I recently purchased a copy of James Mangold's film 3:10 to Yuma via Half.com and it arrived in the mail today. As you can see in the video, the production was "Acceptable". Now I know what that classification means. :)

(And yes, those are pieces of the case falling onto the floor that you hear)

The DVD itself doesn't look bad at all, which is quite surprising. I could care less about the DVD case.

Have you had any similar experiences?

Após o sucesso de filmes como "Johnny e June" (2005) e "Garota, Interrompida" (1999), o cineasta James Mangold aceitou dirigir o suspense "The Archive" ("O Arquivo", em tradução literal).

Ainda não há data prevista de lançamento do filme.

A história do longa será assinada por David Auburn. Ele é responsável pelo roteiro de filmes como "A Prova" (2005), com Anthony Hopkins e Gwyneth Paltrow, e "A Casa do Lago" (2006), com Sandra Bullock e Keanu Reeves.

James Mangold volverá a dirigir una película con viajes en el tiempo tras Kate & Leopold

Casualmente, no es la primera vez para ambos que se ven implicados en un proyecto cinematográfico que tenga viajes en el tiempo o alguna distorsión temporal.

• David Auburn fue el encargado del guión adaptado de la oriental Siworae, en lo que conocemos como La Casa del Lago, donde los protagonistas sufrían confusiones sobre en que época se encontraban.
• James Mangold fue el director de la incongruente, aunque simpática Kate & Leopold, donde una grieta espacio-temporal a Leopold, un caballero de finales del siglo XIV, en la actual ciudad de Nueva York. También fue el encargado de dirigir Identidad, con una línea temporal no lineal.

De momento no conocemos más detalles salvo que The Archive es un thriller con viajes en el tiempo. Seguiremos informando en el futuro.

Via | Blogdecine

The Films of James Mangold
1. Kate & Leopold (2001)
2. Walk the Line (2005)
3. 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
4. Cop Land (1997)
5. Girl, Interrupted (1999)
6. Identity (2003)
7. Heavy (1995)

How would you rank them?

According to Variety, James Mangold (3:10 to Yuma) is set to direct a film called The Archive, which deals with time travel. The film will be written by David Auburn (Writ. Proof), which is a definite plus.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, James Mangold is a versatile director, and he's got a great filmography to back it up. He doesn't seem to retread genres very much. That said, I'm kind of surprised that he's directing The Archive, because he has dealt with time travel before in Kate & Leopold.

What's your favorite James Mangold film?

O diretor James Mangold é famoso por sua versatilidade. É o sujeito que não está interessado em inventar a roda, mas entrega sempre produtos de boa qualidade. Diretor de filmes díspares como "Garota, interrompida", "Identidade", "Johnny & June", "Copland", "Tudo para ficar com ele" e Katie & Leopold", Mangold refilma o western de Delmer Daves, "Galante e sanguinário". "Os indomáveis", estrelado por Russel Crowe e Christian Bale, é um western clássico, com direito a tiroteios, explosões, cavalgadas, traições, torturas, exaltação à família e discussões sobre a coragem e a mentira.

Uma atuação soberba de Russel Crowe quase consegue nos distrair em relação à grande falha na construção de seu personagem, Ben Wade, que, ao término da sessão, parecerá ao espectador mais atento um tanto esquizofrênico.

O Dan Evans de Christian Bale, por sua vez, é um personagem melhor talhado. Apesar de um tanto passivo e fraco, em contraponto à exuberância de Wade, o fazendeiro Dan Evans acaba por se tornar o herói da trama, apenas pelo simples fato de não fugir à luta. Lembro-me que muitos criticaram o pianista de Adrien Brody, no filme de Roman Polanski, por sua passividade. É fácil acusar o personagem de Bale por essa mesma fraqueza, mas, segundo o roteiro, ele acaba por triunfar sobre o galante criminoso. Só não fica bem claro como e por quê.

Apesar disso, "Os indomáveis" é um western como há tempos não se faz. Dramático, pungente às vezes, engraçado em outros momentos, apesar de requentar uma série de fórmulas do velho bangue-bangue.

É necessário observar a atuação de Ben Foster, um ator realmente promissor. Seu Charlie Prince é um dos vilões mais perversos dos últimos tempos e sua aparente fragilidade (magro com voz fina) esconde uma alma perturbadoramente cruel. Sua relação com Ben Wade é um dos trunfos da trama, guardando uma conotação às vezes paternal às vezes homoerótica.

Tivesse um final melhor elaborado, "Os indomáveis" entraria facilmente no rol dos melhores filmes dos últimos dois anos.

Directed by: James Mangold

Starring: Joaquin Phoenix, Reese Witherspoon, Robert Patrick

Awards: Oscar for Best Performance by an Actress in a Leading Role (2006). Golden Globe for Best Motion Picture-Musical or Comedy, Best Performance by an Actor, Best Performance by an Actress (2006). Grammy for Best Compilation Soundtrack Album (2007).

When I was a teenager and started to wear all black, my stepfather would tease me and asked "who do you think you are... the man in black?" At the time I had no idea who he was talking about. Sure I had heard a song or two from Johnny Cash on the radio or in a movie, but I didn't really know anything about the man until later as my music knowledge grew. There was just always something about his songs that appealed to me. Dark lyrics, catchy rhythm, and an underlying attitude that seemed to tell the world to fuck off. Walk the Line goes even further by pulling back the curtain and letting us see just who was the man behind the music and what drove him to make the songs that he did. Like many talented artists, there are few demons wandering around in Johnny Cash's past. An overbearing father, the loss of an older brother who was his best friend, a wife who didn't share his joy for music, the hardships of living on the road, and of course: sex, drugs, and rock and roll. The film also deals with Johnny's courtship of June Carter as she comes and goes through out his life and ultimately helps Johnny conquer his demons. It is their underlying love story that helps elevate the movie past just being a memoir of another musician.

Joaquin Phoenix is outstanding in the role of Johnny Cash. He simply loses himself and becomes "the man in black." Likewise, Reese Witherspoon brings in a great performance as well and together the two are just enjoyable to watch. They both even performed the songs themselves rather than lip sync to the original music helping to make the movie feel all the more real. Even if you are not a fan of Johnny Cash's music, this film stands up well as it tells the story of a man who reaches rock bottom and then manages to pick himself up with the help of others and rise above the darkness. Come and take a walk with the man in black.

Other Notable Films by this Director: 3:10 to Yuma (2007); Girl, Interrupted (1999)

Here is one of the last music videos Johnny Cash made before his death, his cover of Nine Inch Nail's Hurt. It is a fitting end to his legacy and is both powerful and sad. Shortly after, June Carter Cash died. Four months later Johnny Cash joined her.

