Monday, October 29, 2007
Saw IV
I was planning on doing another list-type review here with three other movies, but I got off on a little tangent with Saw IV, so I'll consolidate the others a little better when I get around to typing those up.
Saw IV
Director: Darren Lynn Bousman (this guy was a production assistant for Tara Reid for Van Wilder? Wow. That's embarrassing. I'd probably take that off my resume if I were him.)
Starring: Tobin Bell, Donnie Wahlberg, other people we've never heard of
The first one was innovative, but the rest of these films are getting out of control. Since I'd seen all the others, I considered myself too involved in the mythology to NOT finish out the series. This may have been a mistake on my part since I've heard rumors that they are signing directors for Saw VIII. That's right - we're set to see a new Saw installment hit theaters every Halloween until 2011 (at least). I should have stopped after the first one.
(Spoilers ahead.)
Saw II was like a bad episode of some MTV reality show: locking strangers in a house together, only it's Jigsaw's twists keeping things interesting instead of unmitigated sex and alcohol poisoning. The third one returned to a more story-oriented format, with more backstory on the key players while continuing the narrative. I think the fourth movie is more similar to the third movie than to any other in the series. Joe also pointed out something which I can't argue with: he said he's never seen a sequel that takes place at the same time as another sequel. "Ben, what the heck are you talking about?" you frantically ask. "Well reader, I shall tell you," I reply calmly. If you drew a timeline that represents time during the entire Saw franchise, it would look something like this:
(Copyright 2007, Ben Pearson)
This weird time realization (which is revealed at the very end of Saw IV) is sadly the coolest thing about this pretty average sequel. There are just too many characters getting involved for the audience to follow exactly what's happening and remember who's who. The protagonists are all white guys with dark hair in their mid-thirties, and at most points I was fighting to keep everyone in perspective. You almost have to go back and watch all of the movies before going to see each new installment, but who has time for that?
This whole discussion of the so-called "torture porn" genre is really starting to piss me off. I don't like the term, and I don't think the Saw films should be lumped in with those other films like the Hostel series, Wolf Creek, Turistas, Captivity, and The Devil's Rejects that critics throw into that category. I've never seen any of those movies, so I can't say anything positive or negative about them. But while torture is undoubtedly a feature, there's nothing pornographic about the Saw films (aside from the occasional rapist who meets his demise): they are all about retribution. That's why Jigsaw is such a great character - he's a serial killer who punishes people for taking their lives for granted. Creating a sympathetic killer is something the filmmakers should be rewarded for, not criticized - after all, "relatability to the audience" is one of the qualities that defines a great character. In a completely different take on the situation, it comes down to one simple concept: if you don't want to see it, don't pay to see it. No one is forcing anyone to watch these movies. I suspect we all get our enjoyment from different aspects of the films. I get mine from the sympathetic portrayal of Jigsaw and his developing backstory revealed in each subsequent movie. Others might get their enjoyment in a different part of the story, like dialogue, the unique traps, the interconnectedness of the characters, or what have you. Another point of view comes from Stephen King (not that I necessarily agree with him 100% here) who said, "sure [this type of movie] makes you uncomfortable, but good art should make you uncomfortable."
Like I said, I'm too invested to give up now, but I can only hope these movies will improve with time and not end up with Saw VIII: Jigsaw in Space. Honestly, I can't blame them for churning these things out every year. I'm pretty sure the first Saw was made for $1.5 million and made over $100 million worldwide. So from a moneymaking (and brand loyalty) standpoint, it's a sure thing for Lionsgate. Sadly, I think this franchise has a nasty case of Hootie and the Blowfish syndrome: the first one was great, and the rest we could all live without. We'll see if they prove me wrong in the upcoming years. Until next time...
Saw IV
Director: Darren Lynn Bousman (this guy was a production assistant for Tara Reid for Van Wilder? Wow. That's embarrassing. I'd probably take that off my resume if I were him.)
