| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| MisterBadIdea |
Posted - 09/11/2007 : 06:27:37
I have never ever seen a movie do everything so right, so goddamn perfect, and then faceplant itself so badly in the last five minutes. I'm just baffled. They somehow manage to fit in not one but TWO horrible plot developments in the final moments, made even more bizarre by the fact that one is eye-rollingly Pollyannish and the other childishly nihilistic. Did they forget who the story is about? I have no idea what the hell happened there, but it leaves me very angry.
But let no one tell you otherwise, everything before that part is fantastic. Christian Bale is actually the most interesting character, but Russell Crowe is the most interesting presence. He is pure Sergio Leone/Man with No Name superman in this movie. He might feel human emotions like pain or pity, he might even acknowledge them to other people. But it sure as hell doesn't affect his actions. Crowe is pure untouchable in this movie. |
| 14 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Conan The Westy |
Posted - 02/28/2008 : 10:32:29
quote:
Originally posted by Downtown
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
I have never ever seen a movie do everything so right, so goddamn perfect, and then faceplant itself so badly in the last five minutes.
Having just seen it on Netflix, I couldn't agree more. This is an otherwise good contemporary Western, utterly ruined by an incomprehensibly stupid ending that MAKES NO SENSE WHATSOEVER.
Amen. |
| Downtown |
Posted - 02/24/2008 : 16:27:40
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
I have never ever seen a movie do everything so right, so goddamn perfect, and then faceplant itself so badly in the last five minutes.
Having just seen it on Netflix, I couldn't agree more. This is an otherwise good contemporary Western, utterly ruined by an incomprehensibly stupid ending that MAKES NO SENSE WHATSOEVER. |
| damalc |
Posted - 09/25/2007 : 19:19:17
i saw it last night and loved almost every minute. i don't think the ending was a disaster, but definitely made me go, 'waitaminnit!'
didn't Will Evans and Ben Wade sound like Luke and Anakin near the end?
'i know there's still good in you.'
i didn't know until the credits rolled that '3:10' was based on an Elmore Leonard story. he's getting close to the 'see-anything-by ...' category for me. |
| Salopian |
Posted - 09/22/2007 : 14:26:48
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
Sorry, Sal ... I thought there was already a spoiler warning. My bad!
No, I don't think it's a problem. It certainly wasn't for me. I just thought M.B.I. might as well add one.  |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 09/22/2007 : 07:55:42
Sorry, Sal ... I thought there was already a spoiler warning. My bad!
  
|
| Salopian |
Posted - 09/22/2007 : 01:25:13
MisterBadIdea, I assume from your wording that you don't think this thread needs a spoiler alert. I would say that even your post is similar to a spoiler, but Bafta's is quite specific about the final moments (and thus I followed accordingly). I therefore don't think it's really ambiguous whether the warning should be present. |
| Salopian |
Posted - 09/21/2007 : 23:44:01
MisterBadIdea, please add a spoiler warning to the title. Thanks.
Just seen this. Hhmmm, I certainly did enjoy it, although much less so up to the point where Wade is caught. I am not so troubled by the moral inversion or whatever it's supposed to be, either morally or even for the fact that it is so muddled. However, so many of the things that have been mentioned do sit rather awkwardly. The hardworking ranchers being driven off their land by the unprincipled local rich guy is astonishingly cliched (and pointless - they could just be poor from the drought; however, if this is the same in the original I guess it was less cliched then). Same for the war hero who's not a hero after all, and the teenage son rebelling against and then supporting his father. As M.B.I. said, the two aspects of the ending are bizarre in the extreme, and it doesn't pull them off. Wade seems to go along with Evans escorting him to the scene to an astonishing degree when he could easily get away, even before he suddenly sides with him. And whistling for one's horse to come to the rescue is lifted straight out of several comedies.
All that said, Bale is as good as usual and Crowe is better than usual. |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 09/20/2007 : 09:27:48
In its own narrower terms of action, the film is everything terrific them there varmints above have been saying ... including the story-line & character logic debacle of the ending.
What troubles me -- and truly I believe it should at least be considered by anyone who's professing any kind of personal, social or spiritual imperative ... is the underlying moral message in the wider story, the one implied rather than stated.
Clearly this ain't the first film to subvert matters of right and wrong, or - more importantly - of self versus others. It is however certainly one of the best films to do so -- and I say best with reference to the film's technical achievements except the screenplay.
I know one can argue that matters of morality should precisely NOT be presented in the old-fashioned good/evil schema, and I'm glad that film-makers have recognized that good-guys in life don't always win. And that most holy books use stories and parables in which good folks are tested and devils/temptation are fatally attractive in order to underscore moral lessons. Yep - devils get the best tunes, everything can be resisted except temptation ... but there are consequences which change people. Unforgiven is a useful comparison, if only for the evidence on screen of the moral journey made by the Eastwood character.