-Dantasia

Vou lhe confiar um segredo: tenho um problema seriíssimo com filmes. Nem sei se poderia falar disso assim, vai que se espalhe? Mas preciso dizer a alguém. Tenho um problema realmente grave com filmes. Na grande maioria das vezes, sinto-me tomado de um desejo torpe de ver espalhadas pelo chão as vísceras daquele personagem doce e ingênuo, quase sempre idealizado como meio quilo de uns retalhos ensangüentados, enquanto o pretenso açougueiro em questão, a quem eu devia ter odiado, deixa a cena com um brilho no olhar, um sorriso no rosto, e uns pedaços viscosos de massa encefálica agarrados aos vincos das solas dos seus sapatos, produzindo um hipnotizante som de esguicho enquanto se afastam. Revoltante, eu sei. Imagine você a baixeza, a sordidez subterrânea que me castra. É desumano, é doentio, este meu problema com filmes. Afinal, dá pra acreditar que isso nunca acontece?

Os Indomáveis (3:10 to Yuma) é um remake de Galante e Sanguinário (Delmer Daves, 1957), dirigido por James Mangold (Johnny & June), com um roteiro a três baseado num conto de Elmore Leonard. No filme, Daniel Evans (Christian Bale), sob o nó de uma dívida que pode lhe tirar a casa, aceita, por 200 dólares, integrar a escolta do perigoso Ben Wade (Russel Crowe), um assaltante de diligências que precisa pegar o trem das 3:10 só de ida para Yuma, onde será enforcado.

O primeiro elemento que chama a atenção em Os Indomáveis é o aprisionamento do espectador no personagem de William (Logan Lerman), filho mais velho de Dan Evans. William é um tipo extremamente comum em westerns: o adolescente impulsivo que se sente esmagado pelo quase dever de se tornar homem, no caso, com dois modelos distintos entre os quais acha que precisa escolher: seu pai, e o assassino. O diferencial, aqui, é o modo como James Mangold usa William, colocando seus olhos entre a lente da câmera e o deserto. Através deste filtro, Evans é um rancheiro miserável, aleijado e numa posição de autoridade sobre a família que simplesmente não deveria ser dele. Ben Wade, por sua vez, é livre, gentil e fascinante por esconder sob si histórias de tudo que William imagina existir além dos limites do pedaço de terra do seu pai. Evans é digno de pena, Wade, de admiração. O fato de Evans ser um pobre coitado, porém, pouco ajuda para que o espectador se compadeça por ele, mas é muito eficiente em causar uma repulsa, em catalisar um asco que se conecta a um sentimento de piedade de que teria sido melhor, pobre diabo, se ele tivesse morrido ainda na Guerra Civil. O próprio Ben Wade diz, em referência a um de seus homens mortos no assalto: “Tommy era um fraco. Tommy era estúpido. Tommy está morto”. Não há lugar para fracos no Oeste e é por esta mesma crença que William amaldiçoa o teto sob o qual nasceu e jura a si mesmo ser um homem muito melhor que o pai, nem que este homem seja Ben Wade, o criminoso, o assassino, o que tem duas pernas, o que pode alimentar sua mãe e seu irmão. O efeito de Wade sobre William começa logo quando o primeiro mata duas pessoas no fim do assalto à diligência, e este último, ignorando a ordem do seu pai para que recue, observa-o como se estivesse sob efeito de um feitiço.

Pode-se estabelecer também uma conexão interessante entre William e Charlie Prince (Ben Foster), o braço direito de Ben Wade no bando. Prince, literalmente, mata e morre por Wade. Nota-se a admiração pelo seu chefe em vários momentos, e é quase latente ao longo do filme. Como quando ele avisa do assalto, na cidade: “acho que uma diligência foi assaltada a uns 16 km. Pelo senhor Ben Wade em pessoa”. Ou quando ele e Evans se encontram pela primeira vez: “Cuidado, rancheiro, está falando com Ben Wade”. O respeito e a subserviência de Charlie Prince por Wade nada mais é que uma evolução do fascínio e encantamento que agem sobre William, provavelmente os mesmos que um dia agiram sobre Prince. Repare no ar de menino do personagem. Muito leve, um tanto distante, como se a perplexidade do impacto causado por Wade ainda existisse, mas sem a inocência, e um resto de infância (vivo no ímpeto adolescente de William) que ainda poderia ser notado, transparece fossilizado, crispado e petrificado pelo sol e a areia do Velho Oeste. Prince é uma criança insegura, de barba para parecer mais velho, e calejado pelas aventuras com Wade, as mesmas com as que William sonha no cercado da sua casa, sob as ordens do seu pai.

Mas Prince é mecânico no que faz. Cada movimento, cada instante em que tira a arma do coldre parece estudado e sem margem a falhas. A frieza do personagem (tal como a cena em que deixa alguém para queimar vivo) revela a intenção do diretor de desviar o curso do ódio do espectador do caminho de Wade, para que deságüe inteiro sobre Charlie Prince. Deste modo, Mangold estabelece dois lados bem claros no filme: um, de Prince e seu bando, destinado à antipatia do público; e o outro, de Evans e Wade, o mesmo lado, por sua vez, abençoado com a simpatia do espectador. Ao polarizar seu filme deste modo, Mangold praticamente canta o prelúdio da cena final, infelizmente, a ruína de Os Indomáveis.

Tudo até aqui esteve sob a influência de Ben Wade, que domina o filme, seus personagens e seu público, usando sangue e o lado sádico de todos nós como componentes essenciais de sua sedução. A imoralidade absoluta e uns vestígios turvos de algo como um código de honra se misturam e se confundem num espiral que invariavelmente leva à morte de algum personagem. Pense bem, e não irá tão longe para descobrir que Wade não mata ninguém durante o filme sem que tenha um motivo concreto, e quando o faz, não consegue esconder o tom cruel mas divertido com que mede seus atos. Um dos elementos que torna, a princípio, o personagem tão forte, é a dificuldade do espectador em se estabelecer em relação a ele, ora desenhando bichinhos, ora matando, ora sendo agradável à mesa, ora matando, ora recitando a Bíblia, ora matando de novo, ora salvando a todos, ora matando mais uma vez. E isso, principalmente, por já existirem dois grandes halos para os quais se dirigem os sentimentos distintos de quem assiste: Evans e Prince. Wade, porém, tanto é um meio termo entre os dois, quanto não há termo nenhum que o meça. Tanto tem os dois dentro de si, quanto é muito maior do que eles. É esta dubiedade que abre fronteiras do personagem, que faz o espectador se incomodar consigo mesmo conforme o que sente por ele, e que James Mangold erra ao quebrar.

