3:10 to Yuma (2007)

Wow. Why is it that I don’t usually hear a thing about this film? It finally got released here and I went to see it with no expectation of any kind, only to spend one of the most enjoyable and exhilarating two hours in a cinema that I’ve had lately. James Mangold might not be the best director out there, but he sure knows how to keep an audience entertained, has covered many genres throughout his somewhat short career and always makes his actors deliver great to fantastic performances. This is his most cinematic and mature work to date that was sadly and largely overlooked by the awards circuits last year, only noticeably garnering two well-deserved Oscar nominations for Best Score and Best Sound and a SAG nod for Best Ensemble.

Dan Evans (Christian Bale) is a small-time rancher, who lost a leg in the Civil War and then got ruined by the drought and finds himself owing a large amount of money to one of the most powerful men in Bisbee. He has a wife and two children, the oldest of which has very little respect for him as he sees him as a coward and a failure. After witnessing a stagecoach robbery by the ruthless outlaw Ben Wade (Russell Crowe) and his subsequent capture, he joins a small group of men in an extremely perilous mission: taking Wade to the 3:10 to Yuma train in Contention, for a reward of $200 dollars. There’s at least three reasons why that is a suicidal mission: 1) Ben Wade: incredibly fast and cunning cold-blooded murder, whom Evans saw killing another man of his gang during the stagecoach robbery; 2) Ben Wade’s gang leaded by the total psycho Charlie Prince (Ben Foster) who weren’t captured and are sure to attempt saving their leader; and 3)Apaches: Evans’s party decides to talk a shortcut through Apache territory, who would welcome an opportunity to have revenge on white men.

The two main characters are extremely well-written and their arcs unfold in a subtle, effective way. We find that Evans, for example, is not only thinking about money but about his older son William (who follows the party for a while and jumps in to help at the perfect time, much to his father’s amazement) and how he sees him. Christian Bale brings this character to life with amazing pathos and restrained, subtle passion. One of his most understated and underrated performances to date; he would have been equally convincing with no dialogue at all, as he speaks tons with his intense, powerful gaze. The “transformation” he has before our (and the character’s) eyes is incredibly striking as he goes from a weak, feeble, defeated rancher to a strong, determined, fearless man. Ben Wade is an extremely complex character and Russell Crowe’s portrayal is so charismatic and nuanced that if you blink you might miss a glint in his eye or an imperceptible gesture that could shed light into his true nature. By being a cold-blooded murdered he earned his gang’s respect and the people’s fear, but there is a method to his “madness” and he has rules, however unfair and sadistic they might be. I think the film gives enough clues to discover his character, but reading through the Internet, I’ve found that many people weren’t convinced by his character arc and were therefore disappointed by the ending. However, I am convinced that at least half of them missed some of the details in the script, Mangold’s direction and Crowe’s performance that worked together to give the character unusual depth and believability. Perhaps more hints were needed to make it even clearer, but I myself loved the way it was done. Bale and Crowe’s chemistry is unmistakable and fascinating to watch. Two of my favourite actors working together, I do hope they repeat it!

Dan’s son, William, is immediately captivated and fascinated by Ben Wade and I was ready to hate him and dismiss him as the prototypical annoying, disrespectful, loathsome son when I found out that there was much more depth to his character and he is a vital part of the film. Logan Lerman does an adequate job of portraying him but his eyes were opened a bit too wide sometimes, giving him a satanic, slightly disturbing look. Aside from that, however, he does a good job. Ben Foster as Charlie Prince, the killing machine, was all right in a mostly one-note character, but I didn’t think he looked the part and therefore found him somewhat unconvincing. The rest of the cast is excellent: Dallas Roberts as Butterfield (the man with the money) and Alan Tudyk (the “doctor”) provide good comic relief; Peter Fonda is exhilarating as the rough, old-timer; and Gretchen Mol as Dan’s wife is lovely in a very limited role.

The cinematography and score are absolutely gorgeous but none would make my respective lineups in 2007 as they were both particularly strong categories last year. Flawlessly edited, the pacing of the film is definitely one of the strongest aspects of 3:10 to Yuma and one of the main reasons of why this film is so effective. Morally complex (there’s no good vs. bad guy simplistic logic here), often times I would find myself thinking about what I would do in those situations and if the right thing to do outweighs the more personal, selfish reasons or vice versa. In short, this is an excellent western boasting an incredibly rich screenplay, tightly directed and expertly acted which provides wonderful suspense, breathtaking action and moving, affecting drama (I even teared up in a couple of scenes). A compelling watch all the way through and highly recommended!

Personal rating: 9/10

The Dark Knight

So, I haven't updated in a while. But I've probably seen more films this month than any other in the year. Anyway, what follows isn't exactly a review, there are virtually no plot details (no spoilers either), but a collection of thoughts on the film. 

