Jack Reacher & Golden Globes

So, I saw two movies this weekend.  Zero Dark Thirty (see earlier blog) and then Jack Reacher.

Warning: we saw Reacher rather than seeing Gangster Squad.  This was due to the poor rating for Gangster on RottenTomatoes (33%) -- where Reacher got a 61.

I don't know about RottenTomatoes's 33 but they were about right on Reacher.

I've not read the books the movie is based on, so have no axe to grind about how well they match up to the movie version, or whether Tom Cruise ought to be playing Reacher.  Shrug.

But, as a Pennsylvanian, I found the heavy use of Pittsburgh interesting.  The crime that starts the movie and brings Reacher (Cruise) out of hiding takes place on the river in front of PNC Park --  a pretty iconic piece of scenery.

Cruise is pretty believable as the terse, insular, tough Reacher.  He doesn't give much away about what's he thinking, even to his charming "partner" (Rosamund Pike, who fortunately gets lots of screen time).  He beats the hell out of groups of guys trying to beat him, which is okay because it's clear they are amateurs who have never actually fought anyone who knows what he/she is doing, and Reacher clearly does.  It's not about size.

Robert Duvall, as he often does, steals the show as a gun range operator.  He's a real highlight.

Werner Herzog is wasted as Zek, the criminal leader.  Not enough scenes, not enough lines.

It's not great art, but it's solidly done.  It's good -- not "I'd see it twice" good (see later paragraph) -- but good enough that if you go expecting a decent whodunit with an attractive co-star and some shoot 'em up, then you'll be good.  If you want high art, go see Les Mis.

Speaking of Les Mis, it won the Golden Globe last night for best comedy or musical.  I'm no fan of musicals, so I can't call this a travesty.  But I'd have voted for either Moonrise Kingdom or Silver Linings over it.

I felt better about Argo winning the Drama GG over Zero Dark, though my vote would have gone to Lincoln.  

Which brings us to the question: how do I determine such things?

Given some bit of thought, I realize that one rule of thumb is whether or not I want to see a movie again.  I hope someone puts me out of my misery rather than seeing Les Mis again (I saw it once for love).

Likewise, I found Zero Dark tedious.  Cut it down about 45 minutes...

Argo was good, enjoyable, solid.  I wouldn't hate seeing it again, but I wouldn't see a point.

I'd see Lincoln again.  Not that I was overwhelmed by it the first time, but there was stuff in it that you feel like seeing it again would make you re-see the movie.  The first time you focus a lot on Daniel Day Lewis, who you can't believe can be so Lincoln.

I didn't think a lot of Anna Karenina, the whole plot about the ethics of adultery and love is just...well, it's not that palatable.  But the things that were done by Tom Stoppard and Joe Wright were clever, and said something with the stagecraft (double entendre intended) that spoke to what was going on in Tolstoy's book and the motif of the story.

So, there you have it.  Rah rah Lincoln, Moonrise and Silver Linings.  And I hope someone knocks me out before I have to see Les Mis again.