Issue date: 9/5/07 Section: Features

Media Credit: Photo courtesy Lionsgate Publicity Photo courtesy of Lionsgate Publicity [Click to enlarge]

Recently, Westerns have not been a hugely popular genre in America. That is sort of odd since we invented it, but it is the only genre that America? Perhaps that is why James Mangold has chosen to remake the 1957 classic "3:10 to Yuma" to follow up his last directorial effort, "Walk the Line." In making a good Western, Mangold may be able to revitalize this somewhat stale genre while satisfying America's fast-moving digital culture.

"3:10 to Yuma" finds Dan Evans, played by Christian Bale, struggling on his ranch with a drought, trying to provide for his family, and laboring to pay off debts he owes to men who want their money badly. Then he stumbles into Ben Wade, played by Russell Crowe, the infamous outlaw who robbed 21 stagecoaches. Evans finds a way to get some money and help his family by bringing Wade to the town of Contention and getting him on the 3:10 to Yuma.

The only catch is that Wade's men, led temporarily by Charlie Prince and played by Ben Foster, want their leader back at any cost. Evans is forced to take an extremely dangerous route to some much-needed money so he can save his ranch and keep his family healthy and alive.

This movie has some great pedigree with people both in front of and behind the cameras. Crowe is smug, cocky and jokey, always having fun with his captors while still trying to escape whenever he can get the chance. Bale never achieves that intensity we've seen in movies like "The Prestige" or "Harsh Times," mostly because he is playing the good guy. It's quite a let-down because he does his best when he's psychotic or somehow unbalanced. Crowe and Bale never have the same intense confrontations that Bale and Hugh Jackman shared in "The Prestige," but they can still be entertaining.

As the director, James Mangold has crafted a brilliant Western. He's got the cool pistol moves, the beautiful Western landscapes, shady bad guys with hats low over their faces, and the saloon with a sultry female bartender.

He also does well with the pacing. There isn't too much talking without an exciting action scene taking place or someone getting killed. There's also blood, something you won't find in the original film. It's a raw gritty western, but not nearly as gritty as the super violent "The Proposition."

However, one of the coolest touches is the very Western soundtrack, full of those boing-like sound effects and lazy guitar strums which brings to mind movies such as "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly."

The screenplay is basically an updated, longer, more action-packed version of the original screenplay. If you've seen the original movie, you will notice many lines that are repeated word for word or paraphrased very closely. This is nice because they update some of the lines to be more intense or sinister, which finally lets the script breathe the way it couldn't in the '50s.

Overall, this movie does what it promises: It delivers a fast-paced action-oriented Western with the visuals that you'd expect. It's grittier than the original and a lot of fun. It did not do everything it could have for some of the actors, mostly Bale, but it is definitely worth checking out. I give it 4 out of 5 stars.

Luke Soin can be reached at lsoin@statehornet.com.

Page 1 of 1

Article Tools