Jump to content
Forum Cinema em Cena

Sophie Aubrey

Members
  • Content Count

    197
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Sophie Aubrey

  • Rank
    Assistente de Estúdio
  1. Do blog do Luiz Carlos Merten, do jornal O Estado de S.Paulo em 18/09/2007: http://blog.estadao.com.br/blog/merten/?title=especial_para_a_mariana&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1 Especial para a Mariana por Luiz Carlos Merten, Seção: Cinema, Atualidades s 12:47:38. Acho que este post vai interessar especialmente à Mariana, que está louca para ver 3:10 to Yuma. Eu também estava, Mariana, e fui correndo. Gostei. Tem a essência do filme antigo do Delmer Daves, com Glenn Ford e Van Heflin – o rancheiro que assume como um desafio embarcar pistoleiro no trem do título original –, mas me pareceu mais complexo. No Brasil, o filme antigo se chamou Galante e Sanguinário e o pistoleiro é mais charmoso ainda na nova versão, interpretado pelo Russell Crowe. Ele tem uma atuação de astro, mas gostei mais do Christian Bale na pele do rancheiro, que tem problemas com o filho. O garoto, no fundo, gostaria que o pai reagisse aos poderosos que o hostilizam como o pistoleiro. Cria-se um curioso elo do pai com o bandido sanguinário e eu não vou dizer como a coisa se soluciona. Delmer Daves, há 50 e tantos anos, reinventou o tema do trem de Matar ou Morrer, de Fred Zinnemann (e que John Sturges, em Duelo de Titãs, de 1958, também reaproveitou). Sei que sou minoria absoluta, mas não sou muito fã do clássico de Zinnemann, com seu tempo real acompanhado por todos aqueles relógios - queria ver ele marcar o tempo sem os ponteiros, a toda hora. Galante e Sanguinário é uma raridade – um western cheio de suspense, trafegando bem entre os dois gêneros. Quero voltar ao Christian Bale. Também acho, Mariana, que o cara é um camaleão. Talvez seja o melhor ator de sua geração, mas talvez por ser ator e não ‘astro’, ele não obtém o reconhecimento que merece. Não sei se vai vir por este filme, ou melhor, duvido, porque o holofote aqui é para o Russell Crowe. Elaine Guerini, que estava comigo em Los Angeles, me jura que Christian Bale, que também está no filme do Todd Haynes sobre Bob Dylan, é melhor do que Cate Blanchett, que foi melhor atriz em Veneza pelo papel – os dois e mais um monte de gente interpretam Bob Dylan –, e Brad Pitt, que foi melhor ator por the Assassination of Jesse James. Só fiquei em dúvida numa coisa. Em Los Angeles, 3:10 passa sob o selo da Fox. Fui checar com a assessoria da empresa qual o título brasileiro – e a data de estréia no Brasil – e quebrei a cara. Ninguém sabia me dizer se o filme é mesmo da Fox. Eu, hein? Visite o Russell Crowe Daily Planet, meu blog em Português sobre o Russell e seus filmes, todo o dia sempre o primeiro com as últimas, e o que é melhor, em Português: http://ivani.lima.blog.uol.com.br/
  2. Do Russell Crowe Daily Planet, de 19/09: Russell e Leonardo Finalmente Filmam Juntos – Até onde sabemos, não é? De acordo com o The Washington Post de hoje: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/19/AR2007091900127.html os dois ontem filmaram uma calorosa discussão ao lado de um lago perto do Memorial ao Vietnã na cidade de Washington. Segundo o jornal, esta é a terceira semana de filmagem e ainda há mais dois dias em Washington. Do Russell Crowe Daily Planet, de 20/09/07: . Fotos do Russell e Leonardo Filmando – Graças à fã Vivian do fórum AwardsDaily.com, fotos dos dois filmando juntos em Washington em 18/09/07, recebendo instruções do Ridley, clique aqui: http://forums.awardsdaily.com/showthread.php?t=4341 Proibida a reprodução dessas fotos em qualquer outro site ou blog . 19/09/07: Última dia de Filmagens – O Washington Post de hoje: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/19/AR2007091902622.html informa que ontem foi o última dia de filmagens em Washington, e que amanhã toda a equipe partirá para Marrocos para continuar a produção do filme. Ontem foram filmadas duas cenas no aeroporto de Dulles (que se transformou em aeroporto da cidade de Amman na Jordânia, uma no balcão de embarque da Lufthansa cheio de sinais em língua árabe e centenas de pessoas vestidas como árabes, e depois no hangar da firma de jatinhos Landow´s Jet Center, que contou com a chegada de uma longa fila de Mercedes Benz e um Rolls Royce. Visite o Russell Crowe Daily Planet, meu blog em Português sobre o Russell e seus filmes, todo o dia sempre o primeiro com as últimas, e o que é melhor, em Português: http://ivani.lima.blog.uol.com.br