A cena final é a resposta para uma série de acontecimentos estranhos com o roteiro, como se estivesse, nas últimas trinta ou quarenta páginas, rabiscado e cheio de observações. A incoerência do personagem de Wade, um dos motivos do grande problema, levaram, ao que parece, a uma cascata de adaptações que claramente não faziam parte do rumo “ideal” das coisas. A partir daí, você verá com freqüência tentativas frustradas de justificar a mudança brusca de comportamento do personagem. A verdade é que não havia como simplesmente preparar o terreno para um desvio tão violento. Para que desse certo, todo o filme merecia ser trabalhado em torno disso. No entanto, se espera que a plausibilidade dos acontecimentos seja atestada por frases como “você não é assim tão mau” e uma revelação sobre o passado de Wade que constrange à medida que sua função dentro do filme se esclarece. Isto não era necessário. O que realmente me incomoda nem é a esquizofrenia do personagem, mas como o filme deixa claro que quer me enfiar o final goela a baixo, percebendo que ele não se sustenta, baseando-se na possibilidade de eu ser burro demais para perceber o mesmo. “Jimmy, ligaram do estúdio. O final vai ter que ser assim, ó”. “Ah, nem dá nada, só muda isto aqui, aqui e aqui, que a galera sai do cinema com um sorriso deste tamanho”.

No chão sujo de um dos estabelecimentos de Abiline, poucos minutos antes da partida do trem para Yuma, Dan Evans fala de suas inglórias e de sua imagem como pai. Ben Wade, então, escolhe um lado. Escolhe ajudá-lo. Os motivos não são claros. Não se sabe se por respeito (depõe a favor desta versão o desenho que Wade faz de Evans na sua Bíblia e todo o tempo que passam naquele quarto) ou por pena (a favor deste toda a construção do personagem de Evans e da principal subtrama envolvendo ele e sua imagem aos olhos de William, pesando no momento exato em que Wade finalmente toma sua decisão, com Evans no chão daquele lugar, contando de como não era “nenhum herói”, com a corrente das algemas de Wade em torno do seu pescoço). Ou, na verdade, pelas duas razões (mais certo que, construída sobre uma base movediça, termina não havendo razão alguma nos seus atos). Mas repito, a verdade é que isso nem me incomoda como deveria. Wade poderia ter feito tudo o que fez sem razão nenhuma mesmo (a quem se preocupa com o que é ou não é plausível em uma ficção), a imprevisibilidade era uma de suas características. O problema está em diretor e roteiristas (sei lá de quem é a responsabilidade) acharem que ele precisava de um motivo e acabarem colocando o filme num caminho auto-destrutivo. A preocupação por delimitar extremos de “bom” e “mau” pode ser vista em toda sua mediocridade na cena em que William tem Wade sob sua mira, no final do filme, como se os dois únicos rumos de sua vida estivessem no limiar daquele gatilho (quase dá pra ver Jim Cuanninghman saindo direto de Donnie Darko e baixando entre penas e plumas sobre a terra rubra de Abiline).

No entanto, mesmo que Wade fizesse tudo o que fez sem tentativas de se justificar, ainda permaneceria o problema (pra mim é um problema) de ele ter escolhido um lado, dissolvendo a ambigüidade em relação ao público, forçando-o a tomar um partido definitivo quanto a seu personagem. Apenas a virada instantânea de caráter não determinaria sua personalidade, o que acontece se somado àquela frase de William e o trecho em que ele narra como foi abandonado pela mãe aos oito anos. E esta é a razão pela qual comecei este texto como um psicótico com sangue nos olhos (e rezo para que você tenha chegado até aqui antes de ligar para um hospício, sem que antes recomendasse uma lobotomia frontal pra início de tratamento), principalmente, para que minha decepção com o final de Os Indomáveis ficasse mais clara. O cinema é mágico exatamente por nos permitir, de vez em quando, entrar na pele de personagens absolutamente livres no seu mundo, capazes de coisas que simplesmente não poderíamos fazer na palidez do lado de cá da tela. Ben Wade é um personagem fascinante até o momento em que começa a chorar sua infância desgraçada. Não há como não se divertir ao ouví-lo cantar a musiquinha sobre seu enforcamento, e como vê-lo destripando o filho da mãe que ficou com o seu cavalo é agradável, ainda que perturbador por ser agradável, efeitos conhecidos, como nos finais de Laranja Mecânica e Dogville. Se acho um disparate Ben Wade ter matado todo seu bando? Claro que não. Além de ter matado o bando, ele deveria ter matado o Evans, o William, os cavalos e alguns arbustos.

Os Indomáveis não deixa de ser um bom filme, apesar desta minha visão sobre as coisas. A tensão da meia hora final é eletrizante (especialmente pra quem se importar com o personagem do Bale), Charlie Prince consegue ser um vilão arrepiante mesmo franzino, com meio metro de altura e voz de menina, e Ben Wade, até certo momento, é um dos personagens mais fascinantes dos últimos anos. Vale a pena ser conferido, por ser um bom filme, por ser um representante de respeito de um gênero pelo qual eu daria tudo para que voltasse em definitivo, e por ser, em última instância, um gosto de sangue guardado na raiz da garganta, e pedindo por mais.

2/4

Luis Henrique Boaventura

This movie is a remake of an older movie titled the same but from 1957. I have never seen the original one but I liked this one a lot. It had a lot of action but not too much (my eyes did not hurt trying to follow the movement). Usually when I hear the word "western" I think boring. There are exceptions and this movie was one of them! There are some scenes in the movie that might make you cry, some that might make you mad, and some that might even make you laugh. 3:10 to Yuma has a little something in it for everyone! I give this movie 4 stars!

Below I have listed background info for the movie (and a trailer - provided by youtube.com).

Plot (provided by none other than imbd.com):

"Rancher Dan Evans heads into Bisbee to clear up issues concerning the sake of his land when he witnesses the closing events of a stagecoach robbery led by famed outlaw Ben Wade. Shortly thereafter, Wade is captured by the law in Bisbee and Evans finds himself one of the escorts who will take Wade to the 3:10 to Yuma train in Contention for the reward of $200. Evans's effort to take Wade to the station is in part an effort to save his land but also part of an inner battle to determine whether he can be more than just a naive rancher in the eyes of his impetuous and gunslinging son William Evans. The transport to Contention is hazardous and filled with ambushes by Indians, pursuits by Wade's vengeful gang and Wade's own conniving and surreptitious demeanor that makes the ride all the more intense." Written by: commanderblue

MPAA Rating: R (for violence and some language)

Genre: Western, Crime, Drama

Starring: Russell Crowe and Christian Bale, also featuring: Peter Fonda, Ben Foster, and Alan Tudyk

3:10 to Yuma is a movie directed by James Mangold that was released last year as a remake of the 1957 film by Delmer Daves and is based on the short story by Elmore Leonard. It's awesome, to put it simply. It has some great actors in it: Russell Crowe, Christian Bale (mmm, sounds good already), Alan Tudyk (Firefly's Wash!), Peter Fonda ... Plus, remember the guy who played Warren Worthington III/Angel from X-men 3? Ben Foster? He's in it, and does a damn good job, too. I had only seen Foster in X-men 3, where Angel was a minor and timid character; Foster's character in 3:10 is such a complete, dramatic reversal that I didn't realize it was him at first. Kevin Durand's in it, too (above left---the actor who will portray the Blob in X-men Origins: Wolverine.