Starring: Tobin Bell, Donnie Wahlberg, other people we've never heard of
The first one was innovative, but the rest of these films are getting out of control. Since I'd seen all the others, I considered myself too involved in the mythology to NOT finish out the series. This may have been a mistake on my part since I've heard rumors that they are signing directors for Saw VIII. That's right - we're set to see a new Saw installment hit theaters every Halloween until 2011 (at least). I should have stopped after the first one.(Spoilers ahead.)
Saw II was like a bad episode of some MTV reality show: locking strangers in a house together, only it's Jigsaw's twists keeping things interesting instead of unmitigated sex and alcohol poisoning. The third one returned to a more story-oriented format, with more backstory on the key players while continuing the narrative. I think the fourth movie is more similar to the third movie than to any other in the series. Joe also pointed out something which I can't argue with: he said he's never seen a sequel that takes place at the same time as another sequel. "Ben, what the heck are you talking about?" you frantically ask. "Well reader, I shall tell you," I reply calmly. If you drew a timeline that represents time during the entire Saw franchise, it would look something like this:
(Copyright 2007, Ben Pearson)This weird time realization (which is revealed at the very end of Saw IV) is sadly the coolest thing about this pretty average sequel. There are just too many characters getting involved for the audience to follow exactly what's happening and remember who's who. The protagonists are all white guys with dark hair in their mid-thirties, and at most points I was fighting to keep everyone in perspective. You almost have to go back and watch all of the movies before going to see each new installment, but who has time for that?
This whole discussion of the so-called "torture porn" genre is really starting to piss me off. I don't like the term, and I don't think the Saw films should be lumped in with those other films like the Hostel series, Wolf Creek, Turistas, Captivity, and The Devil's Rejects that critics throw into that category. I've never seen any of those movies, so I can't say anything positive or negative about them. But while torture is undoubtedly a feature, there's nothing pornographic about the Saw films (aside from the occasional rapist who meets his demise): they are all about retribution. That's why Jigsaw is such a great character - he's a serial killer who punishes people for taking their lives for granted. Creating a sympathetic killer is something the filmmakers should be rewarded for, not criticized - after all, "relatability to the audience" is one of the qualities that defines a great character. In a completely different take on the situation, it comes down to one simple concept: if you don't want to see it, don't pay to see it. No one is forcing anyone to watch these movies. I suspect we all get our enjoyment from different aspects of the films. I get mine from the sympathetic portrayal of Jigsaw and his developing backstory revealed in each subsequent movie. Others might get their enjoyment in a different part of the story, like dialogue, the unique traps, the interconnectedness of the characters, or what have you. Another point of view comes from Stephen King (not that I necessarily agree with him 100% here) who said, "sure [this type of movie] makes you uncomfortable, but good art should make you uncomfortable."
Like I said, I'm too invested to give up now, but I can only hope these movies will improve with time and not end up with Saw VIII: Jigsaw in Space. Honestly, I can't blame them for churning these things out every year. I'm pretty sure the first Saw was made for $1.5 million and made over $100 million worldwide. So from a moneymaking (and brand loyalty) standpoint, it's a sure thing for Lionsgate. Sadly, I think this franchise has a nasty case of Hootie and the Blowfish syndrome: the first one was great, and the rest we could all live without. We'll see if they prove me wrong in the upcoming years. Until next time...
Monday, October 22, 2007
Gone Baby Gone, We Own The Night, The Graduate, Wall Street
Yeesh, it's been as bad as "The Playing Field" around here with the lack of posting. Sorry about that, readers. As soon as I knock out some pesky tests and things of that sort that stand in my way, I'm going to start cranking out mini-reviews on every movie that I watch, similar to what I did for March Madness earlier this year. How long will I continue this time? Only time will tell.
Anyway, here's the rundown for this post. I've seen a lot of movies lately: some good, some great, and some really mediocre. So in the spirit of what is to come, here's an appetizer of what things will (hopefully) be like around here for a while.
