Getafilm Gallimaufry: Marwencol, Black Swan, True Grit, & Exit Through the Gift Shop

[Note: This series includes scattered thoughts on various movie-related topics. I was looking for a word that started with the letter "g" that means collection or assortment, but lest you think I'm some elitist wordsmith, know that I'd never heard of "gallimaufry" and I don't even know how to say it, but it was the only other option the thesaurus provided aside from "goulash" (too foody) and "garbage" (no).]

_______________________________________________________________

Marwencol (A) 

There's a fine line between a hobby and an obsession. Take my love of movies, for example - is this blog a healthy,  creative side project, or an unhealthy manifestation of a subconscious desire to escape reality through film? Or what about Mark Hogancamp, who, after being beaten within an inch of his life several years ago and his long-term memory, regained his personality and his imagination through a fantastical world he created with plastic figurines? I can live without movies (maybe?), but Hogancamp can't live without these dolls. They are not a hobby, and they are not even an obsession. They are like air and water, necessary for his daily life. 

Hogancamp's alternate reality, named Marwencol, is so detailed and lifelike that it appears to exists as a living, breathing place, filled with characters and backstories enough to fill a series of books. If I had the patience and artistic talent to create places like it, I might end up lost with the dolls as well. This is not to say that Hogancamp doesn't have a handle on reality, just that considering where he's coming from it makes perfect sense that Marwencol is his security blanket from the judgments of the world (he was beaten at a bar after admitting to a habit of cross-dressing). It's the place he can go to get away, and be his own person in his own mind, and in that sense Marwencol is an almost uncomfortably personal entry into his thoughts and emotions.

I'm sure it wasn't easy for Mark Hogancamp to agree to "expose" himself through this film, but his world, Marwencol, should be appreciated not only for what it means to him, but to everyone who seeks a place that offers that kind of solace.

_______________________________________________________________

Black Swan (B)  

As Darren Aronofsky's Black Swan reached its climactic finale, I'd made peace with my opinion of the movie: it was a lesser Fight Club, without the humor and witty cultural references. Maybe that says something about my gender or my disinterest in ballet, but in my head it was just a reaction to the familiarity of the story. I realize the plots aren't in any way similar, but, despite not having seen a trailer or learned anything about the story, I felt I'd been led to believe Black Swan was going to be some kind of transcendent thriller that would twist my mind and leave me breathless. Instead, I had a headache from the avian sound effects and predictable fright scenes, and I grew impatient to see something I hadn't seen before.

In the weeks afterward I considered the praise for Black Swan's ambiguity (i.e., was the ending real?) and acting, but as it recedes in my mind I don't have any great desire to see it again. I'm optimistic there are any number of similar films about passion and drive that aren't as cold, dark, and disturbing, like, for instance, Aronofosky's The Wrestler, which is a light and cheery family film in comparison.

_______________________________________________________________ 

True Grit (A-)  

At least for me, movies in 2010 were severely lacking memorable characters. I mean the kind of characters that you can recognize with one line of dialogue, or dress up for Halloween as, or spoof on "Saturday Night Live". Jeff Bridges as Rooster Cogburn is one of those characters, and although I haven't seen the original True Grit, I think I'd rather watch Bridges in the character if only because he's a lot more fun to imitate than John Wayne.

Sure, the Coen Brothers left their mark on True Grit, but I'd be lying if I didn't expect more from them. Not more in terms of quality, per se, but more in terms of Coen-ness. More scenes like the bartering scene with Mattie Ross or the courtroom scene, more bizarre characters popping in and out of nowhere, and a little more dry humor. But their intention was a straightforward adaptation, and in that they likely succeeded (I haven't read the novel). Just doesn't seem like they had much reason for taking this on if they weren't going to do something unique with it.

_______________________________________________________________

Exit Through the Gift Shop (A-) 

I finally caught up to this raved-about documentary, and despite hearing much about its authenticity, the mysteries didn't appear where and when I expected. I've known of Banksy for several years, but I knew little about the rise of street art or the increasing number of public exhibitions by street artists. Essentially, I didn't realize their work had been accepted as legitimate in the eyes of collectors and auction houses. So, it didn't take much to convince me that Thierry Guetta could be a real person. As improbable as everything was, nothing really seemed outside of the realm of possibility (similar to My Kid Could Paint That), and there were fewer aspects of this film that made me think it wasn't real.