Besides the well-chosen cast, 3:10 to Yuma is friggin' brilliant in itself. It's definitely not your typical western, however, and the story even broaches that point indirectly---but the film is better for it. The musical score is amazing, as well (particularly "The 3:10 to Yuma" and "Bible Study"). If you haven't seen it, it's definitely a must-watch.

WARNING: SPOILERS

Christian Bale is Daniel Evans, a rancher who lost part of his leg in battle while defending the capital in the Civil War. Evans, one of the best shots in his regime, has lost the respect of his family and is losing his land to Glen Hollander, who wants to sell his land to make way for the railroad. The romance in his marriage has died, and while his youngest son Mark still adores his father, William---who is about fourteen-years-old---is disgusted with his father's inability to take care of his family and stand up for what is right. Desperate to regain his dignity and his family's belief in him, Evans volunteers to help escort fugitive and outlaw Ben Wade (Russell Crowe) to Contention, where he was board the 3:10 train to Yuma prison in order to be tried and sentenced. "No one can think less of me," Evans tells his wife dejectedly when she attempts to dissuade him from leaving with Wade, a dangerous killer, whom she thinks Dan can't handle. "I'm tired, Alice. I'm tired of watching my boys go hungry. I'm tired of the way that they look at me. I'm tired of the way that you don't." It is later revealed that Mark was diagnosed with tuberculosis when he was two, and to survive he must reside in a dry climate. Unless Daniel can repay his debts to Hollander (accompanying Wade to the train will earn him $200), he and his family will be forced to move.

(L to R) Doc Potter, Dan Evans, Ben Wade, Byron McElroy, & Grayson Butterfield

With the aid of Doctor Potter (Alan Tudyk), Byron McElroy (Peter Fonda), Frayson Butterfield (Dallas Roberts), and Tucker (Kevin Durand), Evans sets off with the prisoner on horseback for Contention after they successfully trick Wade's gang into thinking he is being held in a coach headed in the opposite direction. By the time Wade's outfit realizes it is not Ben in the coach, Ben's right-hand man, Charlie Prince (Ben Foster), leads the crew in search of their boss.

The film starts off with action in mere minutes, and although the film is not by any means slow-paced, it does move into full-fledged, western-style action satisfyingly quickly. However, although the story itself is interesting, the characters are arguably more so. Moreover, themes such as loyalty, justice, God, and heroism are present throughout 3:10, but not stereotypically.

William (Logan Lerman) and his father

William, though forbidden by his father to join them, follows the group and soon his presence is revealed. In many ways William is a representation of what his father once was. Indeed, both men are moral, but due to the nature of Daniel's experiences in the war he is defeated and more reserved. His appearance---Dan wears a weathered hat and has a wooden leg that gives him a limp---reflects his fallen state. Unlike William's fiery (and consequently naïve) spirit and headstrong attitude, Daniel would rather submit passively then take decisive action and risk losing what little he has left. Also, William asks why his father won't just shoot Hollander; later, Daniel mentions that shooting an animal is a lot different than shooting a man. Daniel might have less hope than he used to---he tells his wife, Alice, "I've been standin' on one leg for three damn years waiting for God to do me a favor ... and he ain't listenin'"---but William serves as a reminder for Daniel, who decides to accompany Wade and the others to Contention, of what a man is supposed to be, and he soon realizes his eldest son's strength. The more time Daniel spends with his son, the more he regains of the person he used to be.

William, who in the beginning of the film has no faith in his father anymore, fantasizes about a life of excitement, action, and heroism. In the first scene of the movie William is looking at a pulper titled "The Deadly Outlaw," and when he meets renegade Ben Wade face-to-face, he is in awe of him, an awe that soon grows into admiration. Shirking his responsibilities and the life he has now for one like Wade's is tempting for him, and when William confronts Wade near the end of the play, William tells Ben he believes he is "not all bad," supporting his statement with shaky justification. However, Ben destroys William's idolization of him, and William realizes that his true hero is his father.

The Deadly Outlaw, Ben Wade

But Daniel is not a hero; he admits this to Ben at Contention when they are waiting for the train. There is a rather interesting parallel between Dan and Ben (interesting similarity in name structure, too), for there is a darker side to Daniel that appeals to Wade. Indeed, Wade draws three things throughout the movie: a bird, a beautiful woman, and lastly Daniel in the hotel. To him, Daniel is fascinating, and perhaps on some level they understand each other despite their differences---or, at least, they are surprised by what find they share in common viscerally. At the end of the film, Daniel reveals how he lost his leg ("you try telling that story to your boy and see how he looks at you"), but instead of killing him and fleeing, Wade agrees to board the train to Yuma prison, where he's been and escaped from twice already. Wade realizes that Dan didn't come along because of moral reasons, as he previously said; while he wants the reward money to protect his family and save their land, the simple truth is that Dan needs to regain his dignity and his family's respect.

Even after Dan is shot and killed by Charlie in the final scene and Ben has the opportunity to escape, he gets on the train anyway. Previously, when defending his reasons for being the only man left willing to see Wade to the 3:10 train, Daniel asks William what the others gave their lives for ("Little red ants on a hill," Ben points out). Yet knowing that he can escape from Yuma prison again (he calls his horse to ride beside the train for that purpose), Ben endures the train ride so that Daniel's death is not in vain. Symbolically, he is confirming Daniel's dignity and his masculinity---in other words, his ability to gets things done and protect his family. Justice is only a cover; while the film has no happy ending, it is not necessary that it does. To think so would be missing the point.

Loyalty is also disregarded. It is ironic that Charlie Prince, who was loyal to Ben possibly to the point of homosexual desire ("I will wait for you"), was killed by the one person he fought so hard to save. "Maybe you forgot what he done for us," he tells one of the gang members, who muttered that it was Ben's own fault for getting caught and that he could probably do a better job leading the outfit. What is more, after Daniel's demise Ben shoots all other surviving members of his crew out of revenge.

Charlie Prince(ss), played by Ben Foster, hates possies.

It is not clear, however, why at the end of the movie, as William kneels beside his father's body and calls his father's name gently, he then rises with his gun pointed at Wade. Perhaps Daniel told him to, having just learned that Ben will only break out of prison again and inevitably cause more death and destruction, and did not want to carry that knowledge and guilt to the grave. Still, Dan looked pretty fucked up and I doubt he was able to say anything---and you'd think, if he could, "Kill him" would not be his last words to his son. Maybe William turned his gun on Wade because he blamed him for his father's death and, wanting revenge on anyone remotely linked to his murder, Ben was the only one available at that moment to eat the bullet. Wade turns to face William, but realizing that Wade did not kill his father and actually avenged him, he lets him get away. To the shock of William and especially Butterfield, for neither of them had been privy to Ben and Dan's previous discussion, Ben calmly boards the train.

