Thursday, March 06, 2008

Just another whistle stop



Confronted by dubious visuals or fishy situations, “That’s so fake!” has been a common cry from those oddballs who demand ‘realism’ from the fabricated world of movies. If anything, it inspires screenwriters to double check their facts and prompts effects teams to tweak their gadgetry. Yet here we are in the year 2008 and Peter Fonda takes a bullet to the gut at point blank range. A veterinarian removes it with dirty tweezers and no anesthetic in a filthy room. And a few hours later, Peter’s back on his horse with no pain, no infection or any ill side effects, ready to deliver a criminal to justice.

    C’est la cinéma. New on DVD, James Mangold’s 3:10 to Yuma (2007) is a longish and mildly entertaining remake of a slightly more compact but generally unexceptional western made in 1957, and both of them are derived from an Elmore Leonard story that I’ve never read. The older film starred Glenn Ford and Van Heflin, two actors who were a bit softer than, say, Robert Mitchum or Randolph Scott. This new film stars Russell Crowe and Christian Bale, two actors more gruff than most of the current crop of toned and polished Pink Boys. The appearance of Fonda is nostalgic: initially unrecognizable until his voice registers, he was coming of age in Hollywood while the ‘57 version was rolling and surely knew Ford and Heflin off the lot.

    There isn’t enough meat on this new film to get enthused about; forty years ago a smart producer would’ve hacked off thirty minutes from its bloated two hours and sold it as a b picture. Crowe and Bale are good, but the script and James Mangold’s direction fail to grasp the menace and tension in an otherwise unavoidably tense situation. On top of that, I wondered why few (if any) of the old west characters were rolling their own or smoking. I wondered why Bale’s son went unpunished for being a sullen brat and disrespectful to his elders. And I wondered why Fonda was able to bounce around on a horse immediately following a makeshift surgery. And all I could think was, “That’s so fake!”

Labels:

5 Comments:

Blogger GFS3 said...

WARNING SPOILER!

What killed me about this awful movie is the fact Russell Crowe's character systematically kills all of the posse guarding him -- yet they don't hogtie and gag him.

After he forks to death one of them while they sleep, you'd think that would have just shot him in the head and been done with it.

And how about when they allow him to talk with his gang through the window of the hotel where he tells them how many men are guarding him -- rather than opening fire on the bad guys.

I can't even go on...

5:08 PM EST  
Blogger Jonathan Lapper said...

forty years ago a smart producer would’ve hacked off thirty minutes from its bloated two hours and sold it as a b picture.

This drives me crazy nowadays. Harry Potter and Pirates of the Caribbean movies that take two and a half to three hours to tell their slight, meager stories. A good western, fantasy or action adventure should wrap it up in an hour and a half. First of all it leaves you wanting more and second of all you make more money with more showings. I'm not sure how that last part got past the studios.

P.S. Yes I know, this has been up over a week and I've already seen the post 100 times before commenting. Eh, I'm funny that way.

9:12 AM EST  
Blogger Flickhead said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

9:24 AM EST  
Blogger Flickhead said...

When making simple genre pictures like this, most directors need to be reigned in. A lot of what they’re doing is pulp material, nothing more. Studio-era genre films generally worked better because other sets of eyes went over the work to make certain it flowed or its ideas came through coherently. Very few directors are truly worthy, talented enough or capable to take on the responsibility of ‘final cut’ — that’s blatantly obvious at this point.

9:25 AM EST  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Often I note to young friends who frequent current films that "back in the day" of the '40s and '50s, a massive number or maybe even a majority of the feature films that played theatres ran in the ballpark of one hour's running time. Indeed, most of my favorite films run 55-75 minutes in length, and few run longer. When these youngsters ask me how films so short could EVER have been considered features, I tell them, "Because the makers knew better that to bore the piss out of the audience...not to mention they didn't have the money or shooting schedule to run any longer!" Nobody needs $200 million, 2+ hours of screen time, a cast of thousands, or CG out the ass to make a worthwhile film. If anything, those factors make a film worse than it would have been if done on a shoestring.

There's just nothing worth a damn being produced anymore.

(rant over)

7:21 PM EST  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home