Skip to main content

Jay Sees A Movie - 3:10 To Yuma

Let's just get it out there - I heart Christian Bale. Seriously. He's the peanut butter to my bread, the knees of my bees, the weeble to my wobble. He's lovely.

He also has the advantage of being a really interesting actor, who picks a lot of strange and unconventional roles, so when I follow his career I get to see everything from Reign of Fire - a low budget movie about dragons, to American Psycho - the adaptation of the Bret Easton Ellis novel about a (maybe)serial killer to Batman Begins, the restart of the expensive superhero franchise, to 3:10 To Yuma, a remake of the 1957 film of the same name, and a good old-fashioned western of the best kind.

In 3:10, Bale plays a struggling rancher injured in the Civil War. When he goes to town to beg a fellow rancher for more time to pay his debts, Bale takes a paid job escorting gunman and villain Russell Crowe to the train - the 3:10 to Yuma - so that he can be shipped off to jail and hung.

The rest of the movie is basically a chase film. Bale and his fellows have to escape Apaches and railroad men and Crowe's own crew, who is coming to rescue their leader. During the course of this chase, Crowe and Bale form an interesting bond, not of friendship, exactly, but one of understanding.

Because he picks such interesting roles, Christian Bale is, a lot of the times, the best actor in a movie. He's been in a bunch of cheesy movies with stars who are slumming, or people we've never heard of, or whose budgets barely exist. So it's really a joy to see him play against someone as great as Russell Crowe. Both of them are at the top of their game here - their back and forth takes the movie from an interesting old school Western to a great movie. The supporting performances are equally good - particularly Ben Foster as the showy Charlie Prince, Crowe's second-in-command. Because of flashier movies like The Coward Robert Ford and No Country for Old Men, 3:10 has been largely overlooked this award season, and that's too bad, since it's truly great. Even though Christian Bale doesn't take his shirt off in it.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Monday Miscellany

1. I've been watching old episodes of The West Wing on Bravo lately, and have come to the conclusion that I love the character of Sam Seaborn. He's smart, he's earnest, he's a good writer, and he's played by Rob Lowe. What's not to love?* 2. I just bought the cutest jacket at Ann Taylor Loft. I know you care, but it's not every day that one can find a white denim jacket with styling reminiscent of Michael Jackson and a tailored waist. I'm just saying. 3. NaNoWriMo proceeds apace. There is no way that I'm going to be able to keep writing at this pace after this month is over, but I'm on track to finish. It's an interesting project...in some ways the speed is freeing and in other ways it's extremely limited, as to make the word count I have no time to go back and revise. 4. Alien and Aliens are amazing movies. Alien 3 and Alien Resurrection ? Not so much. 5. This week's Glee characterization inconsistency watch: Rache...

Why Are The Characters Friends?

Lately, I've been reading a lot of books where the main character and her best friend don't get along. This is confusing to me. Why is the main character friends with someone she dislikes, or is afraid of, or actually hates? I get that it happens--I've seen Mean Girls . I've read Queen Bees and Wannabes . Heck, I'm old enough to have been the prime audience for Heathers . But in order for this fractured best friend relationship to be convincing, it has to be set up. In both Heathers and Mean Girls , there's a reason why the protagonist is friends with a bunch of b*tches--she chose to be. She knows that they're jerks. In fact, she can feel herself becoming a jerk right along with them. It's part of the character arc, the point of the story, that being friends with these girls is not who she really is. But the relationships I've been seeing lately don't make that kind of sense. The protagonist doesn't have a reason to be friends with...

Jay Takes A Stand

Moonrat, still at Editorial Ass, is making me think a lot lately. She did a recent post here about sexualized violence in print ads, and connected the dots to sexualized violence in books and other media, which got me thinking about how I treat girls and women in my books. To be clear--I'm a feminist. I believe in equal pay for equal work and reproductive choice, and the whole ball of wax. I'm not going to go into detail about all that here because, frankly, there are people out there whose blogs are dedicated to that kind of thing (like Jezebel *) and they do it way better than I ever could. But that's my political orientation, in case you care. So when I was writing The Book, it was very important to me that my female protagonist S did not fall into any of those "heroine needs saving by the hero" tropes that so many books for teenage girls do. Sure, there's something very "romantic" about the hero swooping in and rescuing the heroine, right? ...