  3. Body of Lies/Notícias e Fotos dos Set de Filmagens Filmagens em 12/09: Via Murph, o site Home Town Annapolis: http://www.hometownannapolis.com/cgi-bin/read/2007/09_13-06/TOP informa que flmagens aconteceram na manhã desta quarta, dia 12/09, com Russell usando uma peruca de cabelos curtos e grisalhos. A cena filmada lá foi em frente à loja Cakes and Confections Gourmet Bakery, no bairro de St. Margarets, na cidade de Annapolis. Na cena, o personagem do Russell, Ed Hoffman, para na loja para comprar um filão de pão, faz uma chamada pelo celular, retorna ao carro e vai embora. No artigo, vocês poderão ver uma foto pequena tirada à distância, que mal dá para ver o Russell. Do Russell Crowe Daily Planet em 15/09: . Russell Recebe as Boas Vindas de Vizinhos do Set de Filmagem – Via fãs Murph e CGee, o The Washington Post de ontem: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/13/AR2007091302652.html informa que na noite da última quarta, dia 12/09, uma família cuja casa é vizinha de outra onde o Russell está filmando na cidade de Annapolis, colocou em frente à sua casa o famoso letreiro “Hollywood”, igualzinho àquele que se encontra nas colinas de Los Angeles, mas em tamanho menor. Essa mesma família também montou no jardim da frente de sua casa uma mesa com salgadinhos com uma positiva boas vindas, o que fez o Russell ir até lá para um bate um papo e uma sessão de autógrafos por meia hora. A matéria também saiu no site da revista People (clique aqui). . Fotos do Set de Filmagens – Via fã Barbiecat, no site HomeTownAnnapolis: http://www.hometownannapolis.com/color_index_thursday.html temos 4 fotos do set, uma delas ao longe com o Russell descansando da filmagem de uma cena, usando uma peruca de cabelo curto e grisalho. Visite o Russell Crowe Daily Planet, meu blog em Português sobre o Russell e seus filmes, todo o dia sempre o primeiro com as últimas, e o que é melhor, em Português: http://ivani.lima.blog.uol.com.br
  4. Entrevista com Michael Brand e Derek Haas para a revista Script Magazine, Setembro/Outubro/2007, transcrição feita por minha amiga Isis: http://www.scriptmag.com/ Everything Old (West) Is New Again: Writing the remake of 3:10 to Yuma By Bob Verini "This movie is the perfect ticking clock. We've got this guy in custody, and we have to get him on this train due in at 3:10." The speaker is Michael Brandt, writing partner of Derek Haas, and this is a team that knows something about ticking clocks and suspense after such credits as Catch That Kid and 2 Fast 2 Furious. Now they're about to make the leap into the really big leagues of studio filmmaking with the September release of 3:10 to Yuma, directed by James Mangold (Walk the Line) and co-starring two of today's most respected stars, Russell Crowe and Christian Bale. And their jumping-off point for this critical career move is… a 50-year-old Western. It's a genre that veteran and tyro screenwriters alike always seem to have a yet to write even though, as Brandt freely admits, "Most of them don't do well. I mean, since Forgiven (1992), what has there been? Open Range, that was a good one but I think it disappointed them in terms of return. Most of the exciting stuff is done on television now." Yet now the writers are getting their shot at the genre, partly because their director saw them as having a fresh vision, but also because… well, they know their Westerns. "Screenwriters today don't see enough movies, especially older movies," Haas opines. Brandt vigorously nodding in agreement. "They lack the cinematic vocabulary; they can't talk intelligently about what's been done before." That this team is particularly cinematically literate made them a shrewd choice to bring a respected, but by now little-known, classic to the screen for a brand-new audience. "Jim [Mangold] worshipped the original," Brandt says. "It was his favorite movie growing up, but he thought it could use some modernizing, particularly in terms of a second act which the original didn't really have. And he kept saying, 'I refuse to do a Knott's Berry Farm Western,' meaning a clichéd, theme-park shoot-'em-up. He wanted to embrace the original, but bring some new things to it. That's why he took a chance on two guys who'd only really written a car movie: He felt we could bring a different sensibility." You can catch the original on DVD or, periodically, on one of the cable movie channels, a scintillating black-and-white 1957 suspense drama that pits outlaw Ben Wade (Glenn Ford, now Crowe) opposite Civil War veteran Dan Evans (Van Heflin, now Bale). The latter, a crack shot who is trying to make a go of ranching, volunteers to transport the captured Wade to the train that will take him to the Yuma Territorial Prison, in return for $200 that will buy Evans the water rights he needs for his cattle. Wade's gang—and Wade himself, a charming, gregarious sort of murderer—are all determined to see that the rendezvous with the train never takes place. Much of the waiting occurs in a hotel room in the wonderfully named town of Contention, during which the crafty Wade tries to bribe Evans away from his duty. In its focus on time and trains, as well