Film Review

09 January 2009 12:06 BST

3:10 to Yuma

Directed by James Mangold, out at cinemas now, starring Russell Crowe, Christian Bale, Ben Foster, Peter Fonda, running time 117 minutes.

In a nutshell…

Six-shooters, rugged masculinity and damn fine hats.

What's it all about?

Knock the dust of those spurs and head on back to a time when you could stalk into town, beat up the sheriff, raid the bank and shoot up the bar before downing a sarsaparilla and riding off into the sunset.

Yes, it's the Old West and you're nothing without a Stetson, a revolver and a hundred-yard stare.

Notorious outlaw Ben Wade has terrorised the railway companies for years and made a healthy profit from raiding their coaches. However, he falls for the wiles of a woman and stays too long, leading to his capture.

With the railway company determined to see him face a jury and hang for his crimes, they call for volunteers to escort Wade to Contention, where he will be put on the 3:10 train to Yuma prison.

Near-destitute homesteader Dan Evans takes the dangerous job for the high-paying reward, as he is on the brink of being driven off his land by the expanding railroads.

However, Wade's band of cut-throats want their old boss back and give chase across the Arizona plains, while their raffish but murderous prisoner is unwilling to go quietly...

Who's in it?

Pure casting genius here as a Brit and a Kiwi bring the Wild West back to life - there's two brilliant performances from Christian Bale and Russell Crowe.

It may be no surprise to see Bale excel in his role as the tight-lipped man-with-a-mission after his rejuvenation of the Batman series, but mixing this with Crowe's jocular but sinister Ben Wade highlights the Gladiator star's ability to portray a brutal menace which often steals the show.

I shudder to think what would have happened if Tom Cruise had not dropped out of negotiations for Crowe's role - a 5ft 7ins, clean-shaven Cruise hardly screams 'cold-blooded killer', does it?

Supporting the two leads is a solid cast of suitably weather-beaten men, including Easy Rider legend Peter Fonda portraying a gruff gun-for-hire and X-Men 3 star Ben Foster betraying his youthful years with a superb turn as a no-good bandit out to bring back his boss.

As an example…

Charlie: "They had a lot of weapons, Mister - and they were shootin' bullets."

William: "Call them off!"
Ben: "Why should I?"
William: "Because you're not all bad.
Ben: "Yes, I am."

Likelihood of a trip to the Oscars

It's not beyond the realms of fantasy that Bale or Crowe could pop up with a nomination at least, although Bale has been overlooked before.

And if there was an Oscar for the best interplay between vastly opposing characters, they'd definitely be in with a chance as the outlaw's attempts to psych out Bale's man of principle are enthralling throughout.

But perhaps a better bet could be Ben Foster in the supporting actor role, as his downright dirty varmint Charlie Prince is nearly unrecognisable from his previous performances in Six Feet Under and as Angel in X-Men 3.

What the others say

"The two leads' sparking byplay, Crowe's addled cockiness versus Bale's nervy grit, would grace any surroundings, but it's a pleasure to revisit the frontier in a drama which feels far more vital than mere nostalgic homage." Time Out.

"When a movie is as entertaining as this one, you begin to think this formerly beloved genre is due for a revival." Time Magazine.

"Great action, sets and camera work set this traditional western up for success in spite of stereotypical good guys and bad guys." Monsters and Critics.

So is it any good?

Remakes of well-loved classics pose a huge problem for directors. They're more or less on to a loser from the start as fans of the original will jump on any variation as sacrilege, while mimicking the earlier film will just provoke rip-off claims - as well as possibly alienating today's audiences with their greater demands for thrills and spills from their action films.

But the Western genre was in dire need of a revival, as the last good one was 1992's Unforgiven which still relied on Clint sneering and smouldering like the good old days. Luckily, Mangold resists the temptation to reinvent the genre and works within its accepted boundaries to bring a classic tale up to date with style.

Sure, it moves at a quicker pace at times and there is more willingness to throw in spectacular effects and set-pieces to light up the eyes of action-hungry audiences, but its centre remains the tense relationship between Wade and Evans, which fluctuates between distain for their differing backgrounds to grudging respect and even acceptance.

However, the ending suffers from having to follow the plot of the original. Although the iconic finale could hardly be discarded without a backlash, the audience is left with an anti-climax as a dramatic reversal of what we've learnt about a character remains as unconvincing today as it was back in 1957. Nevertheless, there's still the gloriously predictable shootout to enjoy!

8.5/10

Nicholas Claxton

Test your film knowledge and win...