3:10 to Yuma

→ in
Tools    





Saw this on Saturday, but decided to write a review for Shoot 'Em Up first.

This review gave me a bit more trouble than most. It'd be difficult for me to explain why without giving away some of the film's later developments, but I'll try to go into all that (with the aid of spoiler tags, of course) a bit later. For now, here's my review of 3:10 to Yuma:

3:10 to Yuma

One of the first things you notice about any given Western is the faces of its characters. The genre is littered with prolonged close ups of gruff, leathery faces, and both heroes and villains whose expressions are painted with a map of the world.

3:10 to Yuma follows in this genre tradition, but scorns several others in its message. This is not a tale about a lone gunslinger settling a score, or a nameless mercenary with no loyalty to anything but money. This film only allows such well-tread ideas to occupy its background, and similarly eschews the sometimes simplistic black-and-white morals of those, well, black-and-white Westerns.

No, instead, this film is simply about a man named Dan Evans (Christian Bale). Evans has been dealt a raw hand in life, but has dutifully played it to the best of his ability. He is struggling to make ends meet as a rancher, and worries that his wife and two sons are losing respect for him.

Enter Ben Wade (Russell Crowe), a notorious criminal with his sights set on a stagecoach traveling near Evans' land. The two of them cross paths, naturally, and Evans does the prudent thing and backs down, even after becoming a witness to Wade's theft and murder.

Wade is eventually captured, but his capturers need another man to transport him. Evans finds himself in the unique position of being the only capable man nearby. The job pays well, and he decides to take a chance, though his real reasons for doing so are revealed later on.

Above other genres, Westerns are about sincerity, and men who value actions and experiences over mere words. This film has a bit more dialogue than some of its bretheren, though most of it comes from Wade. His words always have a purpose, however, and he never stops looking for an angle. He's Hannibal Lecter on horseback, and is smart enough to know just how evil he is.

3:10 to Yuma's production values are top-notch, and we get our Western quota (and then some) of hardened, weary looking extras. The supporting cast is strong, with Ben Foster's performance as Charlie Prince standing out.

Bale and Crowe excel in the two leads, playing off each other believably and often. Evans is not immune to Wade's manipulations, but the traumas and disappointments of his life overwhelm his immediate fears. These two men live in a harsh world, and have chosen very different paths in response. They have set habits, and attitudes, but both seem tantalized by the thought that they could have lived the other's life. The film builds towards a resolution that surprises at times, but in retrospect couldn't have ended any other way.

In the end, 3:10 to Yuma is a story about desperation, and how it can drive a man to do unexpected things. It looks and feels the way you would expect a modern Western to feel, but it is more perceptive than such a film has any right to be, and is thick with themes that every man can relate to.




You've not mentioned it's a remake or based on an Emlore Leonard novel Yoda, have you seen/read either because i'd be interested to know how it compares. Would you say it's enough to maybe re-ignite the dead Western genre or just a one off good Western like Open Range or revisionist masterpiece like Unforgiven?

Also surely close-ups in Western is more a Leone trademark / spaghetti Western feature, more so than Westerns of Ford / Wayne?
__________________




You've not mentioned it's a remake or based on an Emlore Leonard novel Yoda, have you seen/read either because i'd be interested to know how it compares.
I have not read or seen either, no. Though I think, after seeing it, that I'm glad for that. I think the film would have been robbed (no pun intended) of some tension otherwise.

And yes, I did neglect quite a few details that normally find their way into such reviews. I did mention the review gave me a bit more trouble than most, and this is a symptom of that. I try to avoid the standard detail-filled preface of most reviews, anyway, and in this case I just felt there was so much to say about the story, themes, and mood. I still haven't digested it all.

Would you say it's enough to maybe re-ignite the dead Western genre or just a one off good Western like Open Range or revisionist masterpiece like Unforgiven?
I've been asking myself this same question (even down to the point of thinking about Open Range) since I saw the film. I really don't know if it will reignite the genre, but if I had to guess, I'd say it won't. It's doing decent business, but is hardly a blockbuster. If there is any kind of resurgence, I think it'll be a small one. Which is a shame. I'm just now immersing myself in Westerns after ignoring them for so long, and I love what they're capable of.

Also surely close-ups in Western is more a Leone trademark / spaghetti Western feature, more so than Westerns of Ford / Wayne?
Yeah, that's a fair point, though I was thinking more of High Noon when I mentioned the close ups, which I believe has a few.

Either way, I'm really struck by how much the Western genre asks of some of its actors. While some are good-guy/bad-guy cardboard cutouts, some are required to convey a lot of depth, experience and confidence with very little dialogue.

I like it because it seems true-to-life. Aren't these the only types of people who would dare to live out on these frontiers in the first place, after all? Anyway, it's a fascinating genre that I'm just now starting to give the attention it deserves, so some of this might be old hat to anyone who's seen more than I have.



I did like the original so i will go and see this when it gets here I have a soft spot for westerns
__________________
Health is the greatest gift, contentment the greatest wealth, faithfulness the best relationship.
Buddha



It was good. Very good. Refreshing to see a real Western on the big screen (instead of Shanghai Noon and Wild Wild West, my only other big-screen "Western" experiences). I'll have to look out for the original.

I'd give it a solid
too.



Some of it was a bit too silly/predictable and sent my bum numb; that or the seats were just really uncomfortable. Not sure if it was the character or the acting of Crowe's second in command that i didn't like (not liking the character since obviously not meant to like him), also thought could've explored his homo-erotic urges a bit more.


Did anyone else think Luke Wilson was out of place?



Standing in the Sunlight, Laughing
Nice review Yods, though I must say, we had very different takes of what the film was about.

I just saw last night and I really enjoyed it. The performances were excellent, all around, really liked the art direction and look of everyone and it had a great score. Sound and editing were both top-notch. In total, a fine set of production values.

I've heard a fair bit of griping about the ending, but I wasn't bothered by the ending at all, because from nearly the start of the film, I saw the story as being about respectable parenting: Dan's relationships with his sons at first, the contrast of William's contempt for his father in opening sequences with his regard for Wade. Charlie Price's sycophantic devotion to Wade suggested to me that he saw in him a father figure.

We see William teetering between his increasing respect for his father, and his dawning realization that Wade, while charming and anti-heroic, is a pretty nasty character. And Wade sees himself through William's eyes. The two central characters contemplate what would have happened if they had made the choice the other had. At 14, William is at the point where those roads diverged.

Wade's tide really starts to turn in the bridal suite though, when we get his backstory about his mother tricking him into reading the Bible while she abandoned him at the train station. The contrast between the parents Wade had, and the parent he sees Evans being is extremely stark at that point. So Evans' confession about his real motivation was easily enough, to me, to make Wade want to finally do that good deed he'd been putting off.
WARNING: "end o' 3:10" spoilers below
I think he kills his gang because he had had a true change of heart, and could see what his life with them had been, and that they would only go on to destroy more lives... but mostly, I saw it as vengeance against the destruction of the one good father figure he'd seen in his life, however briefly.
__________________
Review: Cabin in the Woods 8/10



Great post, Sam. I'm a little surprised that you think we have different views of the film, though. Though I suppose we diverge a little as to whether or not the film is about Evans' desperation, or Wade's last chance at redemption (though you make a very strong case for the latter).

Anyway, I definitely agree with everything you said. Great analysis.



I have seen both films and i must say i prefer the remake which is very rare.but then again im not a big fan of Glen Ford.