as the way in which Evans is gradually abandoned by his allies on the right side of the law, the tale is clearly indebted to High Noon, which preceded the Elmore Leonard short story that inspired the script by the late Halsted Welles, a prolific writer from the Golden Age of television. The original 3:10 to Yuma even has its own High Noon-ish theme song, sung by the legendary Frankie Laine. But Welles' script and Delmer Daves' direction have an integrity and bite all their own; the cat-and-mouse between Dan and Ben is much subtler and more disturbing than anything in the Gary Cooper classic. Most remakes retain an earlier film's basic premise and some lines or a situation or two, but beyond that they operate as if the new screenwriter just hasn't done his job until he's tossed around, trussed up, and gutted what worked in the past. Brandt and Haas have chosed to do a very rare thing that may turn out be very smart: not merely adapting the original script, but adapting the original script, but adopting large sections of it as well. "Once we got the job and watched the movie," Haas says, "I asked Sony for an archive copy of the script, and it was intimidating because it's really, really well-written. Now, it's done in a style that's difference from today: It almost reads like a play, with these long, long action-description blocks telling you about Dan's ranch or whatever. But, you could see why that movie did so well back then. The dialogue is snappy, and he took the Elmore Leonard short story, which is basically just the ending of the movie, and extrapolated back to Dan's life, and it's great. "So, that's why we're sharing credit with him; we used a lot of his stuff," and indeed the remake's card will read, Written by Halsted Welles and Michael Brandt & Derek Haas. Not only that, but the debt to Welles was part of the design all along, Brandt says, "We always had it in mind to use much of what he wrote. There are these great Dan/Ben exchanges that didn't need any improvement. Why try to change it just for change's sake when it's great?" Recrafting the Tale Yet Brandt describes major problems with what Welles had written, problems that some critics noted even in 1957. "They had a great first act, and all of a sudden Dan says, 'For $200 I'll take him,' and they cut to a great third act in the hotel room. We said, 'There's a whole middle part missing that we want to write.'" Haas explains, "First of all, a lot of the original movie takes place in a hotel room. So we said, let's open it up. Let's put the train station in a town 100 miles away, so from the time Dan says, 'I'll take him' to getting on the train, it becomes a road movie. "And we decided to set it when the railroads were just being built; you can actually see the progression of the railroad as they proceed to this town. Dan thinks, 'If I can just hold out until the train is finished'—in the original it was a drought and hew was holding out for rain, but now it's the train—'then I can bring in my stock, we'll be okay.'" Brandt interjects, "We had read Stephen Ambrose's book about the building of the transcontinental railroad, and that was the end of the Old West right there. So, Dan is holding out for civilization on this journey, and there are flags in the dirt marking the railroad's progress; the promise is coming that will take them all out of this." "Now, of course," Haas continues, "those towns were really dirty: That's where the whores went! So, we felt that Ben Wade could say, 'this is the civilization you've been waiting for?' And that would be an effective theme." Another of the team's innovations deepened the storytelling while relating to their own lives. Haas describes it this way: "We thought it would be a great idea to put Dan's son William—a character just in the original movie's first act—on the road with him." (Though told to stay home with his mother and brother, William tracks the men for a while before catching up to them.) "So, it became a morality play between the outlaw and this fellow who's trying to do thing the right way. We said, let's let that play out in front of the boy who's seeing it all. Really, the movie is from William's point of view in a lot of ways." Ben Wade's attempt to bribe Dan becomes even more significant with the additions of William. To Brandt, the movie is about "a man's ability to say 'No.' How far can a man go before he says 'Yes'? At what price will he finally sell out? We thought, how great to have his son along as he asks these questions, the son's saying, 'Dad, You're weak, you've never done anything for our family; take the offer,' as the boy is drawn to the 'rock star' of an outlaw." Brandt confesses that he and Haas "each have our own father issues—our fathers are very strong influences on our lives—and whenever we approach a story, for some reason