Russell Crowe waxes philosophic -- and wields a mean double-barrel -- in "3:10 to Yuma."

There’s a brief scene early in “3:10 to Yuma”* that cuts straight to film’s conflicted conscience: Outlaw Ben Wade (Russell Crowe) sizes up one of his holier-than-thou captors and remarks, “Even bad men love their mamas.” And with that one seemingly junkheap-bound line of dialogue “Yuma” reveals itself to be a different kind of Western – one where the villains are intelligent and adaptable and the righteous are greedy and downright foolhardy in their moral inflexibility. One thing is for sure: a run-of-the-mill Saturday morning cowboys-and-Indians picture “Yuma” is certainly not.

At the heart of this Western is Dan Evans (Christian Bale), a down-on-his-luck Arizona rancher who serves as proof that the good don’t always triumph. (Sometimes they even fail miserably.) Broke, weary and nearly crippled by a Civil War injury, he’s all but run off his land by moneygrubbers who want to cash in on the ever-expanding railroad industry. His oldest son William (Logan Lerman) and wife Alice (Gretchen Mol) don’t believe they’ll survive the season. Then Evans stumbles upon Wade robbing a stagecoach, and his luck begins to change. Soon, he volunteers as part of the caravan scheduled to transport Wade to Contention, where the robber will board a train headed to Yuma prison and end up with his neck getting intimate with a hangman’s noose.

The trip, of course, is far from simple: There’s a misguided attempt to pass through Apache-controlled lands, and Wade’s gang – led by the vicious Charlie Prince (an impressively menacing Ben Foster) – tries to free the infamous robber at every stop. It’s a nonstop ride of violent action and quietly devastating character interaction that trails into an unexpected (and some might say unfulfilling) end.

Ah, the end. Much wailing and gnashing of teeth has taken place over the film’s final minutes, with most everyone railing and wringing their hands in frustration. Of course, the conclusion will not be revealed here, but it must be said that the film’s finale is the key to understanding what makes “Yuma” tick. The end offers no panacea – its ambiguity serves a purpose, a big one, and it’s up to viewers to do the mental heavy lifting.

But the end is only a small part of why “Yuma” is such a worthwhile venture. As an action film, “Yuma” is surprisingly bloody and brutal. Set against the unforgiving dustbowl of the searing Arizona desert, the shootouts and mine collapses and top-speed horse chases seem larger than life. (Then again, that’s what Westerns are, in some small part, about – showing the truths of life in unflinchingly hard ways.) But with a small cast studded with high-profile powerhouse actors, the acting in “Yuma” is hardly shabby, either. Legendary Peter Fonda has some fun with his character, Byron McElroy, a mean-as-a-snake bounty hunter who’d just as soon but a bullet in Wade’s eye than deliver him to the station. Alan Tudyk, a wildly underappreciated comic actor, draws a few laughs as Doc Potter, a large animal vet who unwitting gets roped into Wade’s caravan. And a note here about that Ben Foster, who tears into Charlie Prince like a man in throes of demonic possession: What an actor this guy’s turning out to be. 

For the most part, Bale and Crowe run this show, and with good reason. Bale, known for taking darker roles, transforms Dan from a one-note do-gooder into a conflicted character, a man who chooses to do right not because he’s a saint but because it’s all he’s got left. Ben Wade is the kind of role Crowe, who excells at creating laconic, morally amibuous characters, was born to play. With his crooked smile and mirthful eyes, he’s near perfect as Wade, a crook who lives as much by his wits as his pistol. He’s equal parts venom and compassion, and he sees what so few other characters do: Morality is entirely subjective.

Though Crowe alone is almost worth the admission price, there’s another reason to give “Yuma” a chance: Any Western where there is nary a tumbleweed to be seen, well, isn’t afraid to take chances.

Grade: B+

*Readers who have seen the original 1957 film: How does this one stack up?

Halloween has officially arrived.  Whats my Halloween tradition? Watching Hocus Pocus(1993) on repeat until I am too sick to continue eating pumpkin oriented sweets, candy apples and Kit-Kats. Currently I am basking in the bright light that has since gone dim of the Hocus Pocus B-cast. As a result, I have decided to do a very quick where are they now?

1. Vinessa Shaw (Allison)- As the resident Babe, Vinessa was responsible for Max lighting the virgin candle. She has had perhaps the best Pocus after-life, starring in Two Lovers, 3:10 to Yuma, Melinda and Melinda, The Hills Have Eyes and T.V. mini series the ‘70s.

2. Jody Rivera (Emily Binx)- Little Emily Binx had the smallest role in the movie and now the least successful career post Pocus. She has written directed and starred in The Princess Chronicles, but other than that she has found a home in her YouTube fans. IMDB says Rivera is currently the number one most subscribed female of all time on YouTube. But I have tried to watch them and they are way to bad for that to be true.

3. Larry Bagby (ICE), You remember him as the bully with the stolen sneakers and a buzz cut of his name on the back of his head. Ice has been in various series throughout the early millennia in JAG, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and most recently The Young and the Restless. Also, he has a Band.

4. Sean Murray (Zachary Binx)- Currently starring in CBS’ Navy NCIS: Naval Criminal Investigative Service as Timothy McGee, Murray seemed to have used Nepotism to gain his role, his stepfather is the producer.

