3h10 pour Yuma

Christian Bale (Dan Evans) holds the screen as an honest rancher who volunteers for two hundred dollars to be part of a doomed group of guards to take the enigmatic bandit and killer Ben Wade (Russell Crowe) to a train, the 3:10, leaving Bisbee, Arizona for Yuma prison to trial…

Beaten down by an old Civil War injury, and unable to protect his farm and his family from Wade's ruthless gang and humiliated by his teenage son (Logan Lerman) who makes no efforts to hide his disappointment in his impoverished father, and who doesn't try to hide the fact that he admires the charismatic criminal, Dan finds a great quantity of reasons to undertake the perilous trip to Contention City to fight back like a real man and regain his son's respect… The story concentrates on Evans whose unknown destiny tries to paint to his son an unforgettable picture turning up poignant and endearing…

Wade—leader of a murderous band of robbers—had great respect for Dan throughout the film and develops a kind of understanding and appreciation for him… Their short scenes in the hotel room celebrate the virtues of two opposite men who stand up for what they believe stopping on issues in relation with family, dignity, virtue, and admirable integrity… The best scenes are those in which Wade teases Dan: "Your conscience is sensitive, Dan. It's not my favorite part of you."

Crowe's interpretation of a gifted cold-blooded smooth-talking bad man is one of the most compelling parts of the film… Bale is splendid as the struggling, crippled rancher, misunderstood by his whole family… The two actors comfortably inhabit this stunning western…

It is nice to see that there are still good westerns being made lately… And James Mangold's "3:10 to Yuma," a remake of Delmer Daves' 1957 picture, is one of them… It is a Western with realistic violence, great action sequences, breathtaking photography, and an inevitable final shoot-out

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.

It seems as though back in the fifties every other western seemed to have Frankie Laine singing the theme song. The 1957 version of 3:10 to Yuma is one of my favorite westerns. Part of the reason is that theme which echoed through out the film.

What I liked about 3:10 to Yuma is that the hero/protagonist is an ordinary man trying to support his wife and two sons through some very hard times. When a killer is caught and because he needs the money he agrees to help transport him to Yuma State Prison on the 3:10 train from Contention. A lot happens between the capture and the boarding of that fateful train.

Russell Crowe and Christian Bale make admirable updated substitutes for Glenn Ford and Van Heflin. Though Ford's performance as the sly rogue of a gunman is good, the previous film was driven by what I always considered Van Heflin's greatest screen role.

The original holdup was hardly the violent affair that this one was. Only one shot was fired and that was by Ford when the shotgun guard momentarily overpowered one of the gang. That's here too, but the holdup itself was taken from The War Wagon.

One part was totally eliminated and that was the part of the town drunk, played by Henry Jones in the original version, who was the only other man to volunteer his services. Jones was killed in a gut wrenching scene then, but in fact my favorite scene from the original was when Heflin's wife Leora Dana pleads with him to let Ford go, he responds with a heartfelt speech about how he couldn't look himself in the face after the sacrifice the town drunk made. I've seen the 1957 version dozens of times and am never failed to be moved by that scene.

In its place the part of the oldest son is built up and conversely the wife's part is cut down. Young Logan Lerman plays the older son who tags along after the group taking Crowe to Contention. Lerman is 14 and he and Bale have the usual father/son issues. Lerman feels his Dad to be a failure with things going so wrong against them. Bale and he bond during the shared experience and you know no matter what the outcome of things, he'll leave a good legacy for his children.

The usual tension between Bale and Crowe is present as it was in the original when Ford kept trying to bribe Heflin. Added to this is a whole lot of violence, most of it started by Ben Foster who's part as the young punk outlaw in the original was played by Richard Jaeckel. Foster is one murderous thug in this film, only Crowe is able to keep him somewhat in line.

The characterization is still there, the violence is expected in this day and age even though a lot of it is gratuitous. This version of 3:10 to Yuma is fine, but it can never take the place of the original in my affections.

This review is dedicated to young Harve Stewart of Stephenville, Texas and one of the Professional Bull Riders best young stars. I saw an interview with him where he mentions this is a film he likes. I liked it too, but I would commend him to watch the original 3:10 To Yuma which is just one of the best western dramas ever made. It was out in 1957 and I was 10 years old at the time. I'm old enough to be Harve's grandfather and I'm sure back in the day 3:10 To Yuma was enjoyed by his real grandparents in the theater.

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.