3:10 to Yuma
When I first heard about 3:10 to Yuma I was intrigued. The idea of a classic style western, remade by a good director (James Mangold) had a lot of potential. Maybe my expectations were too high, but I was underwhelmed. This movie falls into the good but not great category. It relies far too heavily on western cliches such as the steely-eyed gunfighter who carries two guns and takes no prisoners (Ben Foster's character).
My main criticism of this movie is the plot. Having never seen the original, I can make no comments about any changes that were made to the story, but in my opinion they should have changed something in this remake. The dynamic between Christian Bale's rancher and Russell Crowe's outlaw would have been interesting enough without the constant annoyance of Bale's asshole son constantly showing him up. I also didn't like that throughout the whole movie we are told Bale was a sharpshooter in the army, however, I don't think he ever actually fires his rifle. Why bring up what a good shot he was if we never see him shoot anything? For the entire movie they emphasize how he has one leg and was a sharpshooter; then at the end of the movie all the action focuses on a one-legged rancher and an outlaw running around. Where is the scene where he takes out a couple of gang members from a distance? Good westerns, even mainstream examples, feature far more depth and creativity than this film. 3/5
Comments