Interestingly, the concept of God plays a unique role in 3:10 to Yuma. In the film, God is given no credit or praise by any of the main characters. Indeed, Dan confessed that he had been wasting time waiting on God to help him if only he continued to lead a moral, patient life. William, while not referencing God in the movie, might feel likewise, as his policy seems to be the old saying, "If you want something done right, do it yourself." To Wade, God is symbolic of a curse. He tells Dan the story about being abandoned by his mother at a train station. She had given him the Bible to read (which explains why such an immoral man is able to justify his actions and beliefs with biblical quotes), which he says he read "cover to cover" over the course of three days. His mother, on the other hand, never came back for him. Early in the film, Ben warns Tucker to be careful with his gun because it is cursed; ironically, Tucker ends up dead. When Charlie returns Ben's black gun to him after shooting Daniel, we see it up close before Ben murders Charlie and the rest of his crew with it: There is a gold crucifix on the handle. In fact, his gun is named "The Hand of God." His gun (black like a Bible's cover and bearing a gold crucifix), represents God for him. Blasphemous? Hell yes. But it is not to Ben---it simply is. It's his truth; it's what he knows.

The film ends with the train pulling away, leaving us with no idea what might follow. Based on the information given to us, William will return home with Butterfield to his mother and younger brother and the ranch and land will remain theirs, as will the generous amount of money (more than $1000) Butterfield promised Daniel. Their lives will be easier and better thanks to Daniel's sacrifice. Nevertheless, what lies in the future for Ben Wade is uncertain. Does killing his entire outfit and boarding the train mean he is going to lead a different life (although whistling for his horse suggests he has no intention of staying in prison)? After all, he mentioned to Daniel on the way to Contention that he doesn't bother doing anything good because once a man does a moral deed, Ben "imagines it becomes habit for him."

| |

synopsis:

D'habitude je ne suis pas fan de remake, mais là je dois avouer que ça frôle le génie, Mangold rajeunie le western lui redonne ses lettres de noblesse, on arrive au niveau d'un film comme impitoyable et genre vraiment laissé à l'abandon depuis presque 10 ans maintenant.
Le cinémascope, quasi obligatoire pour les westerns rend les vertes vallées et les déserts américain incroyablement beaux, la poussière est de ce fait vraiment palpable, les fusillades, inhérent au genre sont vraiment très bien maitrisées, et chaque balles provoque un impact, de même, la fatigue et la presiion sur les acteurs est saisissante car le film à été tourné en à peine 54 jours, un véritable record.
Alors que Christian Bale habite comme à son habitude le personnage qu'il interprète et que Russel Crow campe à merveille le tueur et voleur Ben Wade, c'est je pense Ben Foster, qui crève le plus l'écran, il éclipse complètement les deux autres à chacune de ses apparitions, son regard fait réellement peur.

PS: Mangold déjà fan de l'original, avait déjà réalisé le remake mais caché en la forme du très bon film policier Copland avec Stallone.

Word has it that James Mangold is scheduled to direct a sci/fi film called Cyclops, which is based on the graphic novel of the same name. While Mangnold has dabbled with sci/fi briefly in Kate and Leopold, this will be his first true sci/fi film.

Needless to say, I'm looking forward to what James Mangold has to offer us. His films are sometimes hit and miss, but he's turned in some great films in the last few years.

Source: Firstshowing.net

POSITIVE ACTIONS      

 Director: James Mangold
- $2 million
- With Letter of intent that Plainview Productions will acquire two name 
stars and have a budget between $20-30 million for “Good Book”.     

- October shoot date 
- cost of contract 10% of the budget ($200K-$300K)
- Justification: Director of Walk the Line (2005), 3:10 to Yuma (2007), 
Copland (1997). Smart Writer-Director with critical and commercial 
success in the crime and action genres.      

 Lujack: Colin Farrell
- $2 million for six weeks plus 5% of gross in North America
- October shoot date
- Justification: Star of Miami Vice (2006), The New World (2005) and 
The Recruit (2004). Has respect of top directors like Terrence Malick, 
Woody Allen and Michael Mann. Not one of the top bankable stars in 
US or Europe, but he is still very well-know and appealing and some 
of his films have been very successful commercially.       

 Tommy Chin: Andy Lau
- Salary: $ 1 million
- Justification: Star of Infernal Affairs (2002) and House of Flying 
Daggers (2004). Adequately known in America with a #1 box success 
for “Daggers”. Beside North American, he’s one of the top bankable 
stars in Hong Kong. Can easily pre-sell theatrical distribution rights to Asia.        

 Cinematographer: Michael Ballhaus A.S.C.
- Salary: $200,000
- Justification: Worked on six Scorsese films, including Goodfellas (1990), 
The Age of Innocence (1993) and The Departed (2006).
 

 
NEGATIVE ACTIONS 
- Failed to sign cinematographer, Eduardo Serra A.S.C. – Blood Diamond 
(2006), Girl with a Pearl  with a Pearl Earring (2003).

3:10 to Yuma, directed by James Mangold, USA, 2007. Review by Julian on 2/17/08.

People tend to belabor the point, so I’ll just say what all of us already know: remakes suck.  For every Fistful of Dollars or Ocean’s Eleven there’s about twenty Psycho’s or Italian Job’s.  But re-making 3:10 to Yuma, a stoic western that not too many people remember…that can’t be too bad, right?

Nah. It’s still pretty bad.  Like most recent remakes, this 2007 retread of the Delmer Daves original introduces a lot but adds nothing.  Utilizing thirty additional minutes of runtime, director James Mangold (who also put together the equally-overlong and often pointless Walk the Line) meanders through various subplots and narrative convolutions that ultimately detract from the central conceit.  The film’s screenwriters throw in some impetuous kids, give the villain a bible to thump, and lengthen the second act so that some minor characters can fall victim to the old pick ‘em off. I guess they felt they had to pad things out to earn their pay, because all of the key scenes from the original have been lifted wholesale. Unfortunately, everything they’ve added is tedious at best, with Mangold’s uninspired direction making most of the film an artless chore.

The concept is very simple: Dan Evans (Christian Bale), a down on his luck farmer, is drawn into escorting notorious outlaw Ben Wade (Russell Crowe) to the 3:10 prison train to Yuma in exchange for the reward money.  This version clogs things up by giving Evans a Civil War injury and a rebellious son, but it’s supposed to be all about the dynamic between Evans and Wade, two tough men with more in common than they’d like to admit. The original starred Van Heflin and Glenn Ford, two black holes of charisma who somehow made their utter inability to express themselves a notable asset.

In this version, however, we get Bale and Crowe, two mismatched actors whose incompatible styles result in a distinct lack of chemistry. Bale emotes just fine, and certainly looks gritty enough, but it gets painful to watch himself repeatedly throw himself against the brick wall that is Crowe.  I’ve defended Crowe in the past, but his performance here is abjectly terrible. Instead of bringing anything to the character, he just walks around for two hours with a smug expression that seems to say, “I’m a big star. Yeah…I’m pretty cool.” This may be the worst leading performance in a major movie this year. I mean, when you make Glenn Ford look like a nuanced character actor, it’s time to seriously reevaluate.