5. Doug Jones (Billy Butcherson)-Billy looks surprisingly equally creepy in real life as he does with the pounds of decaying skin and long yellow nails, it must be his creepy long neck or baggy skin. Currently he seems to have a bunch of “extra” type status roles as non-humans in movies like Lady in the Water, Hellboy, Stuck on You, Quarantine, Pans Labyrinth, and most recently The Hobbit.

Hocus Pocus has-beens, I miss your face-Shassie

IMDB link http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0381849/

IMDB ratings 7.9/10   87,086 votes
Release Date : 7 September 2007 (USA)

Genre : Action | Crime | Drama | Western

Plot : Rancher Dan Evans heads into Bisbee to clear up issues concerning the sale of his land when he witnesses the closing events of a stagecoach robbery led by famed outlaw Ben Wade. Shortly thereafter, Wade is captured by the law in Bisbee and Evans finds himself one of the escorts who will take Wade to the 3:10 to Yuma train in Contention for the reward of $200. Evans’s effort to take Wade to the station is in part an effort to save his land but also part of an inner battle to determine whether he can be more than just a naive rancher in the eyes of his impetuous and gunslinging son William Evans. The transport to Contention is hazardous and filled with ambushes by Indians, pursuits by Wade’s vengeful gang and Wade’s own conniving and surreptitious demeanor that makes the ride all the more intense.

Direct Download links

http://66.235.237.200/pub/angie/310_yuma/dmd-310yuma-cd1.avi
http://66.235.237.200/pub/angie/310_yuma/dmd-310yuma-cd2.avi

VERDICT:
8/10 Regrettable Chaperoning Gigs

Right up there with The Proposition and Open Range as one of the best Westerns of the past ten years.

3:10 to Yuma is about a morally sound and financially broke individual in the old West who signs up to escort a morally unsound notorious criminal from point A to point B so that he can make the train that’ll bring him to be tried in a court of law. In return, the said escort gets $200.

What a gyp.

I actually didn’t have much interest to see this when it first came out, but since my good buddy Fred had to go see it for one of his college courses as extra credit (how cool is that?), I naturally tagged along. I wasn’t expecting much, but that always makes good movies better anyway.

Without trying to sound redundant, this is an old-timey Western. This is some High Noon shit about a good guy standing up to do the right thing because everyone else would rather save their own hides than bother themselves with justice. This is a good thing, that’s what the best Westerns are all about. And while the story is simple enough, what makes 3:10 to Yuma stand out are the surprisingly complex and outrageously badass characters.

Let’s go down the list, shall we?

For starters, we’ve got Christian Bale as the good guy, Dan Evans. Even though Christian Bale’s cool factor is kind of waning for me, mostly because he got completely overshadowed in The Dark Knight and since Terminator: Salvation was a fucking joke, he’s still a pretty cool dude and he does a good job here.

Next up we have Russell Crowe as the bad guy, Ben Wade. Normally, Russell Crowe doesn’t really do it for me, but he is the freakin’ man here. The difference between Bale and Crowe’s characters is that Dan Evans is more of a straight shooter and he really doesn’t falter all that much from who he is at the movie’s start. Ben Wade on the other hand is one of those guys who’ll play with your head, smile while you spit in his face, then murder your ass while you’re sleeping like it’s no big thing. It’s a great character with a whole lot of depth to him and Crowe totally rocks it. He doesn’t have to do a whole lot but smile, act natural, and read off his great lines from his great script, but that’s something Crowe doesn’t do enough of. This is the best thing he’s done since L.A. Confidential (nope, not Gladiator) and an unexpected selling point of the movie for me.

Peter Fonda is also in it as one of Bale’s fellow escorts, and even though he’s not around for very long, Peter Fonda is one cool bastard and thus earns himself a mention.

But the best part of 3:10 to Yuma more than the story, the writing, the directing, and all the aforementioned actors is newcomer to the game, Ben Foster. I don’t know where this kid came from, I don’t think I’ve ever seen him in anything else, but after seeing him in this movie, I am sold. He plays the leader of Crowe’s gang that’s trying to track him down before he reaches his train to Ye Olde People’s Court, and what a performance does he put on. Easily the coldest, meanest mofo in the movie and he absolutely lights up the screen. You wait until the credits roll and believe me, all you will be talking about after is “Who the hell is Ben Foster?” Keeping an eye out for this kid, he’s on a short list of some of the best up-and-coming actors around right now.

All in all, if you’re into Westerns or just like a good, gritty action movie riddled with great characters and an intense plotline, 3:10 to Yuma won’t steer you wrong. Only complaint is a morally muddled scene at the very end of the movie that kind of makes or breaks the outcome of everything, but still, something you can probablyoverlook in relation to everything else it does right.

Who knew James Mangold made such boss movies? Keep up the good work, man. Well done.

The Messenger: opening in theaters Nov. 23, 2009.
Directed by: Oren Moverman
Starring: Ben Foster, Woody Harrelson, Samantha Morton and Jena Malone

I am so glad that Ben Foster is honing his acting chops. After seeing him on the TV show and my personal favorite, Flash Forward, in 1996 I knew it would be not be the last I saw of him. Slowly he’s climbed that Hollywood ladder with X-Men: The Last Stand and 3:10 to Yuma. Now this dramatic film, written and directed by Oren Moverman, should be another stepping stone for Foster. Woody Harrelson also seems to pull out his inner thespian in this film.

