Jack Reacher (A Not-So-Simple Fix Review)

I love this movie and I’m not ashamed to say it! I’ve watched it more times than I can count. I think it’s terrific. That’s not to say that I think it’s perfect. Actually, I think its climax (the focus of this review) is rather weak. Notwithstanding, I maintain that Jack Reacher is a criminally underrated film.

(Note: I also like the book One Shot by Lee Child that the movie is based on. But I like the movie better . . . ironically, because of the climax).

Why do I like this movie so much? There are many reasons. I’ll bifurcate and summarize.

First, Jack Reacher is a great example of my favorite genre (or maybe sub-sub-genre)—the hyperaware, deducing detective story! Other examples that I love include Columbo, Monk, Psych, and (of course) Sherlock Holmes (Jeremy Brett is my all-time-favorite). These detectives not only notice the critical details others miss, they noodle out the answer through cold, uncompromising logic. One thing that makes the character of Jack Reacher different than the rest is that he’s also a one-man wrecking ball. He’s the ultimate loner with his own moral code. A modern blend of detective and cowboy (my other favorite genre).

Second, and pertaining to the movie specifically, there’s plenty to love. In no particular order: the opening sequence is incredible; replaying the mass murder is heart-wrenching; the mystery is compelling; the conspiracy's reveal is magical; the dialogue is stylized and pithy; the fighting is terse and brutal without being gory or gratuitous; the cast is terrific (with one possible exception); the cars are gorgeous; Reacher’s musical theme is both mournful and inspiring . . . I could go on.

I’ve read/listened to some unfavorable reviews. They didn’t like some shot angles, edits, the car chase, what have you. I can see some of that. But I largely disagree. For instance, I personally really like the car chase. Like so much of what Tom Cruise does, it feels real. For me, that more than makes up for any technical deficiencies. And I think the resolution of that chase is playful without being (totally) ludicrous.

That said, the climax has always disappointed me. It stood out the first time I watched it. And I feel let down every time I see it.

By way of table setting, the Internet defines “climax” as “the point in the narrative where the tension, excitement, or stakes reach their highest level. It is often the conclusion of a story’s main conflict and sets up for either a successful resolution or an unsatisfying ending.” This definition suits my purposes.

But, to be clear (and because I want the excuse), I don’t mean the very final shot of Reacher heading to the back of a bus to beat the snot out of a guy who’s terrorizing his girlfriend. I don’t mean attorney Helen Roden’s interview with the recently returned-to-consciousness Barr in front of her District Attorney father that proves Barr’s innocence even though Barr is resigned to the idea that he is a mass murderer. I don’t mean Barr’s epic monologue describing Reacher as the Bad-A$$ cowboy that he is. And I don’t mean our last interaction between Reacher and Helen, where Helen meets what is probably the best character in the entire movie—Robert Duvall’s ex-marine sniper who forces Reacher to literally bring a knife to a gunfight.

No. I mean Reacher’s march through the gauntlet that is this movie’s three final baddies—Major Muscle Charlie; Bad Detective Emerson; and Main Monster The Zec.

To set the scene, Helen Roden is being held hostage (bound and seated) in the main office of a quarry (or something). She is joined in that office by Emerson (who is armed) and The Zec (who has arms, but no fingers). Charlie waits outside in the rain to kill Reacher.

Reacher kills each villain in turn, with each successive kill coming easier than the one before. As follows:

· Reacher effortlessly gets the drop on Charlie. He gives Charlie the chance to fight Mano-a-Mano. He then kills Charlie without too much trouble—even when Charlie pulls a knife.

· Reacher shoots Emerson with a single (very cool but utterly preposterous) shot through Helen’s hair.

· Reacher shoots a defenseless The Zec when The Zec persuades Reacher that: 1) The Zec is looking forward to federal prison because it’s pretty chill; and 2) the police will believe a harmless old man (The Zec) over a violent drifter (Reacher).

Aside from the obvious issue that the end-bosses get easier as Reacher goes on, my chief complaint with this series of events has always come down to the fight with Charlie. This is where I always feel let down. I think it’s too fast and too easy. But it’s hard to say.

I mean, it's true that The Zec is the criminal mastermind. He’s the monster under the bed.

But Charlie is the one doing most of the killing. He’s the ace sniper who committed mass murder. He’s the snake who framed the sad, pathetic Barr. He’s the right hand of the fingerless monster. The Zec’s will personified.