Conversely, everything about I'm Still Here seemed fake from the beginning (I saw it before it was officially announced as a hoax), so I could laugh along with Phoenix and Affleck as they punked everyone. Does its greater believability make Exit Through the Gift Shop a better documentary? Is it even a documentary, or an actual artistic statement by Banksy? Does it even matter? This is what I'm left wondering, but regardless of what I believe or discover about the truth, I now understand why this film has received so much attention. It's like one of Banksy's great works, subverting our expectations and telling us something we don't want to admit to ourselves about art, hype, and money.

Joel & Ethan Coen: The Third Decade (2006-)

Though I didn't finish this project until the Walker Art Center's Coen Brothers retrospective, Joel & Ethan Coen: Raising Cain, reached its end, I'm still glad I took the opportunity to rewatch all 14 Coen brothers films (including A Serious Man, for the first time). Considering the lack of time I've been able to spend writing here, it was an ambitious goal, though it's given me (along with the Regis Dialogue I attended with them) a much more comprehensive understanding of their films.

Read:  A Conversation with the Coens & a Look at Their First Decade (1984-1994)
Read:  Joel & Ethan Coen: The Second Decade (1995-2005) 

(Title screens via the Walker blog.)

No Country for Old Men (2007)

As I mentioned in Part 1, I saw Blood Simple for the first time only recently, but it made an immediate impression on my understanding of the rest of the Coen's films, particularly No Country for Old Men. This was my favorite movie of 2007, a Best Picture winner, an instant classic, and one of the best movies of the decade. Repeated viewings have done nothing to diminish its stature in my mind, and I continue to gain appreciation for the acting from the supporting cast, notably Kelly MacDonald, who does wonders covering up her thick Scottish accent.

Film Studies: Back to School, for the First Time

Hey, where's "Tommy Boy"?...

As is apparent from my lack of posting on the artistry of film, and as is obvious from the absence of film terminology (i.e., mise-en-scène...which is what, exactly?) in my writing, I've never studied film. Or, for that matter, art or literature. Never taken a course, seminar, class or webinar. To be sure, when it comes to film knowledge I am a complete ignoramus compared to many movie bloggers, if that is indeed what I claim to be.

My limited knowledge is usually a source of shame and embarrassment, but there are times when I take secret pride in my ability to "get" certain aspects of a film without them being spelled out for me, like when you accidentally solve a homework problem from your older sibling's math textbook, or when you stumble over words in another language only to have the person you're talking to nod in genuine understanding. That's when it's fun, but for the most part I'm posing here as somebody who "knows about" movies, when in reality I'm only someone who watches a lot of them. I'm the Sarah Palin of movie blogging, and when nobody knows the wiser it's a pretty good gig.

Though I've never tried to hide my ignorance of film here (at least not completely), I'm now coming out to fully reveal it. I subscribe to the Sunday New York Times, and included with it this week was the quarterly insert called Education Life. It's a thin magazine-ish thing focused on university culture, and at the end of each issue is a multiple-choice "pop quiz" on some topic, presumably there just to remind upper-middle class New York Times readers that they just need a little more education.

Usually I skim through Education Life and toss it, and most times I get to the quiz and give up as soon as questions of quantum physics or 19th-century French Literature show up. But this Sunday, the Pop Quiz was on "Film Studies", and I was compelled to give it a shot. Fortunately, it's available online, saving me from having to keep score myself, and also allowing me to share it with you.

Take two quick minutes right now and give the quiz your best effort (you will need an Adobe Flash plug-in). Then come back and report your score (you can expect no judgment from me if you get zero correct).

_________________

In the meantime, I'll share my own results, categorized by section:

• The Backstory: Questions related to film history
• My score: 4/5 answers correct
  

That I got 80% of these questions correct is very misleading. I was not sure about any of these answers but felt most confident in my correct answer for Question #5. I completely guessed on Question #3 about a German titan in the film industry and got it right.

• The Deal: Questions related to the business of film
• My score: 4/11 answers correct
  

Ouch, I was really reaching for some of these answers, and even the few I got correct were because of poorly-worded questions, such as Question #13: "Gone With the Wind was independently finance. True or False?" This is what is called a "wouldn't be asked if it wasn't obviously true" question.

• The Horror Film: Questions related to horror films
• My score: 1/3 correct

Forget that I'm not an expert on horror - I'm not even a fan. Nonetheless, I did get Question #17 (about sequels) correct.

• The Western: Questions related to Westerns
• My score: 3/5 correct

Similar to the questions in The Backstory, my correct answers here were due to educated guessing (#21, about a classic duel) and dartboard-blind guessing (#23, about a John Wayne epic).

