3:10 to YoMomma

So with the generous gifting of a movie pass by Gayle I saw the movie '3:10 to Yuma' and enjoyed it. Now this movie is a remake, I have been on the record and off the record on hating remakes in general There is always exceptions to this, and this movie is one. Of course it helps I had to be told this movie is a remake and then I put reason to the nagging feeling that I'd heard the phrase '3:10 to Yuma' before. I will expound on remakes later. For now I will expound on this delightful movie.

Without having seen TttY ('Three ten to Yuma' 1957) I can safely say I can see why they remade it. What's that you say? Where do I get off? Why at Yuma of course. But enough of your frivolities. TttY is a western, but strip the (enjoyable) veneer of western, and under that bullet-ridden chase movie, you will find and psychological struggle between two disparate characters.

Ben Wade (Russell Crowe) is a self-possessed outlaw who robs a stagecoach, and is casually apprehended when he lets his guard down (with a woman ;-). Mr. Crowe infuses his character with a stillness that he brings to most in his movies. Which works for this movie, making Ben Wade a world-worn ruffian who is seemingly wizened by his travels. Ben Wade considers himself better then most of the farmers, petty railroad men, and animalistic cohorts he's surrounded by. Ben feels people out by talking to them, taunting them or listening when they talk; Most he finds two dimentional and uninteresting. Not so when it comes to Dan Evans.

Dan Evans (Christian Bale) is a down-on-his-luck farmer with a family to feed and no money. Dan sees an opportunity to make some money by accompanying the men taking Ben Wade to the prisoner train (The '3:10 to Yuma'). Evans seems to be driven by his need to provide for his family. Proving himself by earning not only the money he needs at this dangerous task but his manhood by doing his part for justice. Mr.Bale gets into his character in the usual method (Huh?! HUH!? Get it? 8-) and stays on the sane side of desperation without trailing into psycosis. We think we have Dan sussed out at the beginning of the movie, but as the story progresses his reasons for taking the job are taken away one by one until he's left to question why in the face of heartless lawful and charismatic lawless he should take this man to answer, not to the lives he's taken but the money he's stolen.

The payoff at the end pays off. The progression of the movie is well paced especially for a western where most screen times are taken up by one big gunfight. I was with this movie pretty much the whole time. I could see where an MTVBaby would get bored at some points but even they would still enjoy this movie overall. You don't have to enjoy westerns to get this film either, it's psychological subtest is plenty to carry you; But that said if you hate westerns (and do i need to say this?) don't go to this movie. I wouldn't consider myself a western guy, but I do like good movies. While not the prime date movie, it's certainly seems better than a romantic comedy.

An attempt to keep it real... ( reviewing Stardust )

Or, at least to keep this blog alive. I shall endavour to 'keep it real' as well.

On to the goods: I just saw Stardust and yes I liked it. Initially I tried to keep my self from having too many expectations. I am a Neil Gaiman fan, not super-fan mind you just the regular kind, and have read ( and enjoyed ) the original graphic novels. Not to mention I am a huge fan of anything remotely related to neo-Victorian/steampunk. So I had my work cut out for me, and I sedated my excitement with the luke-warm reviews and lack of 'underground buzz.' Thank the gods. I love being impressed. It has been a while since I've read the graphic novels ( since I had them signed by Neil around their initial release; seriously tho, NOT a super-fan, just a name-dropper ;-), and it was nice seeing this story play out without remembering what happens next. I can't even remember enough to tell the differences between the movie's storyline and the graphic novels'; which is great because I am always put off when I experience a story that I've already been exposed to in a different medium and it is slightly different. Just enough to open a window in the fourth wall and let that cold breeze through.

On to the movie itself: A fantasy in the traditional storybook context, it extracts itself from the stereotype with an interesting story that gives you exactly what you want in the way you didn't know you wanted it. The movie has been compared to Princess Bride, Goonies, and The Never Ending Story in that it contains that timelessness inherent in those movies, certainly it does not yet contain the emotional context those movies from my youth do, but given a chance I believe it could come close. I am a sucker for well executed love stories ( RARELY will a romantic comedy not involving Steve Martin fit the bill ) and the delicate on screen chemistry is hard to get. While it wasn't a mind-blowing success the chemistry between Claire Danes and Charlie Cox is playful and present when it counts. The interactions with the supporting characters is fantastic as well; the princes being the only weak point, dealing with that many backstabbing characters I'd imagine it's hard to write a script that adds enough depth to all of them. The actors portraying the princes did a bang up job tho, and while a little flat where fun to watch non-the-less.

A guarantee for fantasy fans, especially thoes of Gaiman descent.

Boshkana vs Boschkana

a city in the republic of moldova