3:10 to Yuma (2007)

[Greg_phpbb3_import1]

All the reviews said it was the reinvention of the western, despite the fact it's a remake. Whenever they release a western these days, don't they say it's the reinvention of the western? Anyways, I was suckered in and the Queen suffered.

For a big time shoot-em up, there were a lot of sitting around the campfire bonding moments between Christian Bale and Russel Crowe. Slow talky occasionally interrupted by illogical gunplay. Why is Russel Crowe running away with Bale. OH! The script called for it.

Actually, the whole film struck me as an excuse for the western stuntmen to get together, ride around and set off squibs. There were some great action sequences, but they just seem to go on and on with no real point. Much like Drum solos.

[thatguy]

I thought is was ok (comme çi, comme ça). I didn't like Peter Fonda doing a John Wayne impression. Also, I don't know if any of you watched the Six Feet Under series, but I think Russell Crowe's bad ass right hand man was the mousy, gay/not gay, art boyfriend.

--tg

[cranefly]

I made a big boo-boo.
This was a movie Lady Cranefly wanted to see. So I put it on my Netflix list and last night we watched it.
I wasn't actually against seeing it. I thought it would be good; it did have a good rep.
But at the point where Bale turns his back on Crowe while Crowe is taking a piss, and Crowe then jumps him, I did the unthinkable, the unforgivable.
"Oh, come on!" I said.

After the movie was over, I caught heck for it. "I don't make comments during the movies you choose," she said.
True, though she watches very very few of those.
Anyway, the more I think about this movie, the more I despise it. And at this point let me warn you that there will be SPOILERS beyond this point.

There's two points of contention. The first is Crowe's holier than thou attitude in real life. Why in god's name did the director let him play himself in this movie? I mean, he alone beds a woman. And he charms the piss out of Bale's wife. Then there's the special treatment that everyone in this bloody excuse for a western gives Crowe.

Which leads to the other point of contention, having to do with believability. Now, I can suspend my disbelief about as well as anyone. I can watch a Godzilla movie, see the damned zipper, yet in my mind it's all playing out real. I've watched a lot of outrageous Japanese, Korean and Thai stuff with my suspenders of disbelief intact throughout. It really has to do with the director's intent. If the intent matches the effect, it works. If not, it comes off as pretentious. And boy did I feel a misfire here.

The director seemed intent on depicting a gritty realistic western, one that obeys the laws of physics as well as what is known of the Old West. And most of the film reinforces this. But then there are the glitches that stand out like a 2-D commercial viewed with 3-D glasses.
Here's just a few of the things that caused by suspenders of disbelief to fly off and my pants drop like a rock into a black hole.

Peter Fonda sees 15+ riders galloping at the stagecoach and firing their weapons, and he calmly says to his partner, "Here we go," turning slowly to grab up his shotgun. Nope, didn't begin to ring true.
The riders don't converge on Fonda and blast him out of existence. No, they ride past the coach so the gatling gun in the back can shoot them. What? This isn't a jousting match.
A bit later, Crowe's goon shoots Fonda in the chest/gut from point-blank range. To Fonda's credit, he loses some blood. But he survives, doesn't lose consciousness while a doc digs out the bullet, and he's instantly back in the saddle and without any apparent ill effects for the rest of his role in the film. Are they using BB guns?
When Crowe is captured, he is cuffed with his hands in front. Duh-uh!. (And by the way, there's like 5 inches of chain between the cuffs)
Crowe kills some guy during the night because -- duh-uh! -- he's cuffed with his hands in front.
Crowe kills Fonda while they're all riding on horseback because -- duh-uh! -- he's cuffed with his hands in front.
Then Crowe takes a piss and Bale just turns his back and gets jumped and beaten up, and I won't even bother with the duh-uh here. Unbelievable.
There's another time when Crowe is captured by miners who torture him, only they don't really seem to do any damage. And then during a distraction Crowe gets loose all by himself in an instant because -- du-uh! -- they just looped his cuffed hands over the top of a short post.
Then there's Crowe's goons, who, near the end, parade about on the street outside the saloon where Bale and the Pinkertons are holding Crowe. But Bale and the Pinkerton's don't think to pick them off, especially their ringleader, who is inciting the whole town (with $200 bounty) to kill them.
And of course there's the final denouement when Bale puts Crowe on the train, then just stands there, chatting with him, his back to Crowe's gang that has been shooting at him, as if this were a game of flag, game over, when we all know he's gonna get shot in the back.

I could go on. About Crowe's goon pal (the best thing in the film) who is so good with guns, only he can't hit Bale with fifty shots in the final fight. But enough.

The whole sense I got was that Crowe and his gang were murderous cutthroats while Bale and the Pinkertons were Sunday school teachers and idiots at that -- even as the director tried to convince us that the Pinkertons were the real cutthroats and Crowe was a super good dude. I found this to be a mixed-up mess and another gold star on Crowe's ego-crown.

--cranefly