Recently I was asked to critique a film critic on their choices and how they viewed movies. As I was searching I stumbled across an almost legendary critic
“Roger Ebert” and his review of the film “3:10 to Yuma”. Not only did I find his review insightful and very well written but the review also compelled me to see the film for myself, while analyzing the film Ebert claimed that the remake was better than the original. Now I already have a few reasons that I would love to view the film for myself such as my admiration for the actor Christina Bale, Bale has starred in a few of my favorite movies such as “The Prestige” or the recent Batman film titled “Batman Begins”, but I was also attracted to this movie because of my love for westerns such as Clint Eastwood’s “The Unforgiven”. When I also saw that Ebert had referenced Eastwood’s film in his review I was glad to hear him say that this film also followed the tradition of western films much like “The Unforgiven”. Now I have to say that there have been a few things that Ebert has reviewed that I did not completely agree with, but I feel that he has created an excellent review and that he has fully analyzed this film to the full extent. One thing that drew my attention while reading the review was when Ebert said, “Here the quality of the acting, and the thought behind the film, make it seem like a vanguard of something new, even though it's a remake of a good movie 50 years old.” Now I feel that sometimes it is unfair to compare an original film to its remake just because of the difference technological advancements can make for the film, you normally hear people say these things because the older films such as those filmed in black and white can bore those who do not appreciate filmmaking to its full extent. Most cannot see past all of the digital effects and the technological advancements to things like the plotline, character development, and acting, so they only see the remake as an achievement and treat the original like garbage. But Ebert found something different about the remake, he says that the thought behind the film and the quality of acting were the things that allowed this movies to surpass its predecessor. Building on that we can see where Ebert goes into detail about the actors and their thoughtful dialogue. “Mangold's version is better still than the 1957 original, because it has better actors with more thought behind their dialogue. Christian Bale plays not simply a noble hero, but a man who has avoided such risks as he now takes and is almost at a loss to explain why he is bringing a killer to justice, except that having been mistreated and feeling unable to provide for his family, he is fed up and here he takes his stand. Crowe, however, plays not merely a merciless killer, although he is that, too, but a man also capable of surprising himself. He is too intelligent to have only one standard behavior which must fit all situations, and is perhaps bored of having that expected of him.” I completely agree with Ebert and this review and now I look forward to seeing this film as well as the original so I can make my own comparisons.