Gone Baby Gone
Writer/Director: Ben Affleck (co-written with Aaron Stockard)
Starring: Casey Affleck, Morgan Freeman, Michelle Monaghan, Ed Harris
The source material was written by Dennis Lahane, the author of Mystic River (really good movie. Check out my review of it here), so GBG definitely has the same sort of dramatic corrupt Bostonian vibe that made Mystic River such a cool film. If you liked Mystic River, you'll be slightly disappointed with Gone Baby Gone, but it was still really good. Who knew that Ben Affleck could direct? He seemed incredibly comfortable behind the camera, not at all constrained like you'd expect a first-time director to be. He had some great helicopter shots; overall, everything was great on that end. In front of the camera, his little brother Casey (blowing up all of a sudden in this and The Assassination of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford in the same weekend) did a great job as a private detective on the hunt for a missing child. Jared and I were discussing this earlier; this movie is definitely a modern-day noir (neo-noir, if you want the real term), and Casey is great as the Bogart-esque character who gets sucked further and further into the unraveling story of a missing child. Everyone else's performance was pretty average with the exception of Ed Harris, who I thought was great. Oh, and Taggart from the Beverly Hills Cop movies was in this. No, not Eddie Murphy. Not Judge Reinhold, either. The other one. But seriously, go see Gone Baby Gone because apparently Ben Affleck's career depends on it. I for one would like to see him behind the camera more often that in front of it in the future. It's the only sure way we can avoid a Gigli sequel.
We Own The Night
Writer/Director: James Gray
Starring: Joaquin Phoenix, Mark Wahlberg, Robert Duvall, Eva Mendes
Everyone knows that this was marketed as if it were "The Departed 2," so naturally that's what everyone compares it to after they've seen it (myself included). The thing is, the movie wasn't bad on it's own; it just wasn't nearly as good as The Departed. If The Departed never came out, I think it might have resonated well with audiences, but since everyone thought it was trying too hard to emulate it, the film didn't do that well at the box office. If you'd give it a chance, you'd see that while it had some of the same elements as the aforementioned Best Picture winner, this movie was all about family. Joaquin Phoenix and Marky Mark are brothers on opposite sides of the law, mixed up in Russian drugs and police wars. Like I said, this was all about family: it follows Phoenix (who gave an extremely solid performance) as he tries to decide whether to side with his family or stay with the drug lords who have made him rich. I'm not going to say anything else about this, since I don't want to give away the one thing surprise that actually makes this worth watching, but check it out on DVD or something if you're bored in a couple of months and you're looking for a Robert Duvall fix.
The Graduate
Director: Mike Nichols
Starring: Dustin Hoffman, Katherine Ross, Anne Bancroft
Good Lord, I hated this movie. I'd seen it on those stupid "Lists of The 400 Greatest Movies Ever That You HAVE To See Before You Die," so I checked it out and it was one of the biggest wastes of time I've ever experienced. The acting was absolutely horrific. I don't know why this "made" Dustin Hoffman's career. He sucked. Almost as bad as in Meet the Fockers. It was near-painful to watch at points because of how bad the script was and how bad ALL of the acting was. If the filmmakers were doing that on purpose then I completely missed the point. Speaking of that, the ending made no sense in conjunction with the rest of the movie. I'm not going to ruin it, because undoubtedly some of you won't believe me and you'll go out and rent it anyway, but for the entire duration the tone is set in one direction until it takes a slamming right turn in the last 15 minutes into freakin' Fairytale Cheeseball Central. Ridiculous. It's like everything they were working for (whatever deeper meaning I couldn't see because the movie SUCKED SO HARD) was undercut by this stupid ending that seemed as if they couldn't come up with a legitimate ending and had to just finish the production quickly before they were kicked out of their locations. I'm sure seeing this back in 1967 when it came out would have been extremely liberating or whatever, but it doesn't hold up at all today. And I can't tell you how much I hate Simon and Garfunkel, who exclusively do the music for the whole movie. They even repeat songs during different scenes because they couldn't come up with enough original material in time for the film's release, so they force you to endure three or four montages to "The Sound of Silence." I wish to the highest heaven it HAD been silence. Sigh. I beg you, don't waste your time.
