3:10 to Yuma

Long ago, I saw the original 3:10 to Yuma featuring Van Heflin and Glen Ford, but I don't remember it well enough to compare it with James Mangold's new remake. Instead, my review will focus exclusively on the new film.

Mangold's film is a tense, traditional western based on an Elmore Leonard story. Leonard is a solid writer, and gave the material upon which the film is based enough background and characterization to permit willful suspension of disbelief. Mangold's film does the same. Our protagonist and antagonist are, respectively, Dan Evans (Bale) and Ben Wade (Crowe). Evans is a would-be rancher and family-man whose family is suffering from a drought and a merciless landlord. Evans and his boys cross paths with notorious outlaw Ben Wade and his gang on their way into town to confront their landlord, and Wade whimsically lets them go. But the connection between these two men and Dan's eldest son is far from over. Eventually Dan will accept an offer made by a railroad agent to help escort Wade to a train headed to Yuma prison, while Wade's crew of murderers dogs their every step.

Two performances stood out for me - Bale and Ben Foster (Charlie Prince). Crowe was good, but it's not clear that he engaged with his role with his usual intensity. There are several very talented actors in supporting roles, and they each pull off the transition to the western genre quite nicely (Alan Tudyk, Logan Lerman, Gretchen Mol, Peter Fonda and others). The film showcases the acting talent very well without losing sight of its straightforward but interesting story.

More often than not, good westerns are at least as much character studies as they are 'shoot-em-ups'. After all, it pretty close to impossible to enjoy a film in which anybody might drop dead at any given time without caring about the people you are watching die, or those doing the killing. Mangold achieves this by drawing on the simple strengths of the original material and allowing relationships to dominate both the story's development and the cinematography. For a western, there is a tremendous amount of dialog in this film, coupled with the usual meaningful stares. Wade is so wily and unpredictable that you really never know what to expect out of him, and his crew is headed up by his loyal and equally nihilistic protégé Charlie Prince. Dan Evans is his polar opposite, and Dan's son is an unusually accurate and complex Hollywood portrayal of a teenager. These and other relationships are the strengths and the medium of the film. When the camera isn't being used to build tension before a battle or showing us a gun-fight, it is establishing relationships and character. And many of the characters and relationships we see are surprising, ambiguous and more than a little ironic.

Highly recommended for western fans.

Dan Evans is a struggling rancher being pushed off his land by men he dare not stand up to. An amputee from his part in the war, Evans longs for the respect of his sons, but all they see is his refusal to take up arms for his land. Evans is in town to try and reason with the landowner for more time to pay off his debts when he stumbles across outlaw Ben Wade in a bar with his guard down. Wade is captured and a posse is put together to transport Wade while a decoy draws off his gang. With the money and the moral aspect, Evans joins the posse and sets out, with the time pressure on them from the very start.

I missed this film at the cinema but I did want to see it as I had greatly enjoyed the original and had indeed commented in that review that the film would work if done well in any setting, so I figured the remake could work as well. The simplicity attracted me to the original and this remake, for all its Hollywood production values, is still a solid and simple tale. The heart of the film is the battle between good and evil as it occurs both between Evans and Wade but also within Evans himself. This comes out best in the final scenes (the waiting for the train is a smaller part of the film than the original) and it did make me wish that more had been made of this. However, what makes up the majority of the film does still mine this theme, albeit not as effectively because of the sense of space and action tending to take away from the pressure cooker of the hotel room with the ticking clock.

IMDb currently has this within the top 250 films ever made, which needless to say I disagree with but will say that it is a strong modern western and a very engaging film all round. Director Mangold does a sterling job of keeping the material the focus and succeeds in making the climax very tense, even if he cannot drag it across the whole film. I did like the way that the film is restrained in regards the cinematography; too often westerns will feel obligated to have sweeping landscapes and make the most of them just because it is what the genre does. Here though the locations are impressive without ever being forced onto the viewer as if they were the focus – Mangold and his crew keep the focus tighter and the characters don't get lost in wide shots.

The cast is one of the main draws for the modern viewer, with the star pairing being a big selling point. Crowe is a solid Wade but I never felt like he was doing more than playing the character rather than totally being it. Bale on the other hand is much more convincing and this did make it work very well. The two men do play off one another really well and again it just added to my desire that the film had allowed them more time with just the two of them and a ticking clock. Lerman is a device character but he works well within the demands of the script. Foster enjoys a simple but memorable character by being simply evil throughout. Support is solid as well with some good turns from people such as Mol, Fonda and others.

Overall then a solid and enjoyable western. The things that made the original so strong are not quite as well delivered here but they are still present, with strong delivery across all aspects making for a very good, but not brilliant film.

Decent Western, the ending was ridiculous though. It ruined the film.

Being a fan of westerns from a young age, I really wanted to like this movie and I did. I just didn't love it because of a few too many plot holes and inconsistencies. If you are willing to suspend belief and enjoy the ride, it is a very satisfying movie filled with action, suspense and terrific acting showcasing the intricacies of complicated men.

As most westerns ultimately are, this was a movie about the measure of a man. When faced with extraordinary circumstances how far will a man go to do the right thing and what price separates good and evil. It is a story of youth with a riveting performance by a young Logan Lerman as a rancher's son who doubts his father's worth and struggles to come to terms with his expectations of what makes a man great and who he will idolize. Being a fan of the TV series Jack and Bobby, it was great seeing Logan again and enjoying his work. He gives a sensitive, nuanced performance and holds his own against some powerhouse acting from Russell Crowe and Christian Bale.

