Raquelle When Bad is Good: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
November 18th 2008 02:09
3:10 to Yuma (2007), directed by James Mangold (Kate and Leopold, Walk The Line), is indeed a very watchable film. It exceeds mostly due to its original score by Marco Beltrami (Hellboy, The Omen) whom was nominated, not surprisingly, for an Oscar this year. As a remake of the 1957 classic (of the same name) starring Glenn Ford and Van Hefflin, the film doesn’t live up to any grand expectations. But then, do we really expect so much of remakes?
The story is a simple one, and not as cliché as make-do spaghetti westerns. Down and out rancher, Daniel Evans (Christian Bale), comes across outlaw Ben Wade (Russell Crowe), who is captured after the heist of a stagecoach. Evans offers to escort the cold-blooded killer to the city of Contention for trial, by placing him on the 3:10 PM train to Yuma, in return for much needed money for his wife and children. During their journey, both men are drawn together, while Wade’s gang of criminals follow to rescue their boss.
Logan Lerman, who plays Daniel Evans son, William, gives a stellar performance in this role – and is definitely someone to watch. Russell Crowe, in particular, is very convincing as the cold and ruthless Wade, but strangely (and somewhat erotically) likeable in his bad boy portrayal.
Hollywood has become fascinated by the likeable villain/antagonist. It’s a strange formula, but I think its working. I wonder whether this has to do with star power backing a film (hey, the more the better), or whether there are just fewer meatier roles for Hollywood’s A-list (do they all want to experiment with their ‘bad side’?) perhaps if the latter is true, could this spell the end for the real ‘bad-guy’ who no-one likes on or off camera?
Perhaps I am taking it further than need be. But look at recent films like Blood Diamond, American Gangster, Dark Knight and There Will Be Blood. It’s clear that notion of bad, is sliding ever so menacingly into the realm of good.
While we laud performances, we are on some level consenting to their intrinsic human element of the characters’ behavior and actions. While I don’t want to get too philosophical, I think this point is quite valid in this film. And that’s not necessary a bad thing. It’s just our common notion of the ‘bad guy’ is changing, and has been evolving for some time.
3:10 to Yuma is brave film, as it attempts to revive a genre that hasn’t worked with audiences for some time. Look at other western remakes like The Virginian (2000-TV) and The Missing (2003) which didn’t fare too well at the box office. A western hasn’t done that well since Clint Eastwood’s Unforgiven (1992). So it was no surprise that every Tom, Dick and Harry didn’t rush out to see 3:10 to Yuma.
But does this film offer a little more? Well, yes it tries to. While the character roles are very intriguing, its clear that James Mangold didn’t push his actors enough. It’s a stellar cast – Crowe and Bale, who could have asked for better? Perhaps this is a failing of the screenplay, had the later scenes not been as diabolically overtly sentimental, I am sure Crowe and Bale would have been Oscar – worthy.
3:10 to Yuma is a good film, not great, but certainly very enjoyable.
Logan Lerman, who plays Daniel Evans son, William, gives a stellar performance in this role – and is definitely someone to watch. Russell Crowe, in particular, is very convincing as the cold and ruthless Wade, but strangely (and somewhat erotically) likeable in his bad boy portrayal.
Perhaps I am taking it further than need be. But look at recent films like Blood Diamond, American Gangster, Dark Knight and There Will Be Blood. It’s clear that notion of bad, is sliding ever so menacingly into the realm of good.
While we laud performances, we are on some level consenting to their intrinsic human element of the characters’ behavior and actions. While I don’t want to get too philosophical, I think this point is quite valid in this film. And that’s not necessary a bad thing. It’s just our common notion of the ‘bad guy’ is changing, and has been evolving for some time.
3:10 to Yuma is brave film, as it attempts to revive a genre that hasn’t worked with audiences for some time. Look at other western remakes like The Virginian (2000-TV) and The Missing (2003) which didn’t fare too well at the box office. A western hasn’t done that well since Clint Eastwood’s Unforgiven (1992). So it was no surprise that every Tom, Dick and Harry didn’t rush out to see 3:10 to Yuma.
But does this film offer a little more? Well, yes it tries to. While the character roles are very intriguing, its clear that James Mangold didn’t push his actors enough. It’s a stellar cast – Crowe and Bale, who could have asked for better? Perhaps this is a failing of the screenplay, had the later scenes not been as diabolically overtly sentimental, I am sure Crowe and Bale would have been Oscar – worthy.
3:10 to Yuma is a good film, not great, but certainly very enjoyable.
| 81 |
| Vote |
Shared on
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Aimzster
Health and Beauty
Reality TV
The Jeepney Stop
Comment by David O'Connell
Screen Fanatic
I've never seen the original but the ending of this one is utterly ludicrous...........and yet at the same time it feels weirdly 'right' somehow!!!
Comment by Raquelle
Cinema Voir
Comment by Morgan Bell
Deep Pencil
Current Business News
Movie Train
Artist Quirk
Comment by James Rickard
unlucky_ fishermen.com
Angling Fish
Comment by Movie Mall
Strange Corridor
Movie Catcher
The Invisible Sky
(Spoiler) That scene when he was smashing the guy's face in with a rock kinda shocked me, but in a nice sadistic way. It just came on and bang bang bang bang.
I'm not a fan of the old westerns so this is definitely top 5 of the genre for me, just behind Blazing Saddles hehehe ... no, behind Unforgiven
Comment by Raquelle
Cinema Voir