Things are redeemed ever so slightly by Ben Foster, who as Wade’s number one man is as cool as ever. If you don’t recognize Foster’s name yet, be sure that it’s only a matter of time.  He brings something unique to every performance, be it a cockeyed glance, an unusual dialect, or just an odd way of carrying himself. Keep an eye out for him, as he’s likely to steal every film he’s in.

Especially when they’re as boring as this one. Any time I check out a new rendition of something – be it a song, a mythic narrative, a film—I’m looking for a change. It doesn’t have to be objectively better, just solid and different enough to justify the effort. Well, aside from being a half hour longer, the new 3:10 to Yuma features weaker performances and direction, a bloated plot that undercuts the key dynamic, and a brief cameo by Luke Wilson. Luke Wilson? I thought this movie was trying not to suck?

Rating: 2 screens out of 5

É tão bom sentar pra assistir um filme redondo, desses que tem todos os elementos de um filme atraente o suficiente para te fazer esquecer que há duas horas você deixou pra trás todas as outras coisas importantes que tinha pra fazer.

E a culpa disso pode ser dividida entre muitos, mas especialmente ao carisma do personagem Ben Wade, interpretado por Russel Crowe: Aquele tipo durão-de-velho-oeste que mata com a mesma facilidade de quem usa os pulmões pra respirar sem nunca ter pedido ajuda pra descobrir como se faz. “Até os homens maus amam suas mães” (ou alguma coisa assim) é uma de suas falas ao ver um velhaco xingando sua mãezinha. Ele não só é um bandido procurado como famoso pela audácia dos crimes que comete. Entre assaltos e assassinatos, ele ainda consegue liderar um bando formado por caras também durões. E o mais bacana deles – além do próprio Wade, é claro – chama-se Charlie Prince (Ben Foster), que nutre um grande respeito por seu ‘chefe’, ultrapassando alguns limites para defendê-lo. Esse personagem me fez desejar ter um irmão mais velho que fosse tão fiel a mim quanto ele ao seu boss.

À parte desses meus devaneios, Wade ‘se deixa capturar’ quando resolve dispersar o bando e seguir sozinho depois, para aproveitar a companhia de uma bela dama. Pego pelo dono da companhia de cargas cujo carregamento havia acabado de roubar, sua vida se cruza com a de outro homem, seu perfeito antagonista.

É aqui que entra na história o rancheiro Dan Evans (Christian Bale), que logo de início percebemos como figura fragilizada em várias questões: seu rancho passa por um incêndio criminoso por conta de uma dívida que possui com o dono da companhia assaltada pelo bando de Wade, o senhor Grayson Butterfield (Dallas Robert). Desacreditado pela mulher e os filhos, o rancheiro se envolve na escolta do famoso ladrão ao trem que o levará para prisão de Yuma em troca de uma recompensa, o que amenizaria um pouco seus problemas. Um homem visivelmente desesperado apostando seu caráter e a própria vida, e não apenas por dinheiro, mas também para reconquistar um pouco de sua honra. Sofrendo também pela perda parcial de um dos pés e vendo sua família passar por uma série de humilhações, esta é a chance de Evans honrar-se a si e aos seus.

Toda a ação se desenrola no caminho entre as cidades de Bisbee e Contention, onde a principal questão é pôr Ben Wade no trem das 3:10 para Yuma. Nesse trajeto seguem além do fora-da-lei e do rancheiro, Butterfield, McElroy, um velho malandrão do oeste que ficou gravemente ferido na última investida criminosa de Wade, e o doutor Potter, um homem entre veterinário e médico.

O criminoso segue provocando a todos e em algum momento percebe qual o real motivo para Evans estar ali, e de um jeito um tanto estranho ambos acabam tornando-se companheiros. Para complicar ainda mais as coisas, o bando de Wade segue liderado por Foster e decidido a impedir a ida do chefe para a prisão.

A meia hora final é tão empolgante que é impossível não ficar dividido entre torcer para que Evans cumpra a missão de mandar Ben para prisão tanto quanto para que o bandido escape com um enorme sorriso no rosto.

A direção é de James Mangold (o mesmo de Garota Interrompida e Johnny e June) e acredite ou não, apesar de vários clássicos sobre a honra e as diretrizes que regem o velho oeste já terem sido produzidos, este Os Indomáveis tem todos os ingredientes de uma das histórias vividas por Tom Mix, e é saboroso: unindo alguns personagens cativantes, algumas boas atuações, o charme de Russel Crowe e Ben Foster e a direção inspirada de Mangold.

Pode ver, porque eu não to mentindo. Vale cada cruzada de dedos, cada torcida por um e por outro personagem.

Rated R. Out on DVD. Directed by James Mangold, based on an Elmore Leonard short story. Starring Russell Crowe, Christian Bale, Ben Foster & Peter Fonda.

.

In the year of the Westerns that weren't really Westerns (No Country for Old Men, The Assassination of Jesse James, There Will Be Blood), 3:10 to Yuma, a remake of a 1957 film, was a throwback to the old-time Westerns, and while it did not have the same aspirations as the other films, it is as entertaining a film as any that came out in 2007. With solid performances from its two leads, a standout supporting performance and a couple of great shootout scenes, it is almost as good as a standard Hollywood movie could be.

The plot is pretty straightforward -- a struggling rancher Dan Evans (Christian Bale), wounded in the Civil War, crosses paths with outlaw Ben Wade (Russell Crowe), a notorious train robber that Evans' own son idolizes based on dime-store books he's read throughout his childhood. When Wade is apprehended (and you think, if Ben Wade is such a legendary criminal, then he has to be smart enough to not get caught, but by the end it gets explained), Bale volunteers to join a posse headed by a Pinkerton (Peter Fonda) to escort Wade to a train, the 3:10 to Yuma, which will bring him to prison. The catch is that Wade's gang, led by his right-hand man Charlie Prince (Ben Foster) is still out there, determined to kill anyone in order to free their leader.

The performance to remember from the movie is Foster's, as an unhinged, psychopathic killer with an undying sense of loyalty, for which he absolutely deserved an Oscar nomination. There are online discussions of whether or not Foster's character is a closeted homosexual, which I did not pick up on at all, but decide for yourself. Bale is in fine form, as always, showing the weariness of his character and his desperate desire for his son to look at him the way he looks at Wade. As Wade, Crowe is often awesome, but you never quite get the impression that he's as bad a guy as his reputation would suggest. You look at Crowe, and you think, "he can't be THAT bad a guy" -- so while he's a total badass, we know that somewhere down there he has a heart, which sort of takes away some of the suspense.

Another issue is a pretty distracting cameo part way through the movie, and I could not stand Evans' son, the stereotypical annoying, rebellious teenager. You understand quickly that the son doesn't respect his weak, crippled father, but the movie beats that over your head in case you couldn't pick it up on your own. Overall, though, 3:10 to Yuma was one of the better movies of the year, a strong, entertaining popcorn flick through-and-through.

Grade: B+

.

