Should I see it?Yes.
As a general rule I am against remakes. The recent trend is to rehash every recognizable title in cinematic history into a cheap facsimile, fabricated for a culture that no longer cares. To be honest, when I first heard they were remaking
this classic, I expected a disappointing and unneeded film until I saw Christian Bale and Russell Crowe fronted the production.
Fortunately, this is a well-conceived film that is definitely worth your attention. Both Bale and Crowe give substantive performances. Crowe plays Ben Wade, an infamous criminal who has been condemned to be hanged at Yuma Prison for his sins. Crowe is well at ease in this role of a seductive, smiling criminal who can be murderous one moment and glad handing the next. Bale is Dan Evans, a financially strapped rancher, who also happens to be a great shot. When no one else is up to the task, Dan volunteers to deliver Ben to his judgment.
As Dan and his compatriots deliver Ben to the 3:10 train to Yuma, they run into all matter of danger and are pursued by Ben's gang. The gang is headed by the wild-eyed Charlie Prince (Ben Foster) who is flushed with rage and has a tendency to accommodate his itchy trigger finger. Foster overacts his part but his broad performance still works. His character is meant to soften Ben's villainy. Ben may be a bad man, but he's not as bad as that sharp toothed snake of man Prince.
Throughout the film Ben offers Dan numerous chances to avoid is duty, to break his word. It is clear that Dan will not survive the trip, Ben's gang will find him and they will kill him. It is likewise clear that Ben will not bend. He is the only man of honor in the film. He stands by justice and he does not yield.
The film is expertly executed and founded in a very strong script updated by Derek Haas and Michael Brandt (
Wanted). Along with the strong performances and steady direction, this film is a blueprint on how to remake a movie.
Cautions: This is a violent film. The violence isn't gratuitous but it is plentiful. Those with sensitivity to violence should reconsider seeing the movie.
Related Reviews:
Christian Bale movies
Batman Begins (2005)
The Prestige (2006)
Other Critic's Reviews:
Cinema Dave
Ill-Informed Gadfly
Click here to buy your copy of You Are What You See and learn to change the world from your couchLabels: Christian Bale, film, movie review, remake, Russell Crowe, western
3 Comments:
What did you think of the characterizations in the two movies? I thought both Dan and Wade were much more honorable in the original. In the original Dan keeps going because it is the right thing to do, but in the remake he seems to keep going because he wants to prove to his son that he is a hero. Wade also seemed to hold more to a code of honor in the first film. I wrote down my thoughts on this last fall here: 3:10 to Yuma Original versus Remake
By the way, I am enjoying your blog. I subscribed about a month ago and have found your tips and reviews helpful.
I'm not in complete agreement, I think in the second film Dan is an honorable guy since he's the only one who maintains to what is right. You're right in that he does consider his son's opinion but I think he ultimately performs his sacrifice out of doing what is right.
I think your comparisons of the two films is fair. The difference between the two films is more in worldview than characters however. The recent version is more inclined towards a post-modern viewpoint where right and wrong are more nebulous.
Thanks for the compliments.
Thanks for your thoughts. I agree worldview definitely plays a large part in it. In fact that would make an interesting blog series - how worldview affects the making of remakes. You can certainly see it in the new Batman movie as compared even to the 1989 movie.
Post a Comment
<< Home