one of the first things we think about is the eyes of a son or the eyes of a father. Our man has to find his internal moral code, but with his son as audience. That's what elevated it to us. Adding William remains true to the genre because Dan still has to go through his journey. But, it's not clichéd because he's not a hero by himself." Sharpening the Characters A chronically underrated actor, Van Heflin did some of his very best work as Dan, but the writers felt that the script let him down in places. Haas says, "In the archetype of the Western, your hero starts to be a hero right away. In the original 3:10, on page 20 Dan says, 'I'll take him.' Yes, it's on principle; he wants $200 for the water rights, but in essence he's a hero from that moment. "We thought, instead, let's make Dan become a hero progressively. At first, he's one of a group: He's a little desperate, doing it for money. And then, in the second act, a particular event takes place, and Dan has to rise to the occasion in the moment in front of his son." Yet, Brandt emphasizes that "What our hero isn't, and what John Wayne and so many of them were, is a loner. The lone man caught in the firelight talking about how many Indians he killed, we didn't want to do that at all. Later in the movie, the bribe takes center stage and offers Dan his biggest dilemma yet. Haas again: "What has to be real in this movie is the temptation of Ben Wade's saying, 'Dan, you're getting paid $200. Well, I'll give you a thousand. No one has to ever know. Life has beaten your wife down, but you can buy her pretty dresses. You can send your son to school. You can have the cows and the water and the property, everything you've dreamed of. Just let me go.' They come to respect each other in the course of the story. So, that temptation has got to be valid or else you're in the 80s' movie cliché land. The temptation should be especially valid coming from Russell Crowe, than whom few actors are more charismatic (sic), though it should be noted that Glenn Ford's Ben Wade was pretty darned persuasive—and frightening—in his own right. Brandt says, "From the short story to Halsted's script to the 1957 movie, Ben Wade hasn't changed. He has the ability to smile and tell two different stories; one smile that can charm the pants off a lady, and the other that can kill a man." Haas continues, "We always said, this guy has to be the rock star of the Old West. Who's a 15-year-old boy going to follow? His dad who's digging out in the farm, or the guy who's on everyone's lips, whom everyone knows even if they don't know his face? That set up the perfect dichotomy for William. Then, too, there's Ben's simple, manipulative command over his gang. He's street-smart as hell. Much scarier than a guy who wears sunglasses and doesn't talk." To Brandt, "There are always only a few actors who can pull all that off, and they're always everyone's favorites. We thought, it's got to be Russell Crowe, Tom Cruise, Brad Pitt, or George Clooney, and maybe I've missed one but probably not. They're the kind of men other men would like to be, or have a beer with; good-looking but not in an intimidating way, it's pure charm. And pure charm is a lot scarier and more interesting to write than pure evil. You see the intelligence in their eyes, and Russell does than better than anyone." It should be noted that when a Russell Crowe—or a Glenn Ford, for that matter—commits a murder, the moment has got to sting. "We took from the original movie the great moment when they rob a stage and Wade shoots his own man. It sets the tone right there. You do not mess with the guy." Brandt interjects, "You get the feeling that the weakest man out of this gang is always going to get killed, which makes every one of them say, 'It's not going to be me.'" The writers went out of their way to make Wade's gang diverse and even multicultural, on the theory that a hand-picked group of cut-throats with specialties—including a Mexican sharpshooter and an Apache renegade—would inspire more terror than a faceless mob of extras. At the same time, the team's introductory descriptions of gang members demonstrate a shrewd understanding of how actors think. Here's a sample of the instant impressions that a screenwriter can create: JORGENSEN (45): Massive arms and legs. A bear of a man. KINTER (34): A soulless butcher with deadened eyes. JACKSON (35): Powerful and dangerous. TOMMY DARDEN (28): Battle-scarred handsome face, a BOWIE KNIFE in his hand. Haas explains, "When actors consider parts, they don't want to be 'Gunman #3,' so you give them a line or two, and that also gives the casting director something to work with. We've read so many scripts by unproduced writers, and they either don't do that at all or do it too much, and pretty soon you're reading unnecessary details about each one. You