Friday, September 14, 2007

3:10 to Yuma (2007)

Premise: Rancher Dan Evans (Christian Bale), in danger of losing his land, takes a job assisting in the transport of Ben Wade (Russell Crowe) from Bisbee to Contention for the 3:10 train bound for Yuma prison. With Wade’s crew, led by second in command Charlie Prince (Ben Foster), hot on their tails, the rest of the men (Peter Fonda, Dallas Roberts, Kevin Durand, and Alan Tudyk), including Dan’s son William (Logan Lerman), struggle to keep hold onto Wade and get him on that train.

I think I just told you less than the trailer and TV spots revealed, so we’re in pretty good shape.


N.B. I haven’t seen the original 1957 version, so I won’t be able to provide any points of comparison.


You must have known there was no way I was going to be able to resist this one. Christian Bale + Russell Crowe + a Western + James Mangold = my butt in a seat. It’s simple math. Actually, I’m pretty sure you could combine any two of those four elements and get my butt in a seat.


Oh, Christian Bale, why you got to play me this way? Why do you have to take a stand against Crowe: Professional Diva and cut him down to size, never letting him for a second grow larger than life, and get him to share the spotlight? Why do you have to be so good? You made Dan’s plight heartbreaking and thoroughly masculine, and you threw it right in the face of Ben’s own struggles against man and his institutions. That Ben and Dan could find common ground outside of Ben’s charms and manipulations (a combination practiced by only the best villains) and that it could come easily and naturally speaks volumes about seeing these two . . .


Why, hello there, Ben Foster! I knew you were in this movie, yet I didn’t recognize you at all. When did you become such a chameleon? All swagger and affectation, the perfect second in command, it’s your devotion to Wade that drives this film. If I didn’t have a good look at your eyes every once and while, I may have mistaken you for a much older character actor. Good for you.


Although I loathe admitting it, I noticed that director Mangold’s first feature after Walk the Line has the same two flaws as that movie: the second act drags, and I find it impossible to sympathize with a secondary character. One hundred and seventeen minutes isn’t a long running time, so the drag isn’t too bad.


Dan’s son William, on the other hand, drove me to distraction. It’s not that I can’t understand why William acts the way he does. On an intellectual level, I get it. He’s at a point in his life where he’s beginning to see the man instead of the myth, and it’s frustrating to discover how human your parents can be. To that end, Lerman plays William very well. But one look at his family’s hardscrabble life and the way his attitude and actions make it all the more difficult, and I was calling for a smack. Whether the blame lies with Mangold, Lerman, the script, or somewhere between, I could not tell you. Sometimes his scenes with Bale elevated him to the point of being bearable, but most of the time I wanted someone to teach William a lesson.


All in all, it’s Bale’s film with Crowe offering (dare I say it?) gracious and delightful support. Bale gets to take Dan on one hell of a journey, while Crowe gets to peel away at Ben’s layers. It’s a great fit for both of them, and that’s great news for the audience. A-

No comments:

Post a Comment