Wall Street
Writer/Director: Oliver Stone (co-written with Stanley Weiser)
Starring: Michael Douglas, Charlie Sheen, Martin Sheen, Daryl Hannah
Really awesome movie. It came out in 1987 and I'd never seen it before, so I thought I'd give it a shot. This is basically the template for The Devil's Advocate, so if you liked the relationship between Keanu and Pacino in that film, you'll love Charlie Sheen and Michael Douglas in this one. Douglas rightly won an Oscar for Best Actor for his performance, and it's one of the best in recent memory. He was fantastic. One of those "80's excess" movies in the same category with American Psycho and others like it, this one stands far above the rest as the best in the genre that I've ever seen. And I know it's hard to believe, but Charlie Sheen can actually carry a movie. He was on-screen probably 95% of the time, but you never got sick of him, and you always felt for him. This is the classic story of the young up-and-comer getting sucked into a world wildly beyond his expectations and the rise and fall of his career that comes with that cutthroat world. This film (like the last one mentioned) is also about family and the sacrifices one makes regarding priorities, seemingly pleading with the audience to make sure our capitalistic tendencies don't win out over general morality and ethics. Rent this now. Douglas's famous "Greed is Good" speech is worth the price of the rental. A quick side note: there's a lot of Wall Street jargon used here, but I still loved the movie even though I didn't understand any of it.
On a completely unrelated note, I just watched Shattered Glass for the first time. If you like journalism, it should be required viewing. It's like Resurrecting the Champ, but slightly better. See them both at your leisure.
All right ladies and gents, that's it for now. Hopefully I'll be back in full swing in a week or two, so get on me if I'm not. Until next time...
Anyway, here's the rundown for this post. I've seen a lot of movies lately: some good, some great, and some really mediocre. So in the spirit of what is to come, here's an appetizer of what things will (hopefully) be like around here for a while.
Gone Baby Gone
Writer/Director: Ben Affleck (co-written with Aaron Stockard)
Starring: Casey Affleck, Morgan Freeman, Michelle Monaghan, Ed Harris
The source material was written by Dennis Lahane, the author of Mystic River (really good movie. Check out my review of it here), so GBG definitely has the same sort of dramatic corrupt Bostonian vibe that made Mystic River such a cool film. If you liked Mystic River, you'll be slightly disappointed with Gone Baby Gone, but it was still really good. Who knew that Ben Affleck could direct? He seemed incredibly comfortable behind the camera, not at all constrained like you'd expect a first-time director to be. He had some great helicopter shots; overall, everything was great on that end. In front of the camera, his little brother Casey (blowing up all of a sudden in this and The Assassination of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford in the same weekend) did a great job as a private detective on the hunt for a missing child. Jared and I were discussing this earlier; this movie is definitely a modern-day noir (neo-noir, if you want the real term), and Casey is great as the Bogart-esque character who gets sucked further and further into the unraveling story of a missing child. Everyone else's performance was pretty average with the exception of Ed Harris, who I thought was great. Oh, and Taggart from the Beverly Hills Cop movies was in this. No, not Eddie Murphy. Not Judge Reinhold, either. The other one. But seriously, go see Gone Baby Gone because apparently Ben Affleck's career depends on it. I for one would like to see him behind the camera more often that in front of it in the future. It's the only sure way we can avoid a Gigli sequel.We Own The Night
Writer/Director: James Gray
Starring: Joaquin Phoenix, Mark Wahlberg, Robert Duvall, Eva Mendes