have to find a succinct way to say, 'Here's this guy.'" That bit of craftsmanship ties into the writer's need to grab a studio's attention as well. "We've always viewed a screenplay as more of a marketing device than anything else, especially the first couple of drafts," Haas confides. "It's a way of saying, 'Here's the movie.' Studio executives need to be shown exactly what the movie is. We're not afraid of spelling out some of the filmmaking that should go into a moment." "We'll write about the camera," Brandt interjects, "and say "The camera flies up in the air and does such and such.' By the time they get to a shooting script, the director's going to do what he wants to do, but if we can put those images into their minds originally, who knows what's going to happen? "Pace is always important in our movies," he continues, "and we know that, in general, almost every scene in a screenplay goes on too long, and that in the movie it's going to be shorter. You're going to cut out sooner; you don't need that last line or three lines. So, a script is a document that's representative of what's going to be on the screen." Or, as Haas sums it up, "We want 'em flipping pages." Intensifying the Action The moviegoer's equivalent of "flipping pages" has to do with the nature and excitement of the film's action sequences, and those are especially hard to pull off in light of the ones that we've all seen before. Haas admits, "There are a thousand times when you say to yourself, 'We can't do that, that's Die Hard.' You've got to try to come up with something novel, but something that's also believable and right for the moment, with the right pacing. That's the job. "We always cite to producers our favorite action scene, the one in Raiders of the Lost Ark where Indiana Jones is fighting the giant German guy on the plane. He's not just fighting the biggest German guy you've ever seen. He's not just trying to dodge the propeller on the moving plane; his girlfriend's trapped in the plane, there's fire all around and guys with machine guns. There's like, five things going on at once to make that scene great. "So, we're always thinking, 'What's another perilous thing we can throw at our guy?' If we can't even figure how he's going to get out of it—and it may take us an extra two days to come up with it—then the audience probably won't either." For instance, in the process of deepening the yarn's second act, the team wrote a sequence taking place in the railroad camp. Haas explains, "Our guys are having to face a new enemy they haven't confronted before. They have to deal with that threat while racing through a blasting camp with tunnels collapsing and all of these workers around." Brandt chimes in, "And you still get a sense that Ben Wade wants to get free, and there's still the train coming at 3:10, they can't delay." Brandt believes that "Writers are always too afraid too afraid to write themselves into a corner. It's always preached that you should outline, outline, outline and in some ways that's fine. You should always know where you want your story and character to end up. But knowing where you're going can hinder the action process. "It happened in this movie. Originally, we saw Wade's gang as The Thing That's Coming, the 'superposse' as in Butch Cassidy, which should show up periodically to menace Ben and Dan. But we had the idea that once they get to Contention, instead of its just being the 10 guys, how great would it be if the 10 guys announce, 'We'll give $100 to any many who will shoot these guys'? So now at the end of the movie, instead of their getting through 10 guys, they have to get through 100 guys! It's pretty exciting. "When we added the part about offering $100 to anyone who kills somebody, I remember Derek and I saying, 'That's great. Our guys are in a room and an entire town wants to kill them. Now what do we do?' Well, when you put yourself up against the wall like that, you're forced to find a way out of it (and hopefully we found some interesting, different ways to do that). "So, if you get your main character stuck on the top of a building, if you write him into that place and you don't know how to get him down, then the audience isn't going to see the obvious escape." Taking the Next Step Michael Brandt and Derek Haas met in a screenwriting class at Baylor University in Waco, Texas. While they wrote scripts separately and together, their partnership wasn't cemented until Brandt had moved to L.A. to get work as an editor while Haas lived in Austin working in advertising. "Derek sent me a film he's written called The Courier. It was completely different from anything he or I had ever done, and very original, but it was 70 pages long. I said to him, 'Well, maybe this should be the end of Act Two,' and I started writing over the course of the next year. When