Russell is the perfect actor to play Ben Wade bringing a depth and humanity to a character who is established early on as a dangerous, ruthless outlaw. There are indications from the start that Ben isn't your standard villain, and Russell does a great job at showing the shadings in this character while maintaining the threatening nature of Ben Wade. There is a hint of gentleness and sensitivity and even though you suspect childhood damage might have produced a man capable of such evil, you never doubt the viciousness this character is capable of.

Christian Bale turns in another intricate portrayal as the rancher, Dan Evans. Slowly the layers and truths of Dan are revealed until he is laid bare, with all his regrets and failings threatening to define him. As a man trying to provide for his family and gain the respect of his older son, he gives a captivating performance as an average man struggling to do what is right while faced with overwhelming obstacles.

The interaction between these two fine actors and how their characters end up on the continuum between good and evil is the focus of the movie. 3:10 to Yuma is an interesting merging between the old-fashioned westerns of long ago and the new psychological metaphors of modern movie-making. There are lots of dead bodies littering up the landscape, but the blood and guts movie style of Peckinpah is thankfully missing and we are left with a character study wrapped up in an action, chase flick.

Peter Fonda has a wonderful role as a grizzled old bounty hunter and even though I knew he was in the movie it took me forever to recognize him. I kept thinking the character reminded me of Richard Widmark, but perhaps there was a touch of Henry in there too. Alan Tudyk has a nice turn as a quirky doctor and Ben Foster is mesmerizing as the big bad sidekick of Ben Wade. Many will think Ben goes overboard on the characterization, but it was difficult to not watch him as the crazy, vicious killer, Charlie Prince. I think he held back just enough to make the character believable, in an intensely crazed, vicious old-west world.

Ultimately the bad guys were more believable to me than the good guys. There were several instances where I wanted to yell at the screen and tell the good guys they were doomed because of their inept actions, but perhaps they just haven't seen as many westerns as I have and didn't realize these bad guys were truly vicious animals and no mercy would be offered.

Towards the end is when the stretches of believability most disturbed me and the movie lost some of its sheen. I just didn't buy all the contrivances they threw at me and for me, that made the ending less than satisfying. My sister, on the other hand, loved the ending and was actually crying, but don't let the crying scare you off. She tends to get overly emotional when she buys into the story and she had no problem suspending belief and taking the ride they offered.

If you love westerns as I do, then you owe it to yourself to support this western at the theater in hopes the box office receipts will encourage more westerns to be produced. If you enjoy great acting and character development and the wider framework of what makes a man a hero and what forces drive a man to despair then this movie provides ample fuel for further discussion.

3:10 to Yuma could have been a great movie if they would have cleaned up some of the plot holes and reined in the ending, but all in all, it was a nice time at the movies and it certainly offered up some lively discussion afterward. The entire cast was stunningly good, the movie was beautifully photographed and the direction kept it moving at a good pace with no lulls or boring moments.

It offers a glance back at the old-time westerns with a few nice improvements. Even if you don't normally appreciate westerns, the acting and action should be enough to make the time spent enjoyable. And if you never appreciated westerns before then maybe it will be enough to make you want to check out some of the greats like High Noon and The Searchers. Westerns have always been a fertile ground for examining the complexities of man, what makes a man great, and the shades of gray that resides in all of us.

The western genre is all but dead in Hollywood these days but every now and then a film comes along that reminds us of the genre's potential. The last one was Costner's OPEN RANGE, and this one manages to be even better than that thanks to the central pairing of Russell Crowe and Christian Bale. 3:10 TO YUMA is an actor's film from the off, a powerhouse pairing of two Hollywood stars at the top of their game, who can actually act.

Although the rest of the movie is excellent it's these two guys who make it unmissable. Clearly, this isn't some kind of B-movie with black and white characters; Crowe is introduced as the chief villain yet ends up showing a lot more humanity and character than many of the good guys. Bale takes his flawed hero role and runs away with it, turning what could have been a caricature – what with his crippled leg and everything – into a deeply human guy who you just can't stop watching.

The plot works really well because it's fast paced. The story is told through action, which is a very difficult thing to achieve – off the top of my head only the BOURNE films and the TERMINATOR films are similarly successful. There are dozens of shoot-outs, things exploding, showdowns and more – all you could expect from a hi-tech western and all expertly choreographed. Yet it's the script, too, which makes the film, creating thoroughly engaging 'quiet' moments just as riveting as all the chases and shooting. My favourite scene is in the run-up to the showdown, set in a hotel's bridal suite, where the assorted characters ponder their fate and decide their futures. It's tremendously suspenseful and edge-of-the-seat viewing material.

The supporting cast does a very good job – from an almost unrecognisable Peter Fonda as a grizzled cowboy to Ben Foster as another creepy, hateable bad guy. Director James Mangold has proved himself in the past with the likes of COP LAND and he once again shows that he's a master of his craft, able to deliver a solid, exciting and highly entertaining movie despite the familiarity of both the setting and the set-up. 3:10 TO YUMA is a masterful film and one to be enjoyed over and over.