9 out of 10 to Yuma

By Aaron 9/9/2007

3:10 to Yuma is not the old school, Indians and Cowboys western Brett wrote about in his article this week. But it is a GREAT movie. Russell Crowe plays the infamous Ben Wade, a murderous train robber. Christian Bale is Dan Evans, a broken man trying to turn his life around and hold onto his homestead. There are other characters, and perhaps, other storylines, but they are irrelevant. Christian Bale and Russell Crowe ARE this movie. Each of them takes their acting to another level – Bale really pushes himself in this movie, even more than The Machinist. And Crowe brings new depth to the sympathetic villain role.

The movie follows Crowe’s Wade who is apprehended by Pinkertons when Wade lingers too long after a robbery. Bale’s Evans is a rancher who after running into Wade at the scene of the crime, volunteers to join a posse to take Crowe to the train station. Ben Foster is great too as Wade’s fanatically loyal right hand man, Charlie Prince. Prince kills everyone in his path as he does everything possible to spring Wade. While Evans and the Pinkertons move closer to the train station, Evans begins to open up to Wade, to understand Wade, and to let Wade begin to understand him.

It is in this deeper, epistemological vein where 3:10 to Yuma sets itself apart – as much more than just “a western.” The movie is not about the classic old west, or any of its themes, the movie is about people. Specifically the intense connection between Wade and Evans – two characters with drastically different morals and conceptions of right and wrong who discover some of themselves in each other. What makes Yuma special is that it is a movie made better because of what is left unsaid. While most movies suffer because of what they do not say or explain, Yuma realizes exactly what it needs to convey and does just that. The rest is left for you to ponder, to turn over in your head. If you do not like that, you will not like Yuma. But if you open your mind and let Wade and Evans slip in you begin to understand their connection, and then you really appreciate this movie.

All that heady stuff is great, but Yuma packs in a lot of different action that spans the western genre – train robberies, jail breaks, Apache, getaways, you name it. It is realistic, and shot very well to create fluid, fast paced action. The gunslinging is exactly what you expect in modern action movies, and a cut above many of the old western. Bale’s Wade and Foster’s Prince are nothing short of amazing with their six shooters.

When you add all that character development and deep sentiment you usually find in Oscar caliber movies with modern western action, you have a really good movie, and one I feel very comfortable giving 9/10 saltystix.

 

Could “Avatar” Win Best Picture?

By Brett Hogan

 

Last week, the trailer for James Cameron’s sci-fi experiment “Avatar” debuted. While initially unimpressed with the teaser, I began to wonder: Could this film win best picture? 

 

Buzz has been generating for this movie for years. Years. The technology to make this movie didn’t exist when Cameron conceived it, so he invented it. When is the last time you heard of a director spearheading the invention of anything? The casting started in 2005. Most movies these days, even epics, are done in half that time. I could go on. 

 

The most important thing to take away from all of this is that people are saying this will be the future of movies. Now, I don’t agree with the idea that CGI will become more prevalent than it already is. But I do believe that this will set the bar miles higher for sci-fi. I mean, that is what Titanic did. And that won some awards if memory serves.

 

I’ll bet you’re asking yourself, how can you even suggest that a film like this will win Best Picture when the initial trailer was nothing better than visual stimulation? Well, there are a couple of reasons. First, the Academy has expanded Best Picture to ten films. This doesn’t guarantee anything other than improved chances for most films on the cusp.

 

Second, after last year’s Oscars debacle, which saw the best film of the year, “The Dark Knight,” not only get shafted in awards but nominations as well, the Academy is pulling out all the stops to appease those with the loudest voices in the film industry, the fanboys. Now, the Academy probably didn’t lose anything because of that other than some viewers of the award show. Perhaps if people are again outraged with the winners or nominees, the heads of the Academy would lose their jobs. So this is all about the Academy protecting itself, which is not so outrageous.  

 

 

Third, there is an economic motive here. I’ve heard this film will cost $190 million, not counting the R&D costs associated with Cameron’s inventions or the cost of getting 3-D cameras into every theater in the country. The Academy will do everything in its power to get people into the seats and make this the next “Titanic” or “The Dark Knight.” But the Academy doesn’t have much power, besides nominating and awarding, so they will slap the “Nominated for Best Picture” moniker onto every commercial and print ad to get the people who didn’t believe the critics to relent and see this movie.

 

Of course, all of this is pure conjecture, and no revolutionary film (Terminator 2, Jurassic Park, etc.) has ever won the Best Picture category because it changed the game. Except maybe Titanic. But still, could this movie actually win? My answer is no but a nomination is certain and who knows what could happen from there. We’ll know more come February 2010.