it was finished, I gave it to a woman who was working on a movie, and she gave it to a producer's assistant, who gave it to a producer, who gave it to Brad Pitt's manager, who gave it to Brad Pitt, who wanted to do it." Alert fans will know that The Courier was never made. On the Tuesday before Thanksgiving in 1999, all shook hands and set out to make the movie, but the very next day news came that both its star and director Gore Verbinski were taking advantage of Julia Robert's availability to do The Mexican instead. Still, the writers were in the trades and had an agent, and when an apartment next door to Mr. and Mrs. Brandt opened up, Mr. and Mrs. Haas moved west and moved in. "We didn't make another dollar for two years," Haas says. "We were pitching and reading scripts and learning so much about writing. But I thought we were weeks away from getting jobs at Starbucks." With 3:10 to Yuma in the can and Wanted, a comic book movie with Angelina Jolie and Morgan Freeman, coming out in March of 2008, they won't be working at Starbucks any time soon. They continue to work separately on multiple projects. ("We feel that if we don't have two scripts going, in two different genres, one of us isn't doing anything.") Beyond constant e-mailing, they tend to get together in person just twice a week, out on the golf course. There they work out specific script problems that have come up and talk about the future projects they hope to bring to the screen, with Haas producing and Brand directing. Whatever happens next in their careers, their delight at being able to bring a venerable Western classic to new life is palpable. "You don't get the opportunity to write them anymore," says Haas, "so we jumped at the chance. It feels like the kind of Western we loved growing up, but it's not too arty; it's a plot-driven movie. "Let's put it this way: Anybody who sees the poster and goes in expecting to see an action-adventure is going to get what they want." Visite o Russell Crowe Daily Planete, meu blog em Português sobre o Russell e seus filmes, todo o dia sempre o primeiro com as últimas, e o que é melhor, em Português: http://ivani.lima.blog.uol.com.br
  5. Do Box Office Mojo, 09/09: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=2383&p=.htm '3:10 to Yuma' Arrives at Top Spot by Brandon Gray September 9, 2007 3:10 to Yuma moseyed to the top of a typically quiet early September weekend box office. Lionsgate's $55 million remake of the 1957 Western of the same name loaded a passable estimated $14.1 million on approximately 3,100 screens at 2,652 theaters. To illustrate the historic softness of the weekend after Labor Day, the movie posted the highest-grossing non-horror opening on record for the frame. Much has been made of Hollywood's aversion to theatrical Westerns in the past few decades, and 3:10 to Yuma's opening probably isn't significant enough to affect the state of the genre either way. The movie marks the first widely-released, traditionally gunslinging Western since Open Range in 2003. That picture had greater attendance out of the gate with $16 million adjusted for ticket price inflation at 2,075 sites and it closed with the equivalent of $66 million today. Proper Westerns are so rare that when a movie has Western trappings, that fact becomes the all-encompassing selling point. Such was the case with 3:10 to Yuma, which added some slick graphics to its action-oriented marketing. The picture also stood out as a vehicle for lead actor Russell Crowe, who has had unusual success in the period action movies Gladiator and Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World, though his first Western, The Quick and the Dead, was a disappointment. Also opening, Shoot 'Em Up made a weak estimated $5.5 million at 2,108 locations. Too self-conscious and too much like a video game in its premise, New Line Cinema's over-the-top action picture failed like the studio's recent similar pictures Domino and Running Scared. Faring far worse was The Brothers Solomon, a $10 million Sony comedy that grossed a mere estimated $525,000 at 700 venues. In second for the weekend, Labor Day champion Halloween bled 62 percent to an estimated $10 million for $44.2 million in 10 days, its drop common for the horror genre. Holding well, Superbad followed with an estimated $8 million, down 36 percent for $103.7 million in 24 days. In general, holdovers saw standard declines for the frame. Visite o Russell Crowe Daily Planete, meu blog em Português sobre o Russell e seus filmes, todo o dia sempre o primeiro com as últimas, e o que é melhor, em Português: http://ivani.lima.blog.uol.com.br