Me and Orson Welles: opening in theaters Nov. 25, 2009.
Directed by: Richard Linklater
Starring: Christian McKay, Ben Chaplin, Claire Danes and Zac Efron

Curiosity made me pick this film. Not only am I curious as to how Christian McKay will portray one of my cinematic idols, Orson Welles, but I’m also intrigued by Zac Efron in this film. It should be fascinating to see him in a more grown-up film. Also, director Richard Linklater wrote and directed my two favorites, Before Sunrise and Before Sunset. If anything, it should be cinematically compelling because Linklater is a great director.

The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus: opening in theaters in limited release Dec. 25, 2009.
Directed by: Terry Gilliam
Starring: Johnny Depp, Heath Ledger, Jude Law, Colin Farrell and Christopher Plummer

This is Heath Ledger’s last film. And he didn’t even finish it. Not only is the film’s premise slightly confusing, therefore intriguing, but how exactly will director Terry Gilliam (you may know him from a little group called Monty Python) explain four different actors playing the same role? That shall be a sight to see.

By Alexa Milan
3/5 stars

The latest Paul W.S. Anderson produced thriller certainly isn’t without its flaws, but in a time when horror duds like “Sorority Row” and “Jennifer’s Body” are gracing the screen, “Pandorum” is a breath of fresh air.

In this sci-fi suspense film, Bower (Ben Foster) and Payton (Dennis Quaid) awaken on a broken-down spacecraft after years of hypersleep with no idea of where they are, who they are or what their mission is. The ship appears to be abandoned, so Bower ventures into the darkness of the spacecraft, searching for anything that might help them while Payton stays behind to guide Bower via radio.

On his journey through the ship, Bower makes several shocking discoveries. As he starts to regain awareness, Bower remembers it was their mission to transport people from an over-populated Earth to the Earth-like planet Tanis, where they hope to sustain life. He remembers their families were traveling with them, but he has no idea where they are.

Bower runs into a few other survivors, who have been fending for themselves for months while he and Payton were in hypersleep. But he also encounters something else that has the remaining survivors fearing for their lives – something that may not be entirely human.

I didn’t know much about “Pandorum” before I saw it, but I was pleasantly surprised. It’s certainly not an amazing film, but it’s very entertaining and suspenseful. The story is captivating, and the atmosphere director Christian Alvart creates is an intriguing backdrop for a sci-fi thriller. Knowing that these people are trapped on a dilapidated ship with no foreseeable means of escape, surrounded by nothing but dark, vast emptiness creates a continuous sense of fear.

Overall, the performances were quite good. Foster is really what makes the movie. His Bower is a strong, relatable lead, and I believed him as a character even in the film’s most unbelievable situations. I think Foster is one of the most promising young actors right now and, unfortunately, one of the most underrated. He was underused in “X-Men: The Last Stand,” and his supporting roles in “3:10 to Yuma” and “30 Days of Nights” were some of the few things I liked about those films. In “Pandorum,” he continues to showcase his potential.

Antje Traue also gives a solid performance as Nadia, one of the survivors Bower meets on the ship. But a few of the other supporting performances left something to be desired. “Twilight’s” Cam Gigandet may be nice to look at, but that’s about all he has to offer in this film. His character, Gallo, plays a key role in the second half of the film, but Gigandet distracts from the significance of his role by overacting. Quaid’s performance is also uneven. At times he does a decent job, while the rest of the time he takes note from Gigandet and overacts as well.

Overall I was very intrigued by the story and it held my attention from beginning to end, but toward the end of the film it felt as though writer Travis Milloy got a little carried away with the direction of the story. But no matter how often I thought I knew what was coming next, I was consistently surprised.

If you want a truly high-quality sci-fi thriller set aboard a spacecraft, I suggest renting “Slumdog Millionaire” director Danny Boyle’s superior “Sunshine.” But especially in this downtime between summer blockbusters and Oscar hopefuls, “Pandorum” is definitely worth the ticket price.

It seems we have moved into and era of film making that is highly practiced on remakes, recreations, sequels, and prequels.  For most of these, I am filled with frustration and disappointment at these second tries and uncreative recreations of older more original works, but I must also give credit for those who have successfully reinterpreted and refashioned classic works into something new, something great and something their own.   The remake of a previously great plot, idea or film can be a risky venture for filmmakers and I want to discuss a few successful and respectable triumphs in such ventures.

 The first is the reason for my writing this article at this particular time.  I recently saw Quentin Tarantino’s Inglourious Basterds, which is a loose recreation of The Dirty Dozen, and loved it.   Rather than being a complete remake it’s a fresh and uniquely beautiful blend of classic influences, and in doing so Tarantino created a new style of war film.

The first scene of the second chapter (early in the film) is a clear callout to the original Dirty Dozen while Tarantino’s love for Sergio Leone’s spaghetti westerns (especially The Good, the Bad and the Ugly) also clearly has its influence.   The spaghetti western influence was most prominent in the peculiar use of the score and the introduction of the characters.

Another recent and successful remake is 3:10 to Yuma, a remake of the famous western of the same name starring Glenn Ford.  The reasons I feel this is a successful remake are quite different from those of Inglourious Basterds. 

What impressed me most on this remake is the  successful capture of the classic western feel achieved by the remake.  Its creators decided to remain true to the classic genre and stayed honest.  Watching the new film felt very much like watching a good old western.  This strict return to the classic themes and genre stands quite unique among other modern films and is refreshing to young and modern audiences.

