fairly long film you will indeed be walking out thinking, they really didn’t do anything. It feels a bit padded at times, you will be struggling to figure out which dwarf is which, and as already mentioned the one big set piece is a bit dumb. But provided you look at it as a prologue to a longer piece I think it is certainly worth seeing. The visuals are amazing, Tolkien’s world is rich and vibrant and from this initial third of the story things seem to bode well for the story. I haven’t read the book in a very long time, but still experienced a little smile every time one of the more famous lines got uttered, and I walked out having enjoyed the experience. Provided the other 2 films do it just as well, I think the film adaptation of The Hobbit will prove to be a successful one… Although one which is going to be about 9 hours in length!