The Dark Knight is undoubtedly one of the most ambitious films to come out recently and this is both what makes it so great and what makes it fail. The film tries so hard to be taken seriously that if there weren't any fantastic costumes or over-the-top makeup this would be the crime film that has garnered such valid comparisons to films such as Scorsese's The Departed; and Mann's Heat. Nolan's vision strays from the campy Burton films and attempts to be as realistic as possible, but it's not one thing or the other, rather, it falls into an awkward middle, and this is the The Dark Knight's most glaring flaw. This problem stems from the screenplay, which is rich in characterization (especially when we consider it's a sequel to Batman Begins, which gave us enough insight into Bruce Wayne/Batman's character) and incredibly smart in terms of plot and story (although some suspension of disbelief is required, but isn't it always?), but the dialogues leave much to be desired. The film had a very uneven tone and couldn't avoid falling into those campy/cheesy moments every superhero movie has. While those moments feel natural in films like Spider-Man, here they stood out too much and simply didn't fit the atmosphere Nolan was attempting to create. This is why, in my opinion, some of dramatic scenes aren't as effective as they should have been. Moreover, the three storylines are very well-linked in terms of content (the two extremes Batman - Joker and the man in the middle, Two-Face) and in terms of screen time devoted to each one of them; however, the second half of the film felt incredibly rushed, a continuation of build-ups to moments of climax and anti-climax and then the film ends almost abruptly. 

Now onto the characters and performances: Christian Bale is one of my favourite actors, but he was a tad disappointing. Yes, his Batman voice is awful, but that's not it. Perhaps it's because four other members of the cast completely outshined him, or perhaps it's more related to the material he had to work with, but he wasn't entirely convincing this time around. It's a difficult role, nevertheless, not only given its duality but also the fact that Bruce Wayne, the rich playboy, is in fact a man pretending to be a rich playboy. In this, Bale succeeds, superficially looking blasé and also, when the situation requires it, having that glint in his eye, almost like a knowing wink to the audience, saying that there’s another man underneath all that pretence (the "double date" at the Restaurant comes to mind). 

Jim Gordon is probably the most human character in the film, and Oldman more than makes it justice. He gives Jim such humanity, a sense of justice and pathos, making him the most approachable character in the film. A very restrained, subtle turn from Mr. Oldman that looks like it'll be the most overlooked performance of the year, unfortunately.

Aaron Eckhart, another one with a character of dual nature (in the most literal sense!), is incredibly charismatic as the newly appointed D.A. and incredibly chilling (and devastatingly sympathetic) as Two-Face. The effectiveness of this character is one of the screenplay's strongest points. We spend so much time with Harvey Dent that seeing him become Two-Face is especially tortuous. Harvey Dent feels more like an idea than an actual human being, which makes his whole descent into madness all the more real and, yes..., human. He is the hero with a face that Gotham needed, morally righteous, ambitious, determined to the point of being stubborn;, a daredevil, even. However, he is a human and he can be broken. Enter Joker.

The Joker is such a primitive, extreme character, so devoid of any real humanity that to be able to portray him without him becoming a caricature is no small feat. Prove of that is Jack Nicholson's amusing, yet absurdly self-indulgent attempt in Burton's Batman. Heath Ledger's turn is, quite simply, astonishing. His performance is what his character becomes in the film, an unstoppable force. What he creates is so real, so natural, so fresh and exhilarating. He is brilliant in every aspect of the performance, from the mannerisms and physicality (the constant lip-licking, the eyes giving quick glances to the side, the chilling voice, the body-language, his slightly hunched posture), his body movements are so spontaneous, his sudden bursts of laughter and perfect comedic-timing, and then the depth he manages to give a character with no real "depth" at all. He is an agent of chaos, as he says, but he doesn't so much want to create chaos but to prove order wrong and Heath Ledger's performance embodies all of that. It was inspired casting, no doubt, but the results exceeded all expectations. Who knows how many more earth-shattering performances this man could have given?

The rest of the cast is uniformly great. Maggie Gyllenhaal creates the perfect balance in her character; she is sexy and feminine, yet strong. Her role is extremely underwritten and the material she has to work with is particularly poor, but she gives it her all and the results are very good. Tell me if you weren't moved by her final scenes! Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman are their usual charming selves, acting as Batman's conscience and voice of reason. 

The score is one of the best improvements from Batman Begins and now feels complete, although I still find it slightly underwhelming. The action scenes are poorly shot but entertaining nevertheless. In fact, the cinematography is not quite as striking as its predecessor. But just what makes this film so special? Is it deserving of the almost unanimous accolades it's receiving? For a film so dark in nature and so serious in tone (even the tagline refers to this) it can't get away from the cheesy dialogues and general over-the-topness and ends up slightly alienating the viewer. Nolan wants so much to transcend the original medium but falls short and even runs out of steam at the end. However, the two and a half hours fly in this highly entertaining film. The characters are very well-drawn, richly characterized and incredibly well-acted. The story (although much is left to the viewer's interpretation) is incredibly smart (also highly intricate) and deals with several themes, and at the core of the film there's the question: is it possible to be decent in a world full of corruption, and more importantly, for how long can one fight it and what does one have to give of theirself to do so?

Personal rating: 8/10