Possibly one of the greatest remakes ever achieved would have to You’ve Got Mail, the 1998 remake of Jimmy Stewart’s 1940 The Shop Around the Corner.   The transition from a letter writing to an Internet and e-mail writing culture provided the perfect chance to retell and old story in a completely new light and setting.  The finished product is a charming and witty tale filled with literary reminders of simpler times.  Plus, it’s Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan.

I must also mention the new Gone in Sixty Seconds.  This is a great action flick in a time of too few good car movies.  It also helps that it is the remake of a film originally med entirely by stunt drivers.  The original is fun thrill ride for car guys but offers little less as half the film is 45 minutes of some of the greatest driving and chase put in a film (and that’s just one of the car chases).  The remake offers most of that driving excitement with the addition of a plot and some acting.  (Although, the new one may have the better car the original has the better car chase.)

Also, as an honorable mention, I should mention Ocean’s Eleven.  Consider it mentioned.

Hello, all. The laptop’s back to its not-exactly-pristine condition, but hey, it’s working. I have the feeling that it may stop working again any day now…

Anyway. Today was my older brother’s twentieth birthday. It’s hard to believe he’s no longer a teenager. For his dinner, he requested that it be completely vegan. We had tofu curry and it was actually rather good. For dessert we had vegan chocolate cupcakes with avocado frosting.

Yesterday Rachel came over after school. We watched “3:10 to Yuma” (the original), so chosen because it has a song by the same people who did the hilarious and catchy song from “Gunfight at the O.K. Corral,” which was initially chosen because DeForest Kelley was in it. The same people also made the song in “Blazine Saddles.” After the movie, we went into the woods behind my house. In the space of ten minutes, we went back inside because the insects gave each of us dozens of bites. Aside from that, there were loads of thorns in the woods and we subsequently got burrs and cuts and all sorts of other horrible side effects (I am most certainly exaggerating the awfulness of the situation). Once we were partly recovered from the incident, we went with my family to the high school football game. Rachel and I played Star Trek Uno and people-watched and tooks pictures and watched the Color Guard there. The Guard’s flags were beautiful. We hardly played any attention to the game and were many times quite surprised upon seeing that another jumble of points had been made. Our team won, anyway. I suppose that was good.

School is going well, flying by very quickly each day and not being that much of a hassle. Did I ever mention that there is a foreign exchange student from Germany in my American Studies II class? His name is Max and he also rides my bus. I am eager to get to know him although intimidated at the thought as well.

One of these days I will finally get around to making kasha varnishkas, which is a delightful dish consisting of bowtie noodles and buckwheat. It sounds a tad ridiculous but my mother has made it twice, I believe, and each time I have loved it to bits.

Another thing I’m going to hopefully soon get around to is knitting a specific pair of mittens that has three finger sections. There are three finger sections because they are mittens perfect for DOING THE VULCAN SALUTE. It would be a grand old time to wear them come winter. Or fall. I’m so anxious to wear my woolly things that I feel like, pretty soon, I’ll start wearing them regardless of how warm it is. I’ve been wearing cardigans nearly every day to school, and it doesn’t matter that much that it’s hot outside because the majority of my classes are iceboxes.

Well, well, well, I better be off. The computer’s evil powers have kept me on here long enough.

Overture Films’ “Pandorum,” starring Dennis Quaid, Ben Foster, Cam Gigandet, Antje Traue, Cung Le, Eddie Rouse, André Hennicke and Norman Reedus.

The science fiction horror is directed by Christian Alvart from the writing by Jeremy Bolt, Paul W.S. Anderson, Martin Moszkowicz and Robert Kulzer. Film opens on September 25th.

Antje Traue

In “Pandorum,” actors, Dennis Quaid (Vantage Point, The Express) and Ben Foster (3:10 to Yuma, Alpha Dog), join Cam Gigandet (Never Back Down, Twilight), Cung Le (Tekken, Fighting), newcomer Antje Traue and director Christian Alvart (Antibodies) to tell the terrifying story of two crew members stranded on a spacecraft who quickly realize they are not alone.

Two astronauts awaken in a hyper-sleep chamber aboard a seemingly abandoned spacecraft. It’s pitch black, they are disoriented, and the only sound is a low rumble and creak from the belly of the spacecraft. They can’t remember anything – who are they, what is their mission? The only way out of the chamber is a dark and narrow airshaft. Corporal Bower (Foster), the younger of the two, crawls inside, while the other, Lt. Payton (Quaid), stays behind for guidance on a radio transmitter. As Bower ventures deeper and deeper into the ship, he begins to uncover a terrifying reality. Slowly the spacecraft’s shocking and deadly secrets come unraveled, and the astronauts realize that the survival of mankind hinges on their actions.

Western-elokuvien tematiikka on alkuajoista lähtien kiehtonut elokuvantekijöitä ja  lännen elokuvat tekevät aina aika ajoin uutta tuloaan. 90-luvun alun spektaakkeliwesternit loistavat nyt poissaolollaan ja nyt, ehkä resurssienkin pakosta, tilaa ovat saaneet ulkoisesti yksinkertaisemmat straight-to-video –elokuvat.