But there's been about a decade now of films that have taken as their moral compass the simplistic assumptions of the graphic novel and the vid game, particularly in the context of a society of moral erosion at every level from rulers to the alleys.
If the complexity is lost in real life - and some say it's already gone - we don't get the anarchy predicted by tub-thumpers, but we do get pockets of confusion as those charged to uphold increasingly irrelevant laws try to fill social vacuums. We get a raft of inappropriate events - from curfews to wars - and hastily passed new laws to try to divert people from the fact that the old ways aren't working anymore. We get 19th century band-aids being applied to 21st century bone-deep wounds. These really are complex problems.
So if Yuma is meant to evoke the complexity of those issues ... it doesn't.
If the complexity is lost in film, then what's left? Cardboard characters. Hooray if they're inhabited by screen actors as charismatic as Crowe, and yes, even Bale and his mysterious vanishing limp. But that's no substitute for an honest glimpse into the nature of humanity.
The story borrows much from predecessors of a long-gone age like Shane and High Noon, but those elements have been bolted on rather than integrated.
In Yuma, lifetime motivations of both leads are expressed as blink-and-you-miss-em terse sentences that are supposed to justify why Bale's son despises him, why Bale - a man who gives Job a run for his money in the badly-dealt cardgame of life department - why he becomes morally bullied to chase some illusion of bravery. He starts out, of course, chasing a money trail, but that bit of the story becomes just a McGuffin.
And, of course, there's the motivation of the bad-guy who flat out admits he's totally evil and then - in some 3:10 to Damascus moment - has an epiphany which he acts on not with his heart but with his gun. Again. And goes whistling toward punishment, with the twinkle and 4-footed transport he knows will bust him out of jail as he already has done twice before.
I realize most movie-goers don't [consciously] deconstruct films like this and want only the promised action - which is by and large delivered. Yuma's no exception. But the fact remains, that's not the only level on which to experience this film. Its makers are far too careful crafts-people to forgo wider moral messages, to attempt characters who are paradigms for social malaise, and a line of action that might serve as an extrapolation of street-life in modern America. I believe - for all the good stuff in the film - the balance is wonky and they've failed.
It would be interesting - well, kinda interesting - to know what people here think the moral message of 3:10 is.
|
| demonic |
Posted - 09/14/2007 : 17:59:42
You may be right about that but you'd wonder how someone with such blatant disregard for their own safety managed to be quite so successful. Small wonder some guy hadn't shot him in the back of the head one day when he was being cocky and careless. |
| MisterBadIdea |
Posted - 09/14/2007 : 14:26:01
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
I'd also question a lot of Wade's logic throughout - why did he get himself so easily arrested in the saloon?
I don't have the answer to the other questions, but I can answer this one: It's because he doesn't give a fuck. And really, he doesn't have to. I'm sure in his offtime he jumps off cliffsides or in front of trains and then casually walks away from the aftermath. |
| demonic |
Posted - 09/13/2007 : 05:26:57
Caught a preview tonight - all in all a very solid, very entertaining but also surprisingly thought-provoking Western - no stereotypical good guys and bad guys here (well, okay maybe a few stereotypical bad guys) and on the whole far better than I expected it to be with Crowe back on good scene stealing form as the villainous Ben Wade and Bale doing a good sturdy central turn as the desperate rancher turned self-appointed lawman.
But BadIdea is bang on the money when he says it goes a bit south at the very end, leaving a very unsatisfactory taste in the mouth. I'm not familiar with the original, but I find it hard to believe it goes the same route. I'm still quite confused as to what James Mangold is finally saying but seemingly *spoiler* psychopaths can get away with all thier heinous crimes because they are adaptable and oh so charming, and weak family men get to die for their trouble because that's what you get if you get involved with bad folk. Evans is a loser it seems for his entire life - he tries to do something about it, makes a stand, but fails (some might say he actually wins, but I call bleeding to death a failure). I'd also question a lot of Wade's logic throughout - why did he get himself so easily arrested in the saloon? Why does he decide to help Evans get him to the train in the last ten minutes? I think this must be the point of the film, but it sort of passed me by what with all the shooting and bleeding. |
| RockGolf |
Posted - 09/11/2007 : 16:32:37
The original starred Glenn Ford. The remake, Bale & Crowe.
Can't they find any Americans for the main roles? |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 09/11/2007 : 07:30:30
Saw the trailer the other day ... it truly looks superb! really looking forward to it.
|
| Sean |
Posted - 09/11/2007 : 06:32:59
8.7 at IMDb. That's pretty good, although it will obviously drop. I'll be seeing it.
Here it is....
http://www.fwfr.com/display.asp?ID=17604
and here's the original...
http://www.fwfr.com/display.asp?ID=15063
in fact I've just netflixed the original. |
|
|
