Monday, September 24, 2007

3:10 to Yuma: Review


Give credit where credit is due and honor James Mangold (Walk the Line), who, in his latest effort 3:10 to Yuma, has revitalized the American Western, as important a cinematic genre as ever has existed. 3:10 is a hard-bitten, potboiler of a film; a masterful frontier story that feels like a Deadwood inflected High Noon. Mangold, who is becoming a wonderful filmmaker, wisely guides the story along, slowly building tension until the breaking point, in which the first hour and 40 minutes of story comes to a nail biting finale that ranks with some of the best Old West celluloid shootouts. Featuring two spectacular performances by Christian Bale and Russell Crowe, 3:10 to Yuma feels like a classic in the making from start to finish.
In this remake of the 1957 original, Bale plays a family man and farmer, Dan Evans, who following the conclusion of the Civil War, packs up his family and heads west. However, the allure and promise of the west quickly becomes hardship and suffering. Faced with enormous debt and a complete lack of water due to a massive, continuing drought, the Evans family begins the film awakened by the burning of their barn. The next day, Evans and his sons, William and Mark (Logan Lerman and Benjamin Petry respectively), ride out to herd their cattle back to the farm. However, their witnessing of a violent and gruesome stagecoach robbery, which quickly degrades into massacre, quickly disturbs that innocent task. The band of outlaws responsible for the attack are led by their fearsome leader, Ben Wade (played by Russell Crowe), and upon realizing that they've been seen, take the Evans' horses but leave them untouched. Dan finds Byron, a survivor of the attack (Peter Fonda), and helps him back into town.

Little does he know that Wade had headed in the same direction and after another chance meeting in a saloon, in which Wade is arrested, Dan finds himself enlisted in a posse whose mission is to deliver Wade to the 3:10 train to Yuma Prison. Unfortunately for Evans, Byron and the rest of the men, Wade's band is close on their tail, now led by the equally dangerous Charlie Prince (Ben Foster). The rest of the film centers along this quest and with each inch traveled, Mangold pushes the audience closer and closer to the edge. The race to the train is a dangerous 24 hours in which many of the members of Wade's escort perish in unfortunate ways. As the group traverses across the unforgiving landscape, which is beautifully shot by Phedon Papamichael (of Sideways fame), the group is physically and mentally punished by the increasing pressure of getting Wade to the station, not only in time but in one piece.

The cast, as a whole, has no real weak points, with everyone more than pulling their weight. The principles, Bale, Crowe, Fonda, Foster and Lerman, are all spectacular, giving their characters complex moral compasses that characterize the great revisionist westerns. Bale and Crowe, in particular, contribute show-stopping performances, something we've come to expect from two of the best actors working today. In Bale's capable hands, Evans possesses not only a physical toughness but a mental and emotional one as well. His continued perseverance really drives the film and serves as the basis for much of the thematic exploration. Crowe's Wade immediately takes his place amongst the pantheon of classic Western villains, a ferocious killer that has the undeniable charisma that reminds one of Wayne's Ethan Edwards. While Crowe's performance isn't quite on the same level as Wayne's (which I consider to be one of the greatest roles in history), it is undeniably powerful and ranks as one of Crowe's better jobs.

It should be noted that this film never truly feels like the classic Peckinpah and Leone examinations of the 1960's and 70's. In other words, the cynicism that was evident in the work of those two masters isn't readily apparent here. Instead, Mangold seems to be concerned with Ford's critiques of masculinity and civilization and while 3:10 to Yuma never attains the full majesty of a Ford epic, it never quite delves into the psychological depravity of Peckinpah. Actually, if pressed and as mentioned earlier, the most notable touchstone here seems to be High Noon, not only in its narrative structure (the continuing march of time) but in its themes as well. Much like Gary Cooper in Zinneman's classic, Evans is forced to deal with a situation that few others want to be involved in.