Noin vuosikymmenen hiljaiselon jälkeen mm. Seraphim Falls(2006) ja klo 15:10 lähtö Yumaan(2007) ovat olleet palauttamassa genrensä elokuvaa lähemmäs juuriaan ja kohti perinteistä revionistista Westerniä.

Näistä jälkimmäinen sisälsi aineksia erinomaiseen elokuvaan, jotka se sitten sotki turhanpäiväiseen venyttämiseen ja alleviivaamiseen. Siinä missä tematiikka aitoa vanhaa westerniä, niin kerronnan harharetket olivat ehtaa nykypäivää. Russell Crowen esittämä Ben Wade, särmikäs ja charmantti rosvojoukkion pomohahmo, onnistui kuitenkin vakuuttamaan niin, että kiinnostuin itse vuoden 1957 alkuperäisversiosta. Kummankin elokuvan taustalta löytyy Elmore Leonardin vuonna 1953 Western-lehdessä julkaistu novelli.

Ben Wade (Glenn Ford) joukkoineen ryöstää postivaunut ampuen samalla sankaria leikkineen vaununkuljettajan. Pian mies napataan läheisessä kaupungissa, mutta muut rosvot pääsevät pakoon. Mies on nyt vietävä Yumasta lähtevään junaan, mutta siirto on suoritettava rosvojoukkiolta salassa. Etsintäkuulutettua lähtee saattamaan vaunuryöstöä todistanut köyhä maanviljelijä Dan Evans (Dan Heflin). Evansin motiivina uhkarohkealle retkelle on tietenkin raha, jota hänen perheensä tarvitsee kipeästi.

Juonikuvio on sopivan yksinkertainen ja antaa tilaa runsaasti näiden kahden miehen välille kehittyvälle erikoiselle suhteelle. Pitkä saattoretki tekee tehtävänsä ulkoisesti kahdelle vastakohdalle. Evansin ja Waden välillä kehittyy molempienvälinen kunnioitussuhde.

Niin uusintaversion kuin alkuperäisenkin keskushahmona häärää rosvopomo Ben Wade. Glenn Ford ei koskaan kuulunut Hollywoodin ykköskermaan, mutta hänkin osoittanut taitonsa mm. kostonhimoisena poliisina Big Heatissa(1953). Tässä hän pystyy osoittamaan roolin vaatiman karisman mitenkään sortumatta ylilyönteihin. Juuri Fordin rooli kannattelee elokuvaa, sillä Heflinin Evans on puolestaan jopa ylivedetyn ilmeetön. Uusintaversiossa Christian Balen Evans oli huomattavasti pidemmälle piirretty.

Tuloksena on mainio pieni western-klassikko. Ohjaaja Delmer Daves on onnistunut luomaan kevyestä juonikuviosta toimivan ja perinteitä kunnioittavan genre-elokuvan. Uusintaversion ensin nähneenä ilahduin erityisesti siitä, kuinka vaivattoman ja jouhevan oloisesti alkuperäinen kerronta eteni. Siinä missä ko. lajityypin elokuva onnistui Davesin kaltaiselta veteraanilta rutiinilla, vaikutti Mangoldin ohjaus raskaalta. Ennen kaikki tehtiin paremmin.

Alkuperäinen nimi: 3:10 to Yuma

Ohjaajat: Delmer Daves

Käsikirjoittajat: Elmore Leonard, Halsted Welles

Pääosissa: Glenn Ford, Van Heflin

Pituus: 92 min

Genret: Western

If unrealized sexual tension is sexier than explicit sex scenes, 3:10 to Yuma is gayer than Brokeback Mountain. I fully expected Russell Crowe and Christian Bale to begin making out with abandon at several points in this movie (not that I wouldn’t have been fully in favor of such a plot development). Plenty of people get shot to shit in this movie, and it’s pretty much constant gun-slinging Western testosterone-drenched action, but frankly, the ending is as sappy, unrealistic and vomit-inducing as any RomCom. I don’t understand the scoffing at chick flicks, really – surround them with a scrim of gunfire and eruptions of fake blood, and they’d suddenly make perfectly respectable Westerns.

Which is not to say that 3:10 to Yuma isn’t an enjoyable film. It’s tension-filled and fast moving, and there’s Christian Bale there, as a struggling rancher whose cheekbones could cut jerky. Bale plays struggling rancher, Dan Evans, who’s in debt to the town’s rich guy, who is himself plagued by famous outlaw Ben Wade (Crowe), who holds up the rich guy’s stagecoaches full of money before they arrive safely. When Wade is captured, easily and unbelievably by staying around town a smidge too long to bag a bartender, Dan volunteers to help escort the dangerous prisoner to the nearest town, where the prison train to guess where will be coming through at guess when. The journey is long, and fraught, and Wade’s posse is supposedly hot on the trail to liberate their leader, although really they don’t catch up with Dan’s group until the end. The leader of this posse is Charlie Prince, played by Ben Foster, who previously played Claire’s bisexual spineless boyfriend, Russell, in Six Feet Under. He was disgusting as Russell, in a sniveling weasel way, and as Prince, he is equally disgusting in an irredeemable, soulless bad-ass way (by the way, if there is indeed honor among thieves, his character was cruelly wronged by Wade – Prince was super loyal and was only doing as he thought he should). I now admire Foster as an accomplished and interesting actor, and hope to see him in more films.

So, the movie has its plusses, but man, I have to say, the ending is just stupider than all get out. I don’t want to put a spoiler in here, but when I laugh out loud at the dramatic climax of a film, I feel it’s failed in its overall artistic mission.

