3:10 to Yuma

Posted by Nathan Deen (nathan@filmschoolrejects.com) on September 9, 2007

post_yuma1.jpg

A little while back I asked the question how can a movie starring Russell Crowe and Christian Bale be bad. After one screening of 3:10 to Yuma, now I know. This is one movie that completely derails after it gets going. A masterpiece this is not. An Oscar contender this should not be. A good movie this is not.

The completely wasted cast is headlined by the above mentioned actors. Bale plays Dan Evans, a rancher so far in debt he’s at risk to losing his land to the owners, who want to put a railroad through it. He and his two sons cross paths with Ben Wade (Crowe) and his gang of outlaws as they are robbing a coach full of cash. Wade lets the family live and he and his gang separate. Evans and Wade meet again after Wade has been captured after having a little fun in the town of Bisby.

So Grayson Buttterfield (Dallas Roberts), who has some sort of law connection, wants Wade marched to the town of Contention and put on a 3:10 train to Yuma Prison. Evans volunteers to be one of the men to escort him with a reward of $200 dollars, enough for Evans to save his land. Now it’s a race to Contention between Evans and his companions, a local doctor (Alan Tudyk), two bounty hunters (Peter Fonda and Kevin Durand) and Mr. Butterfield, and Wade’s gang who are hot on their trail.

Sure, this idea along with two great actors and a well known director in James Mangold may look good on paper, but this film turns out to be one major disappointment. It is completely preposterous and unbelievable. I haven’t seen the original 1957 3:10 to Yuma and I can only wonder how close the two films are to each other. If the new and the old are virtually the same then perhaps it would have been wise to incorporate some new ideas.

Russell Crowe is a great actor and he gives a fine performance here, but his poorly written character is where all the problems lie. Unfortunately, I can’t reveal all that I want to due to risk of spoiling the ending but I’ll try to weave my way around it. Ben Wade has several opportunities to escape but ultimately he always ends up helping the needs of our group of heros, and it seems like this is done only to advance the plot forward and hope the audience doesn’t notice.

Okay, fine, I’ll let that slide once but then not only does it do it again to draw a conclusion, it throws reality and believability right out the window. I believe a similar thing happened earlier this year with Seraphim Falls which starred Liam Neeson and Pierce Prosnan. There’s a scene at the movie’s climax in which Evans and a few marshals of the town of Contention have Wade held up in a hotel room with Wade’s gang waiting outside. The sheriff says something like “In Contention, we have law enforcement just like everyone else.” Then to contradict that statement, Wade’s right hand man Charlie (Ben Foster) offers the townsmen $200 for who ever shoots Wade’s captors and everyone jumps in with excitement. Then the last scene is just the final nail in the coffin, making the movie a mess. It seems like Wade wanted to be captured and hanged. He could of just put a bullet in his head midway through and saved me the effort of trying to watch this movie.

There is some good acting on display, but ultimately wasted performances. I don’t think Christian Bale’s resume will be hurt here as his Dan Evans is a solid character and a believable one, but the circumstances he’s in are not. It’s really Crowe who suffers here because his character is the main flaw and however good his performance is can’t possibly suffice. Not a fine display of acting is Ben Foster as Wade’s No. 1. Foster is every bit as ludicrous as he was in the early January stinker Alpha Dog. He doesn’t really give his character that “I’m the quickest draw in the West” feeling but rather his performance just makes Charlie seem psychotic, which he is.

Director James Mangold has taken a giant step down after his success with Walk the Line, a much better directorial effort about the life of Johnny Cash. Mangold’s 3:10 to Yuma seems to care more about being a popcorn pleasure than a great movie and perhaps that is the reason for Evans being placed in an impossible and unrealistic situation at the end.

3:10 to Yuma earns a few points for Phedon Papamichael’s gorgeous cinematography and music composer Marco Beltrami nails the music score. Excellent costume design as well by Arianne Phillips. Mangold annoyed me a little with Wade’s hat which is given the same attention that the hat Indiana Jones wore. The sound effects are staggering with a couple of explosions but that just supports my point that the movie tries to be a popcorn pleasure.

3:10 to Yuma starts out very promising and ends up arguably as the year’s biggest disappointment. It has a lot things going for it in its set up but that slate is wiped clean by its cockamamie middle and final act. There’s no way this could be a good movie without a tighter script. Mangold has not only failed to resurrect the Western but digs it into a deeper hole than it’s already in.