• Film Noir: Questions related to the style (?) or genre (?) of film noir
• My score: 0/2 correct

A failing, fitting end to this quiz for me. Even though I contributed three reviews (The Big Sleep, The Asphalt Jungle, & Strangers on a Train) for MovieZeal's film noir month last August, it's worth mentioning that I was seeing the last two of the three for the first time, and that I had seen only a few of the remaining 30 noirs highlighted during the month.

_________________

When you do the math (and fortunately, my educational background included a lot of math), you can see that I answered 12/26 questions correct for a percentage of 46% - certainly not a passing grade in any class.

What does it all mean? Maybe nothing, aside from confirming what I knew about what I didn't know. Does it invalidate my opinion on film? Definitely in some circles, but I try to tell myself that that doesn't really matter, that for the most part I don't watch movies to appreciate or criticize their artistry and influence and craft. I watch them to learn things about people and places around the world, period. And I don't think you need a degree in film to be able to do that.

What has your experience been? Do you have a degree in the arts? Care to share your score? I'm curious as to where I would rank in the percentile among the general population, but particularly among other bloggers...

Short Cuts: "Idn' That a Daisy?"

Tombstone (1993). Directed by George P. Cosmatos; written by Kevin Jarre; starring Kurt Russell, Val Kilmer, Sam Elliott, Bill Paxton, Powers Boothe, Michael Biehn, Charlton Heston, Jason Priestley, Thomas Haden Church, Billy Bob Thornton, Dany Delany, Stephen Lang, Joanna Pacula, John Corbett, and Billy Zane.

(apologies, you'll have to turn your volume up to hear this one well)

REVIEW: Appaloosa (B-)

Last year, for no apparent reason, we moviegoers saw a whole lot of horses and 10-gallon hats when Hollywood suddenly dusted off The Western, a genre virtually nonexistent since the early 90's. Clearly, the resurgence was a success - witness 3:10 to Yuma, There Will Be Blood, The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, and No Country for Old Men. Considering the last two listed were my #2 and #1 movies of 2007, and considering that 2007 was the Best Movie Year of the Last Decade, you might understand why I was looking forward so much to Appaloosa, the first (and maybe only?) Western of 2008.

And if you see it, you might also understand why I was disappointed to find it a tepid, vanilla-bland Western that offers little in the way of excitement and even less in the way of originality. Adapted from the novel of the same name by Robert Parker, Appaloosa is the pet project of Ed Harris (National Treasure 2), who produced, co-wrote, directed, starred, and even wrote and sang an original song for the soundtrack. It was an admirable effort, but I have to wonder if even Harris would admit something is still lacking, and if I had to zero on the problem I suspect I would land on the utterly conventional adaptation of the novel.

It's 1882 in New Mexico Territory. Randall Bragg (Jeremy Irons, in a welcome return to the big screen) and his gang of exaggeratedly idiotic cowboys are running loose in the town of Appaloosa. Desperate to restore order, the mayor contracts reputable lawman Virgil Cole (Harris) and his deputy, Everett Hitch (Viggo Mortenson, Eastern Promises), reluctantly giving them complete jurisdiction according to their preferred methods (Cole: "It's the law."; Mayor: "Your law."; Cole: "Same thing."). Cole wears every stereotypical character trait on his sleeve; just by looking at him you know that is hoping to retire soon, that he'd like to settle down with an honest woman, that he sometimes questions the purpose of his job, and that he'll never back down in a fight. Doesn't that describe pretty much every sheriff in every movie?

Slowly, methodically, the story plods along as Cole and Bragg trade veiled threats and hard stares, time and time again. Rarely given an opportunity to inject any emotion into his characters, Viggo Mortenson is mostly relegated here to leaning against walls and drinking coffee, his long-barrelled rifle always resting on his shoulder. Renee Zellweger eventually shows up as the widow Ali French, a flirty redhead that tries to remain faithful to Cole in this testosterone-fueled environment. Like her Dorothy Boyd in Jerry Maguire, Zellweger is stuck in a relationship with a detached workaholic; the difference being that Zellweger could actually express her emotions in Jerry Maguire. Who knew Botox was available in 1882?

I'm going to tell you how Appaloosa ends by not telling you how it ends. If you've seen one spaghetti Western, you've seen Appaloosa, which seems to check off every marker of the genre - ride off into the sunset included - to the point that it could play like a spoof, if it were only a comedy. Many of the superficial elements and set pieces are still well done (cinematography, musical score, production design, costumes), but they can't make up for the nagging feeling you have that the story isn't really going anywhere. The central dilemma of the story just isn't engaging, and that makes the fate of the characters trivial.