Subscribe to my blog, using the RSS feed or subscribe via e-mail using FeedBlitz or RSSFWD.

.

<<HOME

Before I start talking about 3:10 to Yuma, a little disclaimer: I was never a Western fan. I never watched the classics and am not that interested to do so in the future. Therefore, I might lack a little understanding for the genre and the cultere within. But the ending just left me puzzled.
(Warning, spoiler ahead!)
Why the hell did Ben Wade (Russell Crowe) help Dan Evans (Christian Bale) in the end? I mean, you are in the middle of strangling someone then he tells you he's never been a hero but can't let his kids know and suddenly you stop and make him a hero? That just doesn't really make sense to me.
(Spoiler end.)
Maybe, apart from a lack of understanding for Westerns, I also have a severe lack of testosterone to understand them anyway.
K., who has a profound education in Spaghetti-Westerns, told me that it cited a lot of movies (like exploding horses and the such). Therefore, it gets a little more credit but altogether there was too much "huh?" for me.
Things I enjoyed about it: Well, watching Christian Bale (looks and talent) and Russell Crowe (looks and I know there is some talent buried deep down somewhere) is always a treat. Luke Wilson's brief appearance (not necessarily because of him but because of the whole scene). Doc Potter (Alan Tudyk's character). Ben Foster's acting (seriously, this guy knows how to act. 10 minutes in the movie and I already thought: Psycho! Judging from his performance in X-Men: The Last Stand I wouldn't have thought that possible).
Interesting: Neither Christian Bale nor Russell Crowe are Americans (CB: somewhere in Wales and Russell Crowe: Wellington [New Zealand, damn, I thought he was from Australia... It's probably good, he'll never read this blog...]).
The whole thing is based on a short story by Elmore Leonard who I thought I didn't know and K. mistook for some other writer. A little research shows: not only have I seen movies which were written by him or based on one of his novels (Get Shorty, Jackie Brown, Out of Sight) but I actually have a book by him (Mr. Paradise). I can only excuse this by blaming, first, the size of my private library and second, the fact that I haven't read it yet and third, that I am a bad human being.

I'm sorry that this isn't very coherent but there are really many things worth noting in this film and it's one of those which get better the more you think about it. I really enjoyed everything up to the ending, I think it was beautifully done (but James Mangold already proved himself before so that was no suprise) and well played. It didn't shrink from the violence nor did they have to show everything in all gory details. But I'm no Western fan and this film won't change my mind. Maybe I will understand the ending someday but until then I'm afraid it's number three of worst Christian Bale movies (Number 2 being Reign of Fire and Number 1: American Psycho [so much potential - great book, great actor - just going to waste]). I'd only recommend it to male Western fans.

Of course, genius does not come easy and it is unwise to expect it from 2nd rate Hollywood directors like Mangold. Christian Bale and Russell Crowe are clearly geniuses. Bale plays the role of Dan Evans, a struggling rancher with both shocking intensity and genuine warmth. Crowe plays Ben Wade, the notoriously successful criminal that Dan Evans must escort to the 3:10 train to Yuma prison to save his ranch and his family. Crowe is magnificent as he hints at a man who understands humanity perfectly, playing those around him perfectly to get what he wants, while being detached from petty human morals and values. Crowe's performance, along with Daniel Day Lewis' turn as Daniel Plainview in There Will Be Blood, combined with Ian McShane's brilliant Al Swearengen in HBO's Deadwood have created a new, thoroughly enthralling archetype, the brutal yet incredibly intelligent capitalistic Western anti hero.

Crowe and Bale dig into weightier themes than the rest of this movie has the audacity to tackle. Bale plays a man torn apart by the demands of society/morality and his love for his family/his simple way of life. Crowe's Ben Wade is an almost god like figure, forever untouchable by mortals and law enforcement in particular, killing Indians, Pinkertons and as the audience discovers, whoever he damn well pleases with startling ease. He delivers Biblical proverbs and has a pistol called the hand of god, symbols that one should not miss. Crowe forges a tentative bond with Bale's Evans, taking pity on a desperate man, recognizing that they are both shaped by pasts they're trying to escape. It is nearly impossible not to see that this is very good acting.

Now that I have heaped much deserved praise on Bale and Crowe, I must now point out what separates this merely good movie from being a great movie. First, the supporting cast is just north of mediocre. I love Alan Tudyk just as much, if not more than the next guy. I adored his charm in both Firefly and Knocked Up. Casting him as a supposedly heartbreakingly earnest Doctor, however, was a terrible decision as Tudyk botches the one scene in the movie where he is required to actually act. Every single time Tudyk opens his mouth and attempts to inhabit a character so clearly wrong for him, one cannot help but wish Philip Seymour Hoffman was given the part.

The soundtrack is mediocre and serviceable. It simply lacks the inspiration of the classic soundtracks of the spaghetti western era. 3:10 to Yuma's final, fatal flaw is the mise en scene or lack thereof. James Mangold is like the soundtrack, mediocre and serviceable. I could not help but wish Robert Zemeckis was given the reins to 3:10 to Yuma along with the Assassination of Jesse James. In fact, Mangold is probably the only thing stopping 3:10 to Yuma from riding on the bravura acting by Crowe and Bale to greatness.

Mangold's cinematography expresses neither the haunting freedom nor the seething brutality of the west. It seems almost as if Crowe and Bale were told they were making a great movie and Mangold showed up to film a forgettable action movie, focused more on guns than characterization. I have nothing against Mangold personally. He helmed Walk the Line well enough and knew how to use Joaquin Phoenix's Oscar winning performance to create the definitive portrait of Johnny Cash's life. Still, as a lover of film, it upsets me that the great movie hidden inside 3:10 to Yuma must be buried by a merely mediocre director, poor supporting actors and an entirely forgettable soundtrack.

Onwards to totally unrelated notes. It is okay to package a great movie inside the guise of a typical western but when the guise becomes the movie itself, failure results. Next up is We Own the Night once it hits DVDs because it too, attempts to make a great movie wrapped in genre conventions. Is Christian Bale the next Russell Crowe? It sure seems like it, they've both managed the near impossible balance of the artistic versus the commercial. I really would recommend this film though, I'm sure the average viewer will not mind the lack of auteurism and just enjoy the damn thing.

-Vman

(originally written on September 9, 2007)

Para baixar o poster original em alta resolução, basta clicar na imagem acima.

[vodpod id=ExternalVideo.448555&w=425&h=350&fv=] from www.310toyumathefilm posted with vodpod

Det er snart fire uker siden jeg så 3:10 to Yuma (ordinær kinopremere førstkommende fredag), og selv om jeg husker at de to timene i kinosalen var hyggelige, så har jeg tenkt bemerkelsesverdig lite på den i ettertid. Filmen er omtrent kjemisk fri for virkelig minneverdige øyeblikk. Det er solid håndverk, men vil aldri bli noen klassiker.

Filmen er derimot basert på en klassiker. En westernfilm med samme tittel fra 1957 basert på noe Elmore Leonard har skrevet. Men den har jeg ikke sett og skal derfor ikke dvele mer med det.