  6. O filme 3:10 To Yuma no Brasil se chamará "Os Indomáveis" Conforme ficha atualizada aqui do próprio Cinema Em Cena: http://www.cinemaemcena.com.br/frm_Noticias_Detalhe2.aspx?ID=23231&tipo=cinenews&cod_filme=5179 Via Omelete hoje, resultado parcial das bilheterias este fim de semana de estréia de Yuma: http://www.omelete.com.br/cine/100007873/Bilheteria_USA.aspx Bilheteria USA: 3:10 To Yuma Christian Bale e Russell Crowe lideram a arrecadação dos cinemas no fim de semana nos EUA 10/09/2007 Érico Borgo O remake do faroeste Galante e Sanguinário (3:10 to Yuma) dominou as bilheterias nos Estados Unidos no fraco fim de semana. Foram 14,10 milhões de dólares. O faroeste conta a história de um rancheiro modesto, Dan Evans (Christian Bale), que captura o temerário fora-da-lei Ben Wade (Russell Crowe) e é convencido a levar o prisioneiro a uma cidade vizinha, onde passa o tal trem das 3:10 até Yuma, onde Wade pode ser encarcerado. O problema é que todo o bando dele já está atrás de Evans, e uma pequena guerra pode começar. Gretchen Mol, Vinessa Shaw, Dallas Roberts, Ben Foster e o veterano Peter Fonda integram o elenco do remake. O diretor é James Mangold (Johnny & June). O filme estréia no Brasil no fim do ano. Confira clipes e fotos do filme. Halloween, misto de prelúdio e refilmagem do terror de 1978 que o músico e cineasta Rob Zombie (A casa dos 1000 corpos, Rejeitados pelo diabo) dirigiu, caiu bastante (61%), mas conseguiu ficar com a vice-liderança, gerando mais 10 milhões. Na história, que reconta a origem do maníaco Michael Meyers, ele é preso em um hospital psiquiátrico ainda criança. 17 anos depois, escapa - e decide ir atrás de Laurie Strode (Scout Taylor-Compton), enquanto ela serve de babá de crianças, e da sua antiga vizinhança. A estréia é prevista para 26 de outubro nos cinemas brasileiros. Veja clipes, fotos e trailer do filme. O artigo continua ... clique no link acima. Visite o Russell Crowe Daily Planete, meu blog em Português sobre o Russell e seus filmes, todo o dia sempre o primeiro com as últimas, e o que é melhor, em Português: http://ivani.lima.blog.uol.com.brSophie Aubrey2007-09-10 12:46:36
  7. Hollywood Reporter: Yuma Pode Colocar o Gênero Western De Volta Aos Trilhos - Clique aqu: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/features/columns/e3ib3ddb8f56834481458edfabeb0069c3f e leia esta matéria fantástica escrita por Martin Grove, vale a pena: “Palavras de Western: Caso de Amor de Hollywood Vai ou Não Vai com os Westerns está em ação com o filme 3:10 To Yuma da Lionsgate chegando aos cinemas em 07 de setembro. Embora os Westerns tem sido um dos gêneros mais populares de Hollywood deste os primeiros primórdios do cinema, eles também tem passado por período quando perderam seu lugar para filmes policiais, dramas, fantasias da ficção cientifica e outros gêneros. Em algum lugar, contudo, westerns sempre conseguem apreciar um ressurgimento, e “Yuma” pode colocar o gênero de volta aos trilhos de Hollywood.” Texto original: 'Yuma' could put genre back on track By Martin A. Grove Aug 31, 2007 Western words: Hollywood's on-again, off-again love affair with westerns is on again with Lionsgate's "3:10 to Yuma" pulling into theaters Sept. 7. Although westerns have been one of Hollywood's most popular genres since the earliest days of moviemaking, they've also gone through periods when they've taken a backseat to thrillers, dramas, sci-fi fantasies and other genres. Somehow, though, westerns always manage to enjoy a resurgence, and "Yuma" could put the genre back on the Hollywood track. To begin with, there's "Yuma," starring Russell Crowe, Christian Bale, Peter Fonda, Gretchen Mol and Ben Foster, directed by James Mangold and produced by Cathy Konrad. Its screenplay by Halsted Welles and Michael Brandt & Derek Haas is based on the 1953 short story "3:10 to Yuma" by Elmore Leonard. The film was executive produced by Stuart Besser, Ryan Kavanaugh and Lynwood Spinks. "Yuma" is Mangold and Konrad's remake of the classic 1957 western directed by Delmer Daves, written by Halsted Welles and starring Glenn Ford, Van Heflin and Felicia Farr. The husband-wife Mangold-Konrad team's credits include such acclaimed films as the Johnny Cash biopic "Walk the Line" and the drama "Girl, Interrupted." "Walk," a Producers Guild of America Laurel Award nominee, won the best picture-musical or comedy Golden Globe. It also brought Reese Witherspoon a best actress Oscar win and a best actress-musical or comedy Globe win and brought Joaquin Phoenix a best actor-musical or comedy Globe win. "Girl" brought Angelina Jolie best supporting actress wins in the Oscar, Globe and Screen Actors Guild races. On "Yuma's" heels, another high-profile western drama is heading our way in "The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford," starring Brad Pitt and Casey Affleck, opening Sept. 21 via Warner Bros. If either or both of these films do well with moviegoers, the western genre could suddenly mushroom in popularity among studio production executives eager to hop