There weren't many spices in the food in 1882, but this meal probably had more flavor than this movie...

I've been critical of Appaloosa mostly because I expected more, and when there's little that leaves an impression on you, the negative aspects end up being what you remember. Appaloosa really isn't a bad movie, but there's little evidence that it's a special one. Last year's 3:10 to Yuma was a somewhat similar story, but even though it was a remake, Yuma still featured a more vibrant appearance, more intriguing characters, and more suspenseful action. In a high noon duel between 3:10 to Yuma and Appaloosa, the latter wouldn't even get its six-shooter unholstered.

Grade:
Writing - 8
Acting - 8
Production - 7
Emotional Impact - 8
Music - 5
Social Significance - 4

Total: 40/50= 80% = B-

300 Words About: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Considered by many to be the greatest Western ever (spaghetti or otherwise), The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly (Il Buono, Il Brutto, Il Cattivo) is clearly still influencing filmmakers more than 40 years after its release. In 2007, we saw Hollywood usher in a new generation of Westerns (3:10 to Yuma, The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, No Country for Old Men, There Will Be Blood), and watching Sergio Leone's classic recently, I found myself chuckling at the similarities. He so dramatically left a mark on the genre that it's nearly impossible not to accuse everyone of copying him. Consider, for example, how often we see extreme close-ups and freeze-frame character intros in contemporary films. Every element of The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly is seminal (e.g., the writing, acting, cinematography, score, etc. ), and yet it received not even one Oscar nomination. In fact, it didn't win any measure of any award - ever. I don't know what its eligibility status was as an Italian film, but its American competition in 1967 was stiff anyway: The Graduate, Bonnie and Clyde, In the Heat of the Night, and Guess Who's Coming to Dinner, to name a few.

Part of the genius of the film is its simplicity. It doesn't have twisting plot details or fancy special effects, and it's not meant to be a symbolic saga for the ages. Rather, it's an epic that finds its power in fascinating characters and an impossibly balanced blend of humor, action, suspense, violence, tragedy and adventure. We've seen versions of Blondie (Eastwood) show up in everybody from John McClane to Jack Foley to Jason Bourne. And Tuco (Eli Wallach)? He has almost no equal, though many have tried over the years. The ensemble cast is simply brilliant, but while it's perhaps the most impressive aspect of the film, you can't overlook the sweeping cinematography (it was filmed in Spain) or the iconic score by Ennio Morricone - easily one of the most recognizable ever.

If you were impressed with any Westerns from the Class of '07, do yourself a favor and take another look at The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. It's currently making the rounds on the United Artists 90th Anniversary festival/tour, which is suffering from absolutely terrible marketing - including the lack of a website that I can link to here.

REVIEW: No Country for Old Men (A)

Background: Writer/director brothers Joel and Ethan Coen are back on the scene with No Country for Old Men, their much-anticipated adaptation of Cormac McCarthey's 2005 novel by the same name. After achieving indie-darling status in the early 90's and then mainstream success with Fargo, The Big Lebowski, and O, Brother Where Are Thou?, the Coen brothers have made three flops in a row - most recently 2004's The Ladykillers. They return to their strongest genre with No Country for Old Men, which stars Spaniard Javier Bardem (Before Night Falls, The Sea Inside), Josh Brolin (recently in American Gangster), and Tommy Lee Jones (recently in In the Valley of Elah). You're not going to believe it, but Jones plays totally against type as a scraggly, suffering old sheriff with a drawl. No Country for Old Men was filmed in Texas and New Mexico and was very well received at the 2007 Cannes Film Festival.

Synopsis: Texas/Mexico border, 1980. Retired welder Llewelyn Moss (Brolin) is out on a desert hunt when he comes across a grisly body-strewn, bullet-riddled scene - the remnants of a drug deal gone sour. Ignoring the wounded lone survivor, and the stash of drugs, Moss soon finds the case full of payment money, which he casually takes back to his trailer park and nagging wife. Elsewhere, Anton Chigurh (Bardem) is escaping police custody and killing anyone in his way (with weapons that you've never seen before). And, as it turns out, the drug money is his. Moss returns to the crime scene to aid the wounded survivor - a foolish decision since he has to abandon his truck and barely escapes with his life. Now on the run with the money and some guns, Moss is alone and a target. Meanwhile, soon-to-retire Sheriff Ed Tom Bell (Jones) is yawningly trying to track down both Moss (to save him) and Chigurh (to arrest him). The rest of the movie is a cat-and-mouse chase with some additional interesting characters (Woody Harrelson plays a private gumshoe) and a number of unexpected twists. Plenty of lives are lost along the way before the incomplete yet satisfying end.

