5 Question Movie Review: 3:10 to Yuma

Q: Is it better or worse than the original?
A: Sacrilege Alert: I think this Yuma actually surpasses the well-regarded 1957 version. It's darker and edgier--which doesn't always equal "better," but in this case takes advantage of the more permissive modern standards to create a more affecting experience. This nastier, more brutal film is also deeper and more credible.


Q: What kind of new spin does James Mangold put on this version?
He makes a more brutal, scarier film, for one thing, with outlaw Ben Wade far more threatening--and graphically so. Stylistically, he chooses to rely on frequent extreme close-ups to ratchet up the tension. I don't think it always works, but it does provide distinction. Also, while the 1957 adaptation of this Elmore Leonard story featured a lot of clock-watching and a lot of sitting around (though not uninteresting sitting around), the remake eschews some of that but builds more suspense in other areas. For example, rancher Dan Evans' teenage son plays a much larger role, which adds to the stake. But more effectively, Mangold amplifies the moral questions of the story. The director does a superb job of pacing the film while stripping away Evans' reasons to do his job--making it increasingly a matter of doing the right thing.


Q: Well, how do Crowe and Bale stack up against Glenn Ford and Van Heflin?
Heflin may be one of the more underrated performers from the golden days of Hollywood, and he excelled in 1957 at playing the beaten-down, struggling rancher Dan Evans. But Bale makes the character his own and matches Heflin. In the role of the outlaw Ben Wade, Crowe far surpasses Ford. The tricky blend of charismatic charm and shocking brutality just comes more naturally to Crowe in this setting--and I don't mean that as a knock on Ford, but praise for Crowe, who stands out once again as a man's man in an era littered with failed pretty-boy "leading men." The chemistry between Crowe and Bale is excellent--a crucial factor in a story that puts them as adversaries and partners at various points.


Q: Why don't we see more Westerns on the big screen?
A: Good question. They can't all be as good as Yuma, but I'd like to see more people try. Sorry to pick on another genre, fans, but I'd rather see more Westerns than cheapo slasher flicks. But the cheapo slasher flicks are often quite cost-effective, and I guess studios fear that oaters skew too old to get the young'uns into the theaters and buying the DVDs.


Q: So you really liked this one. Should we just junk the original?
A: No, the 1957 version still stands as a solid Western drama. Lest you think I'm saying the remake is perfect, let me point out one misstep: There is a cameo by a prominent actor at a key point, and that actor is about the last one I expected to see. I was surprised to see him, and I won't give it away, but if you look far down the IMDB listing, you'll find him. He wasn't bad, exactly, but his presence was a brief but unfortunate distraction in a movie that was otherwise stuffed with perfectly cast actors who absorbed their period characters and left vivid impressions. In particular, Ben Foster is amazing as Wade's sadistic second-in-command.

Let me also address the ending, which has brought this movie heat in some circles. Parts of the finale defy credibility. However, this was true of the original, too. In each version, there comes a moment of truth when a big decision is made, and I have a hard time buying it in each. But I think in the 1957 edition, the ending was so out of character it robbed the film of much of its emotional impact. This time out, the ending justifies the time given to the moral questions raised in the preceding two hours or so.