4 out of 5

En corto: Con las fuertes participaciones de Christian Bale y Russell Crowe es más que suficiente para darle el sí a 3:10 To Yuma, aún cuando la trama no parezca de interés.

Iron Knight reviews 3:10 To Yuma

Desde que se estrenó esta película me llamó bastante la atención. Hacía mucho que no se veía una “western” hoy en día, y bueno, después de ver algunas críticas no tuve duda de que se trataba de un buen filme. Pero fue hasta hace poco que finalmente recordé rentarla y la pude ver. ¿El resultado? Positivo.

OJO: SPOILER ALERT!!!

3:10 To Yuma es, antes que nada, un remake del filme homónimo de 1957, que, obviamente jamás he visto. Asimismo, ambas cintas están basadas en la historia corta de Elmore Leonard. Como todo remake, la trama se parece a su original, salvo por alguno que otro detalle.

Dan Evans (Christian Bale) es un ranchero cojo empobrecido, cuyas tierras y vida familiar se ven amenazadas abruptamente por la sequía. Desafortunadamente, le debe dinero a un tipo, que planea vender esas tierras para ferrocarriles, por lo que decide ir al cercano pueblo de Bisbee a negociar un trato.

En su camino con sus dos hijos, observan el asalto del ladrón criminal Ben Wade (Russell Crowe) y su pandilla a una diligencia armada, y pronto acuden a la ayuda del único sobreviviente, el señor Byron McElroy (Peter Fonda). Al llegar los guardias de Bisbee, al lugar (después de escuchar la noticia), Evans les avisa que la banda probablemente esté en Bisbee. En efecto, ahí se encuentran, y después de recibir una respuesta negativa al negociar con el güey a quien le debe, Evans se topa con Wade, y lo retiene lo suficiente para que los guardias del pueblo lo arresten.

El resto del filme es una peligrosa misión que consiste en trasladar a Wade al tren de las 3:10 que lo llevará a la prisión de Yuma, en donde posiblemente sea ejecutado. El trayecto se tornará díficil y será toda una lucha psicológica y de voluntad para el grupo que lo escolta, el cual incluye a Evans, quien se compromete a ayudar a cambio de dinero y la garantía de sus tierras.

La cinta en general resulta muy bien lograda y el guión es sólido. Aquí no hay escenas sosas, ni personajes ridículos, ni situaciones estúpidas. Todo lleva una narrativa bien manejada. Pero son, sin duda, la mayor fortaleza (y lo que resalta), las excelentes actuaciones por parte de los protagonistas, Bale y Crowe, quienes demuestran su calidad y su talento una vez más (¿alguien duda de estos cabrones?). Tan sólo por ellos vale la pena ver el filme. Por supuesto sus personajes están muy bien desarrollados; ambos son presentados como hombres con un código de honor a seguir, y con problemas personales, dejando de ser los típicos “bueno” y “malo”. Y ambos actores los enriquecen al darles un carácter que te hace simpatizar con uno y otro, dejándote sin poder decidir a cuál le vas. Incluso pelean muy sutilmente por atraer la atención de William, el hijo mayor de Evans, quien se ve enormemente atraído por el carisma de Wade. Y es que el personaje de Crowe hasta puede ser visto como un diablo, no por nada más de una vez dicen la línea: “No le hables”. Claro, tampoco hay que dejar de lado a Ben Foster que interpreta a Charlie Prince el brutal segundo al mando de Wade, quien lidera a la pandilla hacia el rescate de su jefe, a quien le tienen una profunda lealtad. Cuando ves a este güey, sabes que es de esos con el que no debes meterte. Aquí quizás radique mi único “pero”. Nos presentan a este cabrón como alguien más mamón que el mismo Wade. Pero bueno, la verdad no es gran cosa, porque al otro también hay que temerle, como demuestra al asesinar vilmente a dos de sus escoltas. Oh, otra cosa: la muerte del final me pareció algo que medio que no quedaba, y bastante innecesaria, y el momento clave del desenlace pudo haber sido un poquito mejor.Pero bueno, eso se compensa con una bella y bonita escena final, y muchas que involucran a Cowe, un pinche genio actoral.

La dirección toma buen rumbo bajo la batuta de James Mangold, quien hiciera Identity (2003), un muy rescatable thriller psicológico, y Walk The Line (2005), que le dio el codiciadito Oscar a Reese Witherspoon. Esperemos que este güey no se pierda, porque vale la pena.

3:10 To Yuma hace un aplaudible intento de revivir el western, y si bien, dudo mucho que esté a la altura de otros clásicos, sí tengo las suficientes referencias de que se trata de una mejor cinta que la original, algo que raramente sucede en estos casos. Réntenla, pa’ que vean.

*Format based on Screen Rant.

I’ve always liked you Byron, but you never know when to shut up. Even bad men love their mommas.

– Ben Wade

Trying to acclimate myself to the western genre, I watched the 2007 remake of 3:10 to Yuma. The movie has an all-star cast with Russell Crowe and Christian Bale, but the movie was mind-numbing. It was like a dead fish thrashing around.

Ben Wade (Crowe) is a famous outlaw in the Old West that is captured by rebel brigade that includes a rancher, Dan Evans (Bale). He is being transported on a train to Yuma so he could be executed by hanging. His partner, Charlie Prince (Ben Foster) wants to stop the transport.