Everyone knows that this was marketed as if it were "The Departed 2," so naturally that's what everyone compares it to after they've seen it (myself included). The thing is, the movie wasn't bad on it's own; it just wasn't nearly as good as The Departed. If The Departed never came out, I think it might have resonated well with audiences, but since everyone thought it was trying too hard to emulate it, the film didn't do that well at the box office. If you'd give it a chance, you'd see that while it had some of the same elements as the aforementioned Best Picture winner, this movie was all about family. Joaquin Phoenix and Marky Mark are brothers on opposite sides of the law, mixed up in Russian drugs and police wars. Like I said, this was all about family: it follows Phoenix (who gave an extremely solid performance) as he tries to decide whether to side with his family or stay with the drug lords who have made him rich. I'm not going to say anything else about this, since I don't want to give away the one thing surprise that actually makes this worth watching, but check it out on DVD or something if you're bored in a couple of months and you're looking for a Robert Duvall fix.The Graduate
Director: Mike Nichols
Starring: Dustin Hoffman, Katherine Ross, Anne Bancroft
Good Lord, I hated this movie. I'd seen it on those stupid "Lists of The 400 Greatest Movies Ever That You HAVE To See Before You Die," so I checked it out and it was one of the biggest wastes of time I've ever experienced. The acting was absolutely horrific. I don't know why this "made" Dustin Hoffman's career. He sucked. Almost as bad as in Meet the Fockers. It was near-painful to watch at points because of how bad the script was and how bad ALL of the acting was. If the filmmakers were doing that on purpose then I completely missed the point. Speaking of that, the ending made no sense in conjunction with the rest of the movie. I'm not going to ruin it, because undoubtedly some of you won't believe me and you'll go out and rent it anyway, but for the entire duration the tone is set in one direction until it takes a slamming right turn in the last 15 minutes into freakin' Fairytale Cheeseball Central. Ridiculous. It's like everything they were working for (whatever deeper meaning I couldn't see because the movie SUCKED SO HARD) was undercut by this stupid ending that seemed as if they couldn't come up with a legitimate ending and had to just finish the production quickly before they were kicked out of their locations. I'm sure seeing this back in 1967 when it came out would have been extremely liberating or whatever, but it doesn't hold up at all today. And I can't tell you how much I hate Simon and Garfunkel, who exclusively do the music for the whole movie. They even repeat songs during different scenes because they couldn't come up with enough original material in time for the film's release, so they force you to endure three or four montages to "The Sound of Silence." I wish to the highest heaven it HAD been silence. Sigh. I beg you, don't waste your time.Wall Street
Writer/Director: Oliver Stone (co-written with Stanley Weiser)
Starring: Michael Douglas, Charlie Sheen, Martin Sheen, Daryl Hannah
Really awesome movie. It came out in 1987 and I'd never seen it before, so I thought I'd give it a shot. This is basically the template for The Devil's Advocate, so if you liked the relationship between Keanu and Pacino in that film, you'll love Charlie Sheen and Michael Douglas in this one. Douglas rightly won an Oscar for Best Actor for his performance, and it's one of the best in recent memory. He was fantastic. One of those "80's excess" movies in the same category with American Psycho and others like it, this one stands far above the rest as the best in the genre that I've ever seen. And I know it's hard to believe, but Charlie Sheen can actually carry a movie. He was on-screen probably 95% of the time, but you never got sick of him, and you always felt for him. This is the classic story of the young up-and-comer getting sucked into a world wildly beyond his expectations and the rise and fall of his career that comes with that cutthroat world. This film (like the last one mentioned) is also about family and the sacrifices one makes regarding priorities, seemingly pleading with the audience to make sure our capitalistic tendencies don't win out over general morality and ethics. Rent this now. Douglas's famous "Greed is Good" speech is worth the price of the rental. A quick side note: there's a lot of Wall Street jargon used here, but I still loved the movie even though I didn't understand any of it.On a completely unrelated note, I just watched Shattered Glass for the first time. If you like journalism, it should be required viewing. It's like Resurrecting the Champ, but slightly better. See them both at your leisure.