I Loved:
+ The outstanding ensemble acting - across the board, perfect in every way.
+ The early scene at the gas station with the conversation between Bardem and the owner - wow, was I scared.
+ That not every murder was shown, but rather just inferred.

I Liked:
+ The dusty, haunting landscapes through which the characters traveled, and the excellent 1980's production design.

I Disliked:
- The obligatory self-surgery scenes where someone pulls up their shirt in the middle of the street to inspect a bubbling wound and then later extracts bullets or dresses the wound for the first and last time.

I Hated:
- The most predictable car accident in years.

Grade:
Writing - 10
Acting - 10
Production - 9
Emotional Impact - 10
Music - 5
Significance - 3

Total: 47/50= 94% = A

Last Word: There are few movies that require a lot of work in searching for weaknesses, but No Country for Old Men is one of them. It's a gripping, spellbinding, tightly wound production with characters that you can't stand, but also can't help watch. I was extremely impressed with this movie, though I should say I haven't read the book. Matt says the Coen brothers were very faithful to it. Javier Bardem is a menacing figure - one of the scariest movie characters in a long time. Josh Brolin and Tommy Lee Jones are simply excellent in their roles, with memorable scenes and nuanced performances. Even Woody Harrelson makes the most of his limited screen time. Speaking of which, I don't remember even a minute of the film that didn't add significance to the story. It was just a top-to-bottom well-made movie. Even the minor criticisms I listed above don't take anything away from No Country for Old Men. Count me in as back on the Coen brothers bandwagon.

REVIEW: The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford (A)

Background: I didn't see the last movie made about Jesse James, American Outlaws (starring Colin Farrell as James), but I think it's safe to say that the legend of James has faded quite significantly from American pop culture. My limited knowledge of his life is how I'm measuring it, though, so that might not count for much. In any case, James is back on the scene in a big way thanks to Brad Pitt's Plan B Entertainment, which adapted the acclaimed 1983 novel that shares its ridiculously long name. The film, which was set to be released well over a year ago but delayed due to editing issues, stars Pitt as Jesse James, Casey Affleck (Ben's younger brother) as Robert Ford, and a host of supporting actors as the rest of the James gang, notably Sam Rockwell (Confessions of a Dangerous Mind). It was directed by inexperienced kiwi Andrew Dominik and filmed primarily in Alberta, Canada. Oh, and Nick Cave has a cameo as the saloon singer at the end. Weird.

Synopsis: We meet the James gang in 1881, on the eve of their final train robbery in Blue Cut, MO. Having lost most of their original crew to the elements (prison, death), Jesse (Pitt) and Frank (Sam Shepard) James hire a ragtag group of outlaws for the job, including Charley Ford (Rockwell) and his younger brother Robert (Affleck), who grew up idolizing Jesse. Robert's creepy affection earns him acceptance and friendship from Jesse, but eventually Robert gets in the way of Jesse's return to normalcy and is sent home. Months go by and the disbanded gang goes through periods of jealousy, mistrust, betrayal, and even murder. Jesse, who is increasingly paranoid that there is a plot to turn him in for reward money, reconnects with the Ford brothers essentially to keep an eye on them. In the meantime, Robert has arranged a deal with the Governor of Missouri (James Carville!) to kill Jesse, a sensible decision since Jesse appears ready to take out both Ford brothers at any time. As evident by the title, Robert succeeds, but eventually regrets his action after he is subject to initial waves of admiration, then humiliation, and finally outright hate.

I Loved:
+ Casey Affleck's tour-de-force performance, amplified by the expectations I had beforehand - most of his screen credits recently have been in the American Pie and Ocean's trilogies.
+ The cinematography - sweeping vista views, great framing and use of blurred-edge focus, freeze-frame, slow motion, color, etc.

I Liked:
+ The narration - it was the quickest way to give us important background information about the characters.
+ The ensemble supporting cast, each excellent in their part.

I Disliked:
- That the movie felt as long as it was - if you weren't expecting it you might become restless. Basically, it dragged a bit.
- The occasional chimey, winsome xylophones in the background - these felt out of place.

I Hated:
- When Brad Pitt totally came out of character with his trademark obnoxious laugh.
- The usual gunshots to the head.

