3:10 to Yuma, a review by Jon
3:10 to Yuma
3 out of 5
In Arizona in the late 1800s, infamous outlaw Ben Wade (Russell Crowe) plagues the Southern Railroad. When Wade is captured, injured Civil War veteran Dan Evans (Christian Bale) - struggling to survive on his drought-plagued ranch and desperate for money - volunteers to escort him to the "3:10 to Yuma", a train that will take the killer to trial.As remakes go, 3:10 to Yuma is a very good one, simply because it's good enough to stand on it's own and it goes in a different direction. In direct comparison, it falters, but does of course have many advantages for a modern audience. And let's not forget this is a bona fide modern Western with a first rate cast and there's not enough of them these days, so it's to be congratulated.
It's basically a road movie with a posse trying to keep notorious outlaw Ben Wade (Russell Crowe) from being rescued by his vicious gang. As members fall by the wayside through death or cowardice, only farmer Dan Evans (Christian Bale) holds true, desperate to earn money for his ranch and respect from his sons. The last act of the film is spent with the two of them in a hotel room before a gauntlet run for the train. Over the course of the story, Wade, a fairly honourable chap despite a murderous habit, builds respect for the plucky Evans and even amuses himself by helping him.
It's a hard, well told story of morals with plenty of action. James Mangold's solid direction lacks subtlety, but all credit for finding several ways to get quite large explosions into a horse opera! He's no Eastwood or Costner, but obviously loves and understands the genre as well as anyone and it seeps out of the screen. The cinematography is gorgeous and the sets are very detailed and varied.
Action and photography aside, this is first and foremost a tale of character and morals. Russell Crowe and Christian Bale are both superb and convincing. Crowe is lethal and vicious, but a charmer, while Bale holds our sympathy against him despite his Evans being nothing like a modern hero. Ben Foster plays Wade's right-hand psycho and he does a good job, but he's fairly one note and a good representation of the film being a bit too blunt overall. Peter Fonda is one of many character actors who round out an excellent cast, playing out a strong screenplay from the writer of Collateral, another story about an enigmatic villain. It's engrossing stuff and two hours flies by.
In fact, everything bad about this film is only because of the original. The changes to the story aren't completely necessary, reducing much of the films running time to mere set-pieces. I was disappointed to hear comments by Mangold and his producers on the Blu-Ray when they said they felt it needed opening out to more of a "journey". It didn't need to open out and sadly reveals a lot of their version to be messy overdone filler that undermines some of the characters (keeping Wade in custody is more luck than judgement). They also change the ending and while I prefer the original, they at least had good intentions. The values and motivations are the same, but the result is given weight by a sub-text about religion. I'll come back to that in a moment though.
It's important to understand that the 1957 version was a political film, written in some ways as an answer to the very liberal High Noon. It's a lean and straightforward screenplay that works very well because of well placed ambition by all concerned. Good though the modern cast are, Glenn Ford and Van Heflin are of a different time and their delivery of the dialogue is more straightforward, making their intentions easier to relate to. Better too is the character of Charlie and it's easier to understand Wade's frustrations and respect for Evans without the endless back and forth toying Crowe's version does.
Finally, in the end of the original, Wade leaves it late to help Evan's, finally having had enough of the barbaric Charlie and deciding it isn't worth it on balance. He can escape from Yuma anyway and can afford the honourable Dan some margin to rebuild his life in a way he never could. The new one is identical, if messier, except Dan is killed. Wade boards the train after slaughtering his own men in cold disgust (hence earlier references to the "Right Hand of God" and the symbol on his guns). It's a very Catholic thing about life being a struggle, redemption in death and all that, but it doesn't sit right with me. I prefer to know that Dan earned his right to a decent life. I had the same problem with American Beauty. What's wrong with a happy ending?
Users: 0
May 15, 2024, 01:56:54 PM
