| Overall Grade: |
B+ |
|
| Story: |
A- |
|
|
| Acting: |
A |
|
|
| Direction: |
B+ |
|
|
| Visuals: |
B+ |
|
|
Classic Western Values Take The Return Train Home
by Eric (movies profile)
Jun 22, 2008
96
of
153 people found this review helpful
What is it about the western that is so fascinating? Even in our technology-filled fantasies, there is a deep yearning to return to the origins of the hard life of frontier living. Hollywood has always been one to cash in on those fantasies and turned the western into one of its most lucrative treasures. Filmmakers found it a means to discuss character modules in terms not just of right and wrong, but of survival as well. Actors like John Wayne were idolized for their strong moral compasses and Lee Van Clef for their capability to adapt in the harsh landscapes.
I have never seen the original 3:10 to Yuma (it has only came out on DVD this week, and I do intend to give it a viewing), but I do know the works of Elmore Leonard (though again I haven’t read this short story). I know that coming out of this picture, I felt a sensation that only a great western can give; a sensation that too precious to explain (and I would only destroy by doing so). But if you’ve seen Unforgiven, A Fistful of Dollars, and Treasure of the Sierra Madre, you’ll understand what I mean. 3:10 to Yuma is not nearly as classic, but not for the lack of trying.
The film is ultimately about two men; the righteous yet weak Dan Evans (Christian Bale) and the intellectual yet vastly menacing Ben Wade, played by Russell Crowe. Dan is an ex-Yankee soldier with one foot and penchant to let people run over him. We see that right at the beginning when men attached to the railroad burn down his barn. He owes money that the landowner wants him to not come up with (his land is more valuable being sold to the railroad). And his family is starting to dissolve hard with his wife (Gretchen Mol) losing confidence in him and his oldest son (Logan Lerman) starting to feel the itching of hatred towards him.
Ben is a robber, a killer, philosopher, and an artist. He is capable of the most evil acts, and yet he doesn’t see himself as just evil. This is a characteristic we don’t see in movies very often, that the bad guys never really see themselves as entirely bad. But Wade knows that he is no good. But his life has been built on money that he’s taken from the blood he shed. His gang is nothing more than dogs at his heels; his most loyal is the vastly dangerous Charlie (Ben Foster). And for as bad as he is, the railroad (the ones he steals from) makes him look like a saint. This is the means he can live with the deaths he had produced.
Ben is caught in a saloon after robbing a stagecoach, and yet he is not really that upset. A posse is rounded up that consists of a railroad man (Dallas Roberts), a wounded bounty hunter (Peter Fonda) who has been on the trail of Wades for a long time, the local vet (Alan Tudyk from Serenity and Death at a Funeral) who substitutes as a doctor, and Dan, who takes the job for a payment that could put him even with the bills. Dan has other reasons for going along, most of them really selfish since he could be facing death, leaving his family nearly defenseless. But that’s the code of men in the west; good guys must do what must be done.
There’s an interlude that takes place on the journey were they face some rogue Indians, find themselves in the crosshairs of railroad men who are nearly as vicious as Ben Wade himself. But what’s really important is how Ben and Dan talk to each other. His captor who doesn’t bolster like the others, who is rooted in a morality that he has taken for granted, fascinates Ben. By the time they get to town where the 3:10 to Yuma will be coming through, Dan and Ben are not entirely friendly by any means, but they respect each other in a way that surprises both of them. Of course Ben’s gang catches up. Of course there’s going to be blood spilt. But what surprised me was how the movie does something that I didn’t see coming; Charlie turns the townsfolk into amateur killers by offering a reward for anyone who kills Ben’s captors. This leaves Dan standing alone to put the killer on the train.
The film’s conclusion will certainly confuse many who see the movie. At the screening I saw, a man came up to me to ask why a character changed their mind (about what I won’t say). I told him it had something to do with honor and he thought it was stupid. I think that many moviegoers are more cynical than ever, that we expect honor to be for only a certain class of people. It reminds me of one of my favorite lines Marlon Brando says in Guys and Dolls: “Do I have to lose to have a problem?” Westerns have always been a touchstone for morality plays, like noir is for the darkness of man’s soul. It’s not to say that the ending is not a bit suspicious, but I understand the choices made, and even more importantly, I respect that the story allowed the choice to be made at all.
It has to be said that the casting of this movie was not just important, but vital to the film’s success. Just between Bale and Crowe do we have the best pairing all year so far. They riff off each other like jazz musicians, playing each other in a mind game that is really what the core of the movie is about. Bale has once again shown this year alone why he’s one of the most exciting actors of his generation. Like his work in Rescue Dawn, he works a character to the roots, makes us understand him without being preachy. Crowe does something even more spectacular, he allows him alpha persona to give the weight his character has, but plays most of the drama from his face. This is a cerebral man, but he also is capable of violence at the drop of a hat. But that’s not just these two roles. Look at Dallas Roberts, who takes on a role of what could be a two-dimensional “Money” character, and makes him to be more than just that (though never likable). Peter Fonda is just delightful as an old dog that might have been the Ben Wade of his time, perhaps a reminder to Wade of what to expect as his sun begins to set. And then there’s Ben Foster, who has played some brooding and violent characters in just the last couple of years. Here, he take the turn into mad-eyed dangerous and sells it with interest attached.
Director James Mangold has usually worked on movies with more contemporary feel to them. His biggest smash, Walk The Line, was probably the closest he ever got to doing a western. But isn’t it said that all directors at one point want to do a western? I certainly believe that and Mangold shows that he’s capable of doing the genre justice. True, he’s no Sergio Leone, though he does play some homage to John Ford’s work, not to mention Fred Zimmerman and his High Noon. If there’s one thing that hurts the movie concerning his direction is that he needs to trust that action doesn’t always have to be the high point. That perhaps the most intense moments are quiet ones with two men looking over each other and realizing that death would seriously end what might have been the beginning of a beautiful friendship.
All in all, I loved this film. I gleefully tell anybody I can to see this movie and to pay attention to what it has to say. Does the movie go aloof at places? Yes. Do I care? Not on your life. Is this movie a classic? Not hardly. Does it matter? You decide. |
My Public Profile 