Min fremste motivasjon for å oppsøke 3:10 to Yuma var James Mangold; regissøren som stod bak den "urbane westernfilmen" Cop Land fra 1997 (en av det tiårets mest undervurderte filmer) og det stødige Johnny Cash-portrettet Walk the Line i 2005.

Handlingen er veldig grei: Christian Bale spiller den fattige rancheieren og familiefaren Dan Evans som med 200 dollar i belønning melder seg som frivillig til et høyrisikabelt oppdrag i den ville vesten: å frakte den farlige banditten Ben Wade (Russell Crowe) til en togstasjonen som skal frakte ham til fengslet i Yuma. Avgang er klokka ti over tre.

Selv om Dan Evans ikke er alene på turen, er det ingen hemmelighet at Ben Wade og hans gjeng ønsker å sette kjepper i hjulene for transporten. Ergo blir det en god dose kruttrøyk i det som utvikler seg til en ganske klassisk western.

Christian Bale og Russell Crowe gjør sine roller stødig uten å anstrenge seg veldig, mens Ben Foster er effektiv som karikert bad-guy og Peter Fonda skaper en fornøyelig birolle ut av veldig lite. Men det er den enkle historien, det gode mot det onde, i en film med snevert fokus og klar fremdrift som er underholdningsverdien. At filmen er en smule pregløs er både dens svakhet og styrke. Dette virker å være et verk av en regissør som vet hva han driver med. Innenfor de rammene er 3:10 to Yuma perfefkt, og komplementerer dessuten The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford for et kinopublikum sultefôret på kvalitet-western i klassisk format. Men i motsetning til sistnevnte, er jeg redd 3:10 to Yuma ikke er den typen film man vil snakke om i klassikervendinger om ti år.

Vurdering:

En una tierra sin Ley, de hombres rudos y sin corazón, el código que rige sus vidas es el mismo que rige su muerte. Esta frase resume el argumento de 3:10 to Yuma (conocida en Chile como "3:10 a Yuma" y algunos otros países como "Aquél Tren a Yuma"), la cual nos transporta al no-tan-viejo oeste, ya que en la línea cronológica esta película se centra en los años posteriores a la Guerra Civil estadounidense (o Guerra de Secesión), es decir después de 1865. Jamás me llamaron la atención las historias de western y mi única aproximación a ellas era algunas tardes de cine en que veía a mi abuelo disfrutar de dichas películas. Esta cinta, dirigida por James Mangold y protagonizada por Christian Bale y Russell Crowe, se lleva el premio al primer western que disfruto completamente y que perfectamente podría revirir un género muerto hace varias décadas.

Dan Evans (Christian Bale) es un granjero de Arizona, aproblemado por las deudas y la enfermedad de su hijo menor, es por eso que, por US$200, decide sumarse a la patrulla de hombres valientes que llevarán al peligroso criminal Ben Wade (Russell Crowe) a la estación de trenes del pueblo de Contention para subirlo al ferrocarril de las 3:10 hacia Yuma, donde será encarcelado, juzgado y seguramente colgado. Sin embargo, la tarea no es fácil ya que la banda de Wade sigue suelta y busca desesperadamente a su jefe, ahora bajo el líderazgo del despiadado Charlie Prince (Ben Foster) quien no descansará hasta lograr su liberación. Comandados por el legendario Byron McElroy, interpretado por el también legendario Peter Fonda, la banda que incluye además a Doc Potter (Alan Tudyk), Grayson Butterfield (Dallas Roberts), Tucker (Kevin Durand) y William hijo de Dan (Logan Lerman), tendrán que cruzar el peligroso territorio apache en el desierto para llegar al también peligroso pueblo de Contention, donde esperan que no se retrase el 3:10 a Yuma.

Christian Bale es uno de mis actores favoritos (principalmente debido a su interpretación en Batman Begins), sin embargo, he visto su evolución desde la perturbadoramente fantástica American Psycho, pasando por la no menos perturbadora El Maquinista, en la cual puede verse fisicamente su compromiso como actor, también en la entretenida The Prestige, así como la no tan amena (para mi al menos) Rescue Dawn (me queda aún pendiente Harsh Times). Bale entrega mucho en sus interpretaciones y su estilo, que de una u otra forma demuestra la debilidad humana (incluso cuando se pone el traje de el Caballero Oscuro). En esta oportunidad la motivación visible de Evans, su personaje,  es la de obtener el dinero necesario para evitar tener mayores problemas con su rancho y poder darle así un mejor futuro a su familia, pero también existe una motivación igualmente importante que queda al descubierto cuando se confiesa con Wade, el personaje de Crowe, al relatar lo importante que es para él convertirse en un modelo a seguir para su hijo mayor y que este se sienta orgulloso de su padre.

Por otro lado Russell Crowe vuelve a las películas de acción que lo hicieron popular hace años, tras la olvidable A Good Year. Los actores muchas veces repiten parte de sus interpretaciones pasadas, lo cual es un defecto profesional practicamente inevitable, pero que en algunos casos se entiende y sirve de apoyo al rol que se encuentran personificando. Ben Wade es un criminal, de los malos muy malos, lo cual queda claro desde el inicio de la película, sin embargo, también queda claro que Wade comparte lo que los protagonistas de Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World, A Beautiful Mind y Gladiator, tienen ángel y de sobra. Las motivaciones de Wade son simples, pero su personalidad es compleja y queda al descubierto en las últimas escenas, sumando además la confesión que le realiza a Evans durante el "minuto de confianza" que compartieron en la estación de Contention.

Crowe y Bale entregan mucho en sus interpretaciones de personajes diametralmente opuestos, pero complementarios a la vez. Somos testigos de una relación distante durante prácticamente toda la película, a ratos tan distante que me hizo preguntarme si esa pareja tiene química, sin embargo, por un par de segundos somos también testigos de un momento complice, de un pestañeo que nos muestra como sería el mundo si estos dos tipos rudos, curtidos por la vida, fuesen verdaderos amigos. Sin duda serían los mejores amigos. La moral de uno, frente a la simpatía del otro, la valentía de uno frente a la seguridad del otro. Son complementarios, en todo momento, y no se entendería un Evans sin un Wade, como un Wade sin un Evans. Las otras interpretaciones están también magníficas. Partiendo por el notable Peter Fonda, siguiendo con el soberbio Dallas Roberts y hasta el joven Logan Lerman. Este remake del film homónimo de 1957, es sin duda una de las buenas películas del año que se acaba y vale la pena verlo.

Con esta reseña me despido hasta el 2008, un año que espero nos traiga más y mejores filmes. ¡Felicidades a tod@s!

FICHA TÉCNICA
Nombre: 3:10 to Yuma
Año: 2007
Duración: 117 minutos
Dirigida por: James Mangold
Escrita por: Halsted Welles y Michael Brandt
Producida por: Relativity Media y Tree Line Films

TRAILER