Nothing happens in the movie. The movie was so boring that I had to turn it off. It is the same premise with the lead man wronged by the government to take their land and they go on a journey to get money for their money. Do something different, please.

It tried to be a modern western, but it rang false. I did not believe that these people lived in the 1880s.

Judgment: Watch the original movie instead of this drivel.

Rating: *1/2

Wait ... is that ... is that a ... is that a SMILE? On Christian Bale's FACE?

There comes a time in a reviewer’s life when she (this is my story, so the reviewer has girl parts) must defend the honor of a very fine actor who has, in recent times, made several not very fine movies. Or seems to have grown an ego large enough to consume Amy Winehouse’s beehive with a single dainty princess bite.

To no one’s surprise … that actor is Christian Bale.

Of late, several friends (and, OK, me) have mentioned that the post-”Batman” Bale bears precious little resemblance to the actor who wowed us with intense performances in movies of every genre, from odd, disturbing arthouse to coming-of-age drama to nihilistic horror. Whatever magic Bale had, whatever innate ability to dissolve completely into a character and eliminate all traces of self, he’s starting to lose it. He’s certainly never been a whimsical actor, but these days he seems to approach every role the way Idi Amin approached dissenters. And Bale’s just about that subtle, too.

Despite this turn of events, I want to believe that Bale isn’t through yet, that he didn’t let “Batman” fame ruin him for acting forever. Why, you wonder, would I keep hoping when there’s so much evidence suggesting that he is, well, a complete jackass? One: The cynic inside hasn’t managed to kill the dreamer … just duct-taped her and stashed her in the nearest closet. And two: Bale has a history too full of daring, innovative or just plain commendable performances that suggest there’s enough talent to beat down that ego.

So now I present the facts:

• “El Maquinista” — Every list of great Christian Bale performances must be topped with his work in “The Machinist.” It counts as a stunning physical transformation because Bale did Matt Damon’s gaunt smackhead in “Courage Under Fire” one better. Bale lost a frightening amount of weight to play tortured insomniac Trevor Reznik, so much that you fear for the actor’s own safety. It’s an extreme, brave performance, and that’s what makes it so haunting and memorable.
• “American Psycho” — Bale might not have been the first choice to play superficial, amoral serial killer Patrick Bateman, but he was the best. As buff as his “Machinist” character was skeletal, he manages to evoke wit, charm underlined by subtle menace as a murderer who takes lives for no other reason than to curb his boredome. Compelling, scary stuff.
• “Little Women” — Anyone who believes Bale came out of the womb with a grim frown on that chiseled face need only look back to 1994, where he played the spritely, witty, delightful Laurie in Gillian Armstrong’s “Little Women.” Fifteen years later, his heartfelt speech to Jo March still makes my heart turn into a mushy, mushy bowl of Cornflakes.
• “Harsh Times” — Bale, much like Ray Liotta, possesses just enough menace to make him seem a hair-trigger from cheerfully choking (or worse) the next person who steps in his path. He tapped into that bubbling inner rage pit to play Jim, an ex-Army ranger discharged for mysterious reasons. PTSD turns him into violent, delusional free agent, but Bale makes him into someone who seems human despite his seemingly inhuman rage.
• “The Prestige” — Here is a movie that I love for many reasons, and the main one is Christian Bale as Alfred Borden, a magician with loads of raw talent but (surprise!) little flash and almost no skills. But Bale had a gleam in his eye, a slight spring in his step that suggested he was having a bit more fun with this part, crafted in part by Christopher Nolan. Oh, Chris, can’t you coax Fun Bale out again?
• “3:10 to Yuma” — I can’t quite resist a film (especially a Western) where the hero (Bale) is far more discouraged and damaged than the villain. Enter Bale as Dan Evans, a got-nothing-left-to-lose man who can’t even farm his land, much less keep the respect of his wife or teenage son. There’s a hint of sly humor in his verbal sparring matches with Russell Crowe that suggests Bale does have a lighter side … buried under all those layers of dark twistiness.

Perhaps there is hope for Christian Bale yet, though his next projects — including a pic about boxer “Irish” Micky Ward, a pairing with Mark Wahlberg for 2011’s “Prisoners” and more movies for the “Terminator” and “Batman” sagas — hardly suggest he’s lightening up. Maybe he can wise up to the fact that it’s possible to play a serious character without losing his sense of humor.

At the very least, he could take Heath Ledger’s advice and, every other day or so, look in the mirror and ask himself: “Why so serious?” ‘Cause chances are, Mr. Bale, if you’re not having the slightest bit of fun, neither are we.

3:10 to Yuma: arguably two of our generation’s finest actors (Bale / Crowe) play a law-abiding rancher and a notorious outlaw respectively. Initially, I thought they’d work better cast the other way but was absolutely blown away by both performances. The story moves along brilliantly and from start to finish the film is full of action, drama and brilliant characters – both main and the supporting cast. Unfortunately, the ending’s a wee bit far-fetched, but adds even more depth to one of the main roles. A must-see film!