All right ladies and gents, that's it for now. Hopefully I'll be back in full swing in a week or two, so get on me if I'm not. Until next time...
Thursday, September 13, 2007
3:10 to Yuma
Well, September 7th, 2007: you didn't let me down. Since the beginning of the summer, we've been participating in the tradition of Western Wednesdays, but the western genre is definitely not my favorite. It's extremely hit or miss in my opinion, and 3:10 to Yuma was undoubtedly a hit. While it was certainly no Shoot 'Em Up, that's what made it so great: the complex nature of the characters, rather than reliance on special effects and unnecessary action scenes, drew the audience in and led us headfirst toward the unavoidable train station finale.
James Mangold (check this guy out - he's done some cool stuff) directed this stunning tale based on the short story of Elmore Leonard (the writer of Get Shorty and Be Cool). Mangold is obviously incredibly talented, and nowhere is that more evident than his use of casual suspense (I didn't think there was such a thing) in this movie. From before the audience even sits down to watch, the title already has us wanting to know what happens on that train to Yuma. The film answers that question by following Civil War veteran Dan Evans as he volunteers to escort the notorious criminal Ben Wade to the train station in return for two hundred dollars for his struggling ranch.
The acting in this film was absolutely masterful. Russell Crowe and Christian Bale proved once again that they are two of the top actors in their generation by giving nuanced performances that were some of the best I've seen in a long time (especially since neither one of them is American!). Ben Foster, although more one-dimensional, was also spellbinding as Charlie Prince, Ben Wade's fiercely loyal sidekick. His utter devotion and heartless lack of morality makes him a classic western character sure to be remembered in the genre far in the future. Western legend Peter Fonda joins the ride as a lawman wounded by Wade's gang, and the surprisingly talented (and apparently go-to actor for his age) Logan Lerman plays the son of Bale's character. Rounding out the cast with arguably nothing more than cameos are Luke Wilson and Alan "Steve the Pirate" Tudyk.
The aspect of this movie that really fascinated me was the dual father-son relationships presented in Dan Evans and his son contrasted with Ben Wade and Charlie Prince. The relationships between the two sets of characters could not be any more different at the beginning of the film, but as it progressed they seemed to switch roles. At the start, Prince is unshakably loyal to Ben Wade; the perfect right hand man.* Conversely, William Evans thought his father was a gutless coward and didn't respect him at all. As the movie went on, Dan gains the respect of his son and Wade loses the respect of Charlie Prince. I'm not going to give away the ending (which is an awesome shoot out Open Range style), so I'll just leave it at that for now.
*All right, I'm going to throw this out there. Some of you won't like it, but I'm doing it anyway. As much as you want to deny it (Branz), everyone knows that a good portions of westerns have an underlying theme of homosexuality that runs through them. In 3:10 to Yuma, on two nonconsecutive occasions, Ben Wade makes references to bright green eyes, "the greenest he's ever seen." The only character that I saw in the whole movie with green eyes were the piercing green eyes of his right hand man, Charlie Prince. I'm not saying anything, but you know - I'm just saying. This is not a coincidence; the director did this for a reason. Draw your own conclusions.
3:10 to Yuma was mainly a character-driven film - full of various thematic elements ranging from the aforementioned father-son bonds, to the perception of time, and more. The action fell into place toward the end as a necessity, so it didn't feel forced or like a "required" gunfight; this contributed to a nice sense of realism for the overall film. There were very few special effects used in the production, which also helped with the realism. One final note: Mangold did a great job taking the traditional "good guy in white, bad guy in black" concept of the western and turning it on its head by decking out Charlie Prince (the most evil of all the characters) in a white jacket. This purposefully calls attention to Prince's morality (or lack thereof), and adds to the theme present throughout the movie that things aren't always what they appear to be on the surface.