This is why I think that Charlie needs to be a more formidable obstacle. Especially when The Zec turns out to be so harmless in the end.

The simplest fix, then, is probably just to make the fight between Reacher and Charlie more satisfying. Why does Reacher need to get the drop of Charlie so quickly? You could make Charlie a better fighter. Injure Reacher. Have a major turn of fortune during the fight. Do something to make the stakes higher and the victory feel more satisfying. This might be all that’s needed to ease

That said, I actually like the fight between Reacher and Charlie. Even though I always feel let down, I also hesitate to change it too much (if at all). As I said earlier, the fight scenes in this movie are both lean and visceral. I think the choice to use the Keysi Fighting Method is perfect for Reacher’s character. Few punches. Emphasis on knees and elbows. Succinct, powerful blows. And the way Reacher finally kills Charlie is awesome. So I hesitate to change it much (except, if Charlie’s going to pull a knife, at least have him look like he knows how to use it).

For this reason, I’d like to offer a slightly bigger fix. It addresses what I feel are a couple of weaknesses in the climax and doesn’t rely (necessarily) on changing the fight with Charlie.

The first weakness is Emerson. I think he deserves a better death. And I think his character should end the film more fully fleshed out.

Emerson is a traitor. But not by choice. There’s gold to be mined there. He makes this wonderfully sinister statement when Helen questions his role in the conspiracy. Helen doubts that he didn’t have a choice in the matter. Then, looking at The Zec, Emerson responds: “You’ll see.”

But we don’t see. We never see. It’s a great line that’s left unfulfilled. What’s more, we don’t know what Emerson is talking about. It doesn’t need to be spelled out. But a hint would be nice. Does Emerson deserve nothing but disgust from us? Or is there some room for pity? There was real sorrow in his eyes when he saw Sandy dead, after all.

I think this is a lost opportunity. And a promise unfulfilled.

The second weakness is The Zec. Werner Herzog’s portrayal of this monster is so amazing. Yet, in the end, he’s completely neutered. Without henchmen, it turns out that The Zec is no threat at all. So his death feels anticlimactic to me.

What’s more, this criminal mastermind accidentally convinces Reacher to shoot him. Why? Because people believe old men with creepy foreign accents and no fingers? When there are multiple witnesses against him? And one of them is the District Attorney’s daughter? I’m not buying it. I think The Zec should be monstrous to the bitter end.

So here’s my bigger fix, in bullet form:

· Adjust Reacher’s fight with Charlie as described above. Or not. I’ll let you be the judge after you read the other ideas.

· Whatever you do (or don’t do) with that fight, break it up and shuffle it in with a tense quarrel (described next) in the office between Helen, Emerson, and The Zec. This alone will make the fight feel more drawn out. And that might be enough.

· About that debate, let Helen play to her strength—argument. Let her turn the emotional and logical screws on Emerson. Turn him against The Zec. Emerson can still do the right thing. It's not too late! Or he could just shoot The Zec and walk away, right? Who would know? Either way, he'd be free.

· In response, let The Zec apply whatever leverage he has on Emerson. Make it nasty. And personal. Maybe he tries to coerce Emerson into torturing Helen. Or killing her. Right then and there. Let Emerson struggle with the decision.

· Just as Emerson loses that internal battle—just as he’s about to hurt/kill Helen—Reacher kills him. Or let Charlie’s death cry do the interrupting. And keep the crazy through-the-hair kill shot.

· In the alternative, let Emerson win that internal battle. He’s about to kill The Zec. But the Zec kills him first. The Zec has one working thumb and forefinger. On the same hand, no less! That’s enough to fire a handgun.

· With Charlie and Emerson dead, only The Zec remains. Let The Zec keep his current arguments. Or not. But add one more. The Zec will still be a functioning mastermind from prison. So Helen and her father will die anyway. Horribly. Painfully. At The Zec’s command. All while The Zec is enjoying a vacation on the taxpayers’ dime. Let The Zec describe what will happen. Make it disturbing. Let him be nasty to the end. His death will then be all the more satisfying.

So there you go. The basic structure of the current climax remains the same. I’ve just added another five minutes or so. But that extra time does some heavy lifting: 1) it draws out the battle with Charlie (which will feel more substantial, even if all you do is cut it up); 2) it gives Helen a chance to flex her own muscles; 3) it fleshes out Emerson’s character; and 4) it lets The Zec die a monster, which will feel more satisfying.

I think the result both heightens the suspense and lets every character end on a high note, making an already terrific movie even better.

But what do you think?