Grade:
Writing - 10
Acting - 10
Production - 9
Emotional Impact - 10
Music - 5
Significance - 3

Total: 47/50= 94% = A

Last Word: Like I said, I didn't know much about Jesse James before seeing this, other than that he was a celebrated outlaw and lives on as the only reason to visit Northfield, MN, where is he curiously revered. The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford strikes an excellent balance in making the viewer feel sympathy for and conviction of the title characters. Casey Affleck just went nuts with this role. Apparently Shia LaBeouf was lined up to play Robert Ford but was considered too young. LaBeouf is a legitimate rising star, but this is Affleck's breakout role as a potential leading man, although I didn't see his well-received turn in Lonesome Jim. Pitt goes through the motions of his usual character: cocky, smirky, reserved, weepy, lonely, unpredictably crazy, etc. He plays James as a mixture of his roles in Syriana, Ocean's..., and Fight Club, but somehow it works. He did well casting himself, though somebody like Christian Bale probably could have added more depth to Jesse. The Assassination is not a traditional Western, but if that's your thing you'll probably enjoy it. However it ends up being categorized, it's an intriguing and well told story, even though it runs almost as long as its title.

REVIEW: 3:10 to Yuma (A-)

Background: As a genre, Westerns have been relatively nonexistent the last 10 years. Unforgiven , after winning Best Picture in 1993, "spurred" the production of Tombstone, Wyatt Earp, Open Range, (sadly) Wild, Wild West, and a handful of others, none of which were blockbusters. I can't even think of the last one I saw (Brokeback Mountain doesn't fit my criteria and I missed The Premonition). So here comes James Mangold (Walk the Line) hoping to revive the modern day Western by remaking the 1957 classic 3:10 to Yuma, which I also have not seen. Christian Bale and Russell Crowe star, with bit parts by Gretchen Mol and Peter Fonda. Incredibly, IMDB reports Eric Bana and Tom Cruise were originally sought after for the main parts, which would have made for a completely different, really bad movie.

Synopsis: In late-1800's Arizona, down-on-his luck rancher Dan Evans (Bale) and his two sons witness the hold-up of an armored wagon (yes, an armored wagon) on its way to a bank delivery. The gang responsible is led by Ben Wade (Crowe), a legendary outlaw. Evans assists in the capture of Wade and negotiates a contract to join the escort team that will deliver Wade to the train depot in Bisby, to catch the "3:10 to Yuma" where he will be tried and hanged. The two day journey provides moments of humor and horror as the escorts (soon joined by Evans' teenage son) evade Wade's gang, Apache Indians, and each other as they reach their destination. Wade, for his part, does as much as he can to get into Evans' head and convince him he has made all the wrong decisions in his life. The finale finds Evans torn between his choices as both the train and Wade's gang approach Bisby.

I Loved:
+ The performances of Bale and Crowe.
+ The production design - seen on the big screen, almost all of your senses are stimulated by the feeling of being in 19th-century Arizona.

I Liked:
+ The excellent musical score, especially at the end.

I Disliked:
- The number of bullets fired at Evans that conveniently miss their mark.
- Luke Wilson's performance - what was he doing in this?

I Hated:
- The number of people shot at point-blank range - these don't need to be so graphically shown for me to get the idea.
- The creepy guy on the escort team singing the "hanging" song - was anyone sad to see him go?

Grade:
Writing = 10/10
Acting = 10/10
Production = 10/10
Emotional Impact = 8/10
Music = 4/5
Significance = 3/5

Total: 45/50 = 90% = A-

Last Word: In addition to his performances in two other movies in just the last year (Rescue Dawn, The Prestige), Christian Bale is firmly establishing himself as one of my favorite actors. Truly an acting talent, he has especially impressed me with his different accents. Russell Crowe, in the meantime, has also shown the amazing range he has in continually unique roles (The Insider, Gladiator, A Beautiful Mind). Both of them are excellent in 3:10 to Yuma (as is Ben Foster). I would recommend it for fans of dramatic Westerns and action movies in general. The gunplay is brutally violent, probably more so than it needs to be, and there are some cliches that may be holdovers from the original writing in 1957. Nevertheless, you should leave the theater affected by Bale's character, as the decisions he is forced to make will stay with you. I think James Mangold has succeeded with this - watch for big-budget Westerns to reemerge in the next few years. By the way, isn't the Old West a romantic idea, if you ignore all the inconveniences? Talk about the simple life - tend your cattle, make campfires, and enjoy unpolluted air and technological silence.