Grade: C-


Read more articles by Nathan Deen

« Previous Article | Next Article »

Related Topics:

Movie Review,

Related Reading:

Your Ad Here

Comment Policy: No hate speech allowed. If you must argue, please debate intelligently. Comments containing selected keywords or outbound links will be put into moderation to help prevent spam. Film School Rejects reserves the right to delete comments and ban anyone who doesn't follow the rules. We also reserve the right to modify any curse words in your comments and make you look like an idiot. Thank You!

  • Keith
    "Then the last scene is just the final nail in the coffin, making the movie a mess. It seems like Wade wanted to be captured and hanged. He could of just put a bullet in his head midway through and saved me the effort of trying to watch this movie."

    I think you missed a few vital points along the way. At the end of the movie, Wade states that he's twice been in Yuma Prison, and has twice escaped. Clearly, this is not a man who is too worried about going there, or about the threat of being hanged.

    His killing of his gang at the end points to the duality of his character:
    1) He is a monster; totally ruthless, and has no permanent ties to anyone. His gang is replaceable.

    2) As Evan's son had said to Wade, "You have some good in you". Remeber, Wade was at one point in the process of killing Evans, until Evans muttered why he was so driven to bring Wade to justice (to restore his family's faith in him). A connection was made with Evans that allowed for Wade to act upon whatever shred of honor and decency that he possessed, and to help Evan's reach his goal.

    I think that enough clues were dropped throughout the film to point to the idea that Wade, although rotten to the core, did indeed aspire to be something greater. He was impressed by Evan's devotion to his family, and perhaps saw a chance to act out his nobility vicariously through him.
  • Nate
    I realized what the movie wanted to do, I just wasn't satisfied with it.
  • Funny you should mention your disappointment in 3:10 to Yuma, since I just saw the original (Glenn Ford and Van Heflin) on the Western channel yesterday and thought the same thing as you've written about this new version. I couldn't even sit through the entire movie, a rare thing.

    Either the script is cursed and it's too difficult for screenwriters to tackle the topic of mini-redemption (I don't believe that for a moment), or the premise of 3:10 to Yuma simply isn't screenworthy.

    Or perhaps it's simply that the audience, at least in the U.S., black-and-whites everyone without any gray. Therefore, Wade's character (as Keith notes) is "rotten to the core, did indeed aspire to be something greater," is confusing because he's neither one nor the other, and isn't even one who ultimately becomes the other

    I'll have to see the new version in hopes that there's at least some improvement over the original.
  • Liz
    Finally, reviews not written by the mass marketing spin doctors with which I totally agree. My initial hunch, after learning that they'd sped up production to release this movie months ahead of two other westerns coming out later this year, was that they did this because they knew it was bad and that no one would come see yet another possibly bad western. First impressions correct as always. If only I'd waited a day or two to see the total lack of buzz this movie is generating and saved the thirty bucks and time wasted on this.
  • I disagree and don't think you realize what the movie wanted to do. You certainly haven't shown it from your review. It certainly wasn't trying to be "popcorn pleasure". They were larger themes taking place that you obviously missed.

    Liz, Sept is the start of awards season, so if they thought it was bad it wouldn't be released now.
  • Nate
    You know, I found this to be maybe the most difficult review I've written so far. Not only that I wrote it late friday night, but it was difficult to get my point across without spoiling the ending. As Keith wrote "rotten to the core, did indeed inspire to be something greater." It's a contradiction, I would have preferred it if he stayed rotten to the core the whole way through. And that scene between Bale and Crowe when Bale tells about his past just didn't convince me enough to believe that all of a sudden that Crowe would help Bale.
  • Keith
    "And that scene between Bale and Crowe when Bale tells about his past just didn't convince me enough to believe that all of a sudden that Crowe would help Bale."

    To me, that was the tipping point for Crowe. There were hints throughout the movie that Crowe's character was perhaps either tired of being who he was, or was seeking redemption. Bale's character was the vehicle for this, and it's this scene that finally convinces Crowe to act on his growing sense of either nobility or disgust (at himself).
  • "I would have preferred it if he stayed rotten to the core the whole way through."