As this point in the life of the genre, it is almost impossible not to notice the hallmarks of films past. Mangold seems to realize this and continually harkens back (both narratively and thematically) to the great westerns of the past, guiding his film down familiar paths, yet in new and exciting ways. If you have a strong bias against westerns, it is unlikely that 3:10 to Yuma will cure that unfortunate affliction. One might be better off starting with Stagecoach or one of Leone's Dollar Trilogy films to fully get into the genre. However, for those who enjoy a solid western, certainly the best American entry in the genre since 1992's Unforgiven and if not for last year's The Proposition maybe the best since Eastwood's classic period, 3:10 to Yuma is one to check out, a near masterpiece and certainly a worthy remake of the great original.

****

Starter for 10: Review


Romantic comedies are a dime a dozen, sugary confections that often times say little about human nature or the society at large. Too often are they so infatuated with telling a simple, tired love story that they forget the potential power of film. This is not to suggest that a romantic comedy is required to be heavy handed and deal with life and death situation. Many are successful at satirizing aspects of society (Jerry Maguire, It Happened One Night) while remaining comical and lighthearted. Unfortunately for any viewers of Starter for 10, the film does almost nothing worthwhile, instead relying too often on tired and uninspired slapstick for its major laughs.


For a film with some major clout behind it (Tom Hanks and Sam Mendes are both producers), one would think that this might have felt like more than an uninspired TV movie. Unfortunately, it doesn't never leaving the constraints of the silver screen's smaller cousin behind. Rather, Starter for 10 is painfully mediocre all around with it's script attempting to say something regarding class in 1980's Britain but never having the guts to really say something. It frequently touches on just the fringes of the subject, afraid to jump full on into the subject. This would have been excusable if the characters were absorbing or the relationships depicted had any life behind them. Once again, unfortunately, they don't. David Nicholls' script (based on his own novel) rarely displays the intelligence or sharp wit to make for a entertaining romantic comedy, choosing to wallow in half baked relationships and characters.


The story, of a lower middle class boy Brian Jackson (played ably by James McAvoy in a performance that reminds me of a younger Ewan McGregor) who is a whiz at trivia but not girls, feels lifeless. It isn't bad, per say, just very plain. He joins the University Quiz Team and falls in love his teammate Alice (Alice Eve), one who never really returns the feelings, but rather just plays with poor Brian's heart. Another classmate Rebecca (Rebecca Hall) enters the picture to complicate Brian's feelings. There is no memorable dialogue, each exchange is as bland as the last, never giving their characters any personality or traits. The filmmakers here might have felt clever for trying to make a stripped down, plain-coated rom com but that shtick never really works either. The whole film just leaves the audience wanting more, not in a good way, but in a way that one never feels that they have received their money's worth. With BBC Films and Playtone as the production companies, there is money to spend; they just chose not to do it here.

The film's one redeeming and notable quality is its superior soundtrack, albeit misused at times. However, it is difficult to argue with the actual quality of the songs on display, all of which are considered classics of 80's British pop. For this writer, the late appearance of The Smiths' "Please, Please, Please, Let Me Get What I Want" warranted a smile, as it is one of Morrissey/Marr great concoction. That smile quickly soured as it dawned on me at the misuse of the song, which was more or less the story of the film. Whenever something enjoyable would happen, it would quickly be crushed by a moment of almost unbearable embarrassment or awkwardness. In fact, the film made me feel more embarrassed to be watching than anything else.


As has been said earlier, Starter for 10 is not a horrible film but it has almost nothing to separate itself from the crowded pack of romantic comedies. It is no wonder that this film was unceremoniously dumped in theatres and quickly moved to DVD. The critical approval is somewhat confusing to this writer. I can't tell whether I really missed something important or others did. McAvoy is the highlight here and despite his inability to keep up with Forrest Whitaker in Last King of Scotland (but really, who could?), seems like he could be a star in the making. For those in desperate need of a new British comedy, Starter for 10 may be a winner but for something going in without that jones, it just seemed, simply, simple.

**