Score: 9/10

by The Great White Gypsy

“War is bad.”
“Bring our troops home.”
“We shouldn’t be in the Middle East.”
“This is a pointless war.”
Whether or not you agree with any or all of these statements, I think most of us can agree that it gets tedious and borderline insulting to be constantly, blatantly told this in every Middle East war film to come out in the last ten years. We go to the movies to be entertained, not to be caught up in partisan ideology and American guilt. Watch Charge of the Light Brigade, Gallipoli, or The Young Lions. Watch any Vietnam movie ever made. We all know that war is horrible; but contrary to popular belief (and in direct opposition to Michael Moore and Oliver Stone), cinema’s role in depicting times of war is to highlight our humanity, our courage, those moments when normal people are ordered into hell and voluntarily, sometimes accidentally become heroes.
The Hurt Locker is a war film that, much like Jarhead and, more recently, Generation Kill, shrugs cumbersome propaganda and focuses on the actual people. Staff Sgt William James (Jeremy Renner) is an Army explosives expert transferred to Camp Victory in Iraq after the previous Staff Sgt is killed in action. His squad searches for and disarms IED’s in the streets of Baghdad. The film covers one tour of duty for the squad (Which also includes Anthony Mackie and Brian Geraghty), and the mental and physical challenges they face. There is no specific terrorist or “bad guy” to be chased, just lots and lots of bombs to take care of.
This film manages to be tense all the way through. There are several complex and large bombs that Sgt James must disarm, and he does so with a cavalier, reckless attitude that scares his subordinates. However, it is also tense watching the squad hiding in a rock outcropping, playing a waiting game with enemy snipers. Though there are violent scenes, the film doesn’t rely on blood or body parts to keep you in the story. Equally jarring are the periods of downtime, when the soldiers have nothing to do but drink, fight, and think about their families. Of course, they are all trying not to get killed. They all want to go home. Sgt Eldridge (Geraghty) is scared and guilt-ridden over the last Sgt’s death. Sgt Sanborn (Mackie) seems cautious out of logic, but as his character progresses, he admits that he hates being in Iraq, and he wants to live long enough to start a family.
And that’s it. No long diatribe about the evils of war, no incompetent officers throwing troops into the fire. The biggest weapon of this film is its patience, and director Kathryn Bigelow (Point Break) really pulls it off. The film’s camerawork is very indie, adding to the realism. For the most part, the shots are all on point and full of purpose. Only occasionally does some fancy cinematography (a slow motion shot of a bullet casing hitting the dirt, for example) feel forced and out of place. Cinematographer Barry Ackroyd (United 93) did a respectable job, but those random outliers do detract slightly from the overall feel of the film.
Marco Beltrami (3:10 to Yuma) and Buck Sanders (Max Payne) provide a tempered yet powerful score that doesn’t overindulge for the sake of tension.
Jeremy Renner (28 Weeks Later) has been in some good films, and his performance in this one is perfect. His character is confident, talented, and cocky, but maintains an underlying sense of personal uncertainty. Anthony Mackie (Notorious) actually does a good job here, completely relatable and sympathetic throughout.
As much as I appreciate this film and it’s lack of political bias, there are some downsides. I was completely on board until the last five minutes, when the story seemed to wrap up too quickly, without elaborating on something I considered important. The character development seems to deviate, and for a few minutes all connection with Sgt James goes out the window. Also, certain characters and side-plots are extremely predictable and underdeveloped. Screenwriter Mark Boal (In the Valley of Elah) could have done a better job of evolving these things in the script, but I won’t hold it against him.
The Hurt Locker is not as good as Jarhead, but I think it’s much better than Stop-loss, and it won’t take a War film buff (such as myself) to appreciate it. Definitely check this one out.
Final Grade: B+

To be fair I must admit that I’ve seen very few westerns and this is certain to decrease my credibility as I attempt to duel with Appaloosa.  However, I have seen a few good ones (Unforgiven and 3:10 to Yuma, to name two) and Appaloosa is a poor shot in comparison.  A few bullets missing from this film’s chambers are: 1) beautiful cinematography (aren’t westerns supposed to have amazing images of snow-capped mountains, rugged peaks, and perhaps a few random tumbleweeds?), 2) a compelling story, and 3) good characters and/or character development. Certainly, Appaloosa has a first rate cast and a talented director, but the cinematography is uninspiring, the story is a bore, and the characters are pretty one-dimensional (except perhaps Ed Harris‘ Marshall Cole).  It didn’t seem like any of the characters changed significantly over the course of the film and this left me wondering, “Why then tell this story at all?”

Appaloosa is a bland film that feels much longer than its 115 minutes.  My recommendation is to walk away from this film and see if you can saddle up with the latest version of 3:10 to Yuma instead.  Trust me, it will be a far more exciting ride.

No, the title of this post doesn’t refer to Russell himself, but to Jeffrey M. Anderson over at Cinematical, who has come to appreciate Russell through his more recent films!

400 Screens, 400 Blows – As the Crowe Flies

“…Crowe was equally commanding, in 3:10 to Yuma (2007), American Gangster (2007) and State of Play. In the latter two, and also last year’s Body of Lies, he began to adopt a ragged, scruffy look. He seemed to have packed on a little weight, but he moved comfortably in his own skin. Like Captain Aubrey, he still had the powerful physical presence to keep others in check. His delivery no longer had the calculated, one-note quality of his Oscar-friendly films, but now seemed to come from some private place where things were secretly amusing — and we were now in on the joke. He had put something of himself into his work, rather than putting up a wall. Yet he keeps something commanding and mysterious, just out of reach, just to keep us interested and make us want to keep searching.”