    But that was the point, Wade wasn't rotten to the core. That was made clear throughout. He doesn't kill and good or innocent people. He chose his outlaw path as a means of survival. Evans' reasoning struck a chord with Wade, considering what happened to Wade as a young boy.
  • I enjoyed this movie, though I didn't love the ending, I'm ok with it. I think the character of Ben Wade was a very interesting one right from the start. The view I have of him, I think, might make me enjoy this movie a bit more.

    Obviously Wade is a bad man, but there is more to him than there seems. He doesn't care for his gang, they are tools. Useless followers, really. He doesn't kill for the joy of killing, nor does he especially love what he does. He just does it because its easy for him. He draws. He quotes scripture. He felt pain at a young age. He is skilled. But there is one thing he doesn't have. An equal. A friend. There is Byron McElroy (Fonda), who he doesn't kill and doesn't especially like, but he feels him the closest thing to a friend and equal at the beginning. Byron makes a mistake in taunting Wade and Wade's vicious side comes out.

    However, in Dan Evans Wade sees someone smart. Someone willing and capable. Someone a little bit like him, but on the other side of the spectrum. Wade knows the whole time he is capable of escaping, but takes the journey to see what Evans is capable of. At the end, if it weren't for his gang (which he chooses to dispose of) Evans and Wade would have developed some sort of friendship. Wade tested him again and again and Evans always came up on top, for the most part.

    I really like that interpretation and it probably helps me enjoy the movie a bit more.
  • Tommy
    Yeah, I really think anyone that sees the picture and walks away feeling it was a back movie or story has just plain missed the point. This movie is about morality within human beings not capturing and delivering a prisoner to justice. Ben Wade (Crow) saw/sees very little morality in any of the humans around him during his life. This he explains throughout the story. That is until he meets Dan Evans (Bale). The reason Wade never "escapes" through out the story, even though he could at any time he chose, was because Wade knew Evens was the biggest game in town. Much like the devil knew that corrupting christ, when they were going to hang christ on the cross was the biggest game in town. For Wade, to be able to corrupt Evens would prove his point that everyone's corruptible and has a price. It only takes one to find that price. Weath it be money or the threat of physical pain or ultimately "death". Wade's experience told him that everyone's got there price. He tried very hard to find Evens price through out the story. The more Wade could see that Evens was truly moral and had no price there for uncoruptable the more Wade truly like and admired Evens. This I believe was why Wade never left. Evan's could have killed Wade many times but did not. It would have been so easy for Evens to kill Wade in order to save his own skin but he did not/would not do this. This again kept Wade very interested in Evens. Even intrigued. This is the reason Wade kills all of his dominions at the end. He understands and further more agrees with Evens point of few. Perhaps even had found what he (Wade) had been looking for his whole life. True morality. Evens was the only human that Wade had ever met that had true morality. This is something that, from the story writer's point of view, is the only quality the separates the human from the animals. Wade, I believe, felt this too. Wade told Evens that his gang/dominions "were animals". Or lacking any moral code what so ever. Wade even said this about himself but knew that is was not true. He (Wade) had just never see it. There for never found a reason to operate under any sort of morality. That is until he met Evens. Did this change Wade's point of view about life and how he would operate within it. Well, I believe once again this story is an example of "great" writing and story telling. The writer leaves that final analysis up to the reader/viewer to deside. We know Wade will ultimately escape when he whiltles and his horse comes running, but will he continue his life the way it was before he met Evens? The writer understood that humans are not stupid and will figure this out for themselves. Which is what makes "great" art "great". The writer did not spoon feed the adiance his own "morality". He knew how sappy and lamn that would have been. No, instead, he left that piece of the puzzle out to allow each one of us to complete the tale. Left it up to us to insert that last puzzle piece with our own morality to see what picture we ultimately come up with. What each reader/viewer firgures out for themselves is truly what, most likely, interested the the writer.

    I don't know if what I say is corect but I have a hunch there is something in my words above. As far a the scale of actors they got to do this picture, well, that really is no suprise either. I'm sure when Crow and Bale read this script they knew the depth of this story. That's pretty self aparante. I also have very little doubt that if one was to ask them they would said that it was one of the best picture of there careers and that they were lucky to be a part of it. But then again what do I know, right?

    Thanks for reading...

    Tommy
blog comments powered by Disqus