HIGH AFTERNOON

Ben Wade: "Byron acts pious. Few years ago, when he was under contract to central, I seen him and a bunch of other Pinks mow down 32 Apache women and children."

~~ 3:10 to Yuma

Dan Evans (Christian Bale) is a rancher with problems: drought, debt, a son who thinks Evans is a wuss, one leg. Evans wants to clear his debt and win the respect of his son. And who knows - maybe if he completes the task, his luck will change causing it to rain and his leg to re-atta... no.

Ben Wade (Russell Crowe) is an outlaw: hot women, charm, quick on the draw, quick on the drawing, everyone likes him... well, mostly everyone if you exclude the people who want to kill him, and he has been arrested pending transfer to Yuma prison for hanging.

There's Evans' debt sorted. For $200 he volunteers to escort Wade from Bisbee to Contention where Wade can be put on the eponymous 3:10 to Yuma.

As for the respect of his son. If Evans completes the task his son will finally look down to him. (That's a gag. You'll get it when you see it.) That's because Wade's gang will be trying to stop Evans getting their boss to Contention; and where Evans will be able to demonstrate singularly cartilage-popping athleticism for a one legged man.

This version is different to the 1957 film with Van Heflin (Evans) and Glenn Ford (Wade). The Yuma 2007 has much greater emphasis on the journey from Bisbee to Contention; more blood, bullets, stunts and pyrotechnics; more is made of Wade being transported to Yuma to be hanged; and a significantly different ending. In fact, the later version's day-new-mont is barely believable. The ending here doesn't seem to fit, or be even close to necessary. I'd like one of the people involved, or a savvy critic, to explain precisely why they decided to end the film like they did. (Second thought & possible spoiler: maybe Yuma 2007 is true to the book while the makers of Yuma 1957 did a Natural and squibbed it.)

The earlier film also showed why 1950s directors like Budd Boetticher and Anthony Mann are so highly esteemed. They didn't have the technological advantages - if they can be called advantages, and not short cuts - or the freedom of expression we call swearing and splattering with blood. But within around ninety minutes they told all that needed to be told.

Not that Yuma 57 is great and Yuma 07 bad. More like Yuma 57 is pretty good and Yuma 07 is better than average. Feel free to quibble about the relative scales. Maybe it's an expectation thing. I assume lots of Fifties films will be excellent, I assume lots of Naughties films will be rubbish.

Yuma 07 has been referred to as "the best western since Unforgiven". That's like saying the A Bigger Bang is the best Stones album since Steel Wheels. Unforgiven just goes. Come on, own up - you walked out at the end, blinking, slightly puzzled, "Was that boring?" and wondering what all the fuss was about. I know I did. And there have been barely any good westerns since 1992. (Check out an under-rated TV western called The Jack Bull.)

The cast is solid. Werner Herzog is right about Crowe: "his underplaying here is in many ways as hammy as if he were overplaying, and that's just fine." Bale is suitably grim as the one-legged rancher with something to prove. Ben Foster gives good psycho as Wade's offsider Charlie Prince. Peter Fonda is better than usual as a Pinkerton's man. In the extras he makes some crack about "Acting is what us actors do." Ironic coming from someone with as dreadful a track record as Fonda; he's been in some shockers. He should consider himself lucky to have been carried by the likes of Warren Oates, Harry Dean Stanton, Jack Nicholson, to name a few. My favourite role in Yuma 07 is Dallas Robert as Grayson Butterfield. I've never heard of him before, but he does a bang up job here as a stage coach owner who accompanies Evans to Contention. I dunno. Sometimes you just like a role and I like Butterfield.

Anyway, it's better than "if you've nothing better to do" but not as good as "you must see it."

Comments

[Francis Xavier Holden]

Funny you should mention it. It's Cheep Chewsday and I just got back from Sleuth. The remake.

Now I don't see many remakes, mainly 'cos I don't see many movies and most remakes look to be bad from reviews and trailers. Well aside from Hairspray, which while not as good as the original is pretty good.

I just remembered being very satisfied by the original Sleuth many years ago and the touts for the remake were pretty positive. I'd say the remake is good to very good. The trouble is half the fun of the original is the twist /surprise which is a bit easy to spot once you know.

But nicely done with the Michael Caine casting making sense even without the added wink to buffs from the earlier flick. The house interior is modern (not post modern for a change) and hi-tech and it works.

If you liked the old one the new one is perhaps even worth going to on a full price day.

[Francis Xavier Holden]

btw does the 3.10 arrive say at 3.05 and leave on time?

[Tony T]

FX: Sleuth is one of the few fillums I can remember my parents talking about when I was a wee kiddy. I like both Caine and Larry, but I can't effing stand Jude Law.

There should be more of Jude getting his head smashed in like in The Talented Mr Ripley.

[Tony T]

And the train was late.

Dan Evans: What time is it?

Ticket Clerk: About ten past three.

Dan Evans: Where's the 3:10 to Yuma?

Ticket Clerk: Running late, I suppose.

Ben Wade: Goddamn trains. Never can rely on 'em, huh?

[John T]

How long since you've seen the 57 version? The ending is as corny and predictable as they come. The 07 version is not flawless, eg too much padding, but in many respects, eg acting (even Russell) and cinematography, is much better than the 57 one.

[Tony T]

That's why I said "maybe Yuma 2007 is true to the book while the makers of Yuma 1957 did a Natural and squibbed it".

The new one is neither corny nor predictable, but that doesn't necessary make it better or worse.

[tONY]

Great review of both old and new 3:10's in the current Quadrant - and, as generally with Neil MacDonald essays, much else besides. I don't always agree with him, but always worth reading (like all the best film critics). For example, I didn't know Rio Bravo and El Dorado were shot in the same town/set. No wonder the Duke looked like he knew his way around!

[Francis Xavier Holden]

FX: Sleuth is one of the few fillums I can remember my parents talking about when I was a wee kiddy.

gee they must have been child brides/grooms.

mumbles - smartarse

[James Dudek]

This review was self-absorbed, long and boring. You could have cut off the last two paragraphs and not missed anything. When Wernor Herzog made an appearance was when I had to leave.

**&1/2 stars out of 100,000.5 stars

[Tony]

Whose review? Mine? You c*nt!

* Added to keep comment polite.

[Tony]

tONE: Can you get the MacDonald review online? Or do I have to start buying the magazines?

I loved Rio Bravo when I was 25 and loved ElDorado when I was 10. Needless to say, RB held up better on recent Foxtel viewings. RB was still OK, but ED was just plain rubbish. 3:10 to Yuma 2007 used an old film set, too, but I'm not sure which. I thought it might have been Silverado.

[tONY]

I just emailed a scann to the "aftergrogblog" address. Quadrant have a site, but only some articles online (not including this one).

I still love RB - one of my favorite films still. You've read Danny Peary - sums it up perfectly (Leigh Bracket screenplay full of great lines - "That's all you got?" "It's WHAT I've got"). El Dorado is just fluff - I like Mitchum in it, and Caan is young and fun, but it's pretty hokey, and too long.

[Tony]

Thanks, TONE. Top hole. I will peruse it at my leee-zure.

FX: One man's meat is another man's minutiae. Or is that "one man's minutiae is another man's potatoes"? I forget.