Honestly, this doesn't really need to be seen in the theater. Since there aren't really any big special effects, that isn't a factor, and unlike most westerns, Mangold chose not to fall into the cliche of showing huge expanses of mesa and sweeping camera long shots of a lone figure out on the prairie. You'll be fine with renting this when it comes out. If nothing else, see it for the performances of the lead characters and as a truly enjoyable movie in a genre where those are heard to come by. Plus, that poster is really sweet. Until next time...
James Mangold (check this guy out - he's done some cool stuff) directed this stunning tale based on the short story of Elmore Leonard (the writer of Get Shorty and Be Cool). Mangold is obviously incredibly talented, and nowhere is that more evident than his use of casual suspense (I didn't think there was such a thing) in this movie. From before the audience even sits down to watch, the title already has us wanting to know what happens on that train to Yuma. The film answers that question by following Civil War veteran Dan Evans as he volunteers to escort the notorious criminal Ben Wade to the train station in return for two hundred dollars for his struggling ranch.
The acting in this film was absolutely masterful. Russell Crowe and Christian Bale proved once again that they are two of the top actors in their generation by giving nuanced performances that were some of the best I've seen in a long time (especially since neither one of them is American!). Ben Foster, although more one-dimensional, was also spellbinding as Charlie Prince, Ben Wade's fiercely loyal sidekick. His utter devotion and heartless lack of morality makes him a classic western character sure to be remembered in the genre far in the future. Western legend Peter Fonda joins the ride as a lawman wounded by Wade's gang, and the surprisingly talented (and apparently go-to actor for his age) Logan Lerman plays the son of Bale's character. Rounding out the cast with arguably nothing more than cameos are Luke Wilson and Alan "Steve the Pirate" Tudyk.
The aspect of this movie that really fascinated me was the dual father-son relationships presented in Dan Evans and his son contrasted with Ben Wade and Charlie Prince. The relationships between the two sets of characters could not be any more different at the beginning of the film, but as it progressed they seemed to switch roles. At the start, Prince is unshakably loyal to Ben Wade; the perfect right hand man.* Conversely, William Evans thought his father was a gutless coward and didn't respect him at all. As the movie went on, Dan gains the respect of his son and Wade loses the respect of Charlie Prince. I'm not going to give away the ending (which is an awesome shoot out Open Range style), so I'll just leave it at that for now.
*All right, I'm going to throw this out there. Some of you won't like it, but I'm doing it anyway. As much as you want to deny it (Branz), everyone knows that a good portions of westerns have an underlying theme of homosexuality that runs through them. In 3:10 to Yuma, on two nonconsecutive occasions, Ben Wade makes references to bright green eyes, "the greenest he's ever seen." The only character that I saw in the whole movie with green eyes were the piercing green eyes of his right hand man, Charlie Prince. I'm not saying anything, but you know - I'm just saying. This is not a coincidence; the director did this for a reason. Draw your own conclusions.
3:10 to Yuma was mainly a character-driven film - full of various thematic elements ranging from the aforementioned father-son bonds, to the perception of time, and more. The action fell into place toward the end as a necessity, so it didn't feel forced or like a "required" gunfight; this contributed to a nice sense of realism for the overall film. There were very few special effects used in the production, which also helped with the realism. One final note: Mangold did a great job taking the traditional "good guy in white, bad guy in black" concept of the western and turning it on its head by decking out Charlie Prince (the most evil of all the characters) in a white jacket. This purposefully calls attention to Prince's morality (or lack thereof), and adds to the theme present throughout the movie that things aren't always what they appear to be on the surface.
Honestly, this doesn't really need to be seen in the theater. Since there aren't really any big special effects, that isn't a factor, and unlike most westerns, Mangold chose not to fall into the cliche of showing huge expanses of mesa and sweeping camera long shots of a lone figure out on the prairie. You'll be fine with renting this when it comes out. If nothing else, see it for the performances of the lead characters and as a truly enjoyable movie in a genre where those are heard to come by. Plus, that poster is really sweet. Until next time...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)