on the bandwagon. I was happy to have an opportunity to focus recently with Mangold and Konrad on the twists and turns their "Yuma" remake took on its long dusty road to the screen. "I've had an affection for this story and this film since the mid-'80s when Sandy Mackendrick (director Alexander Mackendrick, whose credits include the 1957 classic noir drama 'Sweet Smell of Success'), who was my teacher at CalArts (California Institute of the Arts) first showed it to me," Mangold told me. "I was working for him as a teaching assistant and I would analyze the film on an old 16mm analytical projector and break it down for him as we were preparing class notes. It really got in my blood, so years later, when I wrote the film 'Cop Land' that Cathy produced, it was really heavily influenced and a lot of the structures inside it were taken from 'Yuma.' In fact, Stallone's character was even named after Van Heflin. His name in the film is Freddie Heflin." "I was introduced to the film when I met Jim in 1995," Konrad said. "I was producing 'Cop Land' at the time and as the inquisitive producer working with a new director and always curious about what's next I wanted to know what material he was interested in. And the two movies that he said he'd always wanted to do were the movie about Johnny Cash and he asked if I'd ever seen a movie called '3:10 to Yuma.' I hadn't and he showed it to me. So way back in 1995 was sort of the genesis of both those projects for us." The idea of remaking "Yuma" first surfaced, Mangold recalled, when he was shooting his thriller "Identity," starring John Cusack, Ray Liotta and Amanda Peet, at Columbia: "So it was like the winter early in 2002 and we were on the lot making 'Identity.' It just occurred to me. Things were going really wonderful with Sony. We were developing 'Walk the Line' with them. We had a deal there at the time. And it suddenly occurred to me as we were rifling through material and ideas for movies that there's something sitting in the vault that isn't even out on video. I think it was one of the best western stories. I knew it was by Elmore Leonard. "I thought it would be a phenomenal film. I think playing to a modern audience it has some flaws, but I feel like it's a really great script with great actors. We went to Amy Pascal (now co-chairman of Sony Pictures Entertainment) with it and asked whether she'd support developing it as a fresh film and not as a modern update using the structure (of the original) -- just doing it as a western. And they were curious enough to let us get underway." Asked what accounts for the popularity of westerns ebbing and flowing over the years, Konrad replied, "I think Hollywood is such a circle. I haven't done an analysis on the generational reasons as to why that is per se, but having made, for example, the 'Scream' trilogy (I can tell you that) no one was making horror movies when I sold that to Bob Weinstein. Why that happened at that moment in time and launched a cavalcade of every imaginable horror movie known to man (is anyone's guess). "I think that given that the last seminal western in Hollywood that was made that did business was 10 years ago -- of course, 'The Unforgiven' (Clint Eastwood's 1993 Oscar winning best picture) -- and that (since then) we've had a glut of super-heroes and comic book characters and many types with super powers and all of that kind of stuff, there is something really interesting about going back to the raw world of man versus man, man versus nature in this kind of really authentic way and letting the man be the hero and watching the struggles and the conflicts. I think there's a really great identification, especially in this political climate that we're in right now, and I think an audience could be very ready for this." At that point, with Sony agreeing to go forward to develop a remake of "Yuma" a screenplay was the next step. "We hired Brandt and Haas to write the first draft based on Elmore Leonard's story and Halsted Welles' script, which I thought was a really brilliant piece of screenwriting material to begin with," Mangold said. "There was a lot I wanted to keep from the original, but I had ideas about adding a greater sense of journey in the film. There are some aspects of the original film where you almost feel (they were) budget issues more than anything else -- like they literally kind of shot the first town they're in and they kind of ride off screen right and ride in screen left and they're in the second town seemingly after a long journey through the mountains. "There's a kind of shorthand that's a little 'Playhouse 90' (TV) feeling in the original. However, there are also some really brilliant things we didn't want to lose. For instance, the great claustrophobia in the third act in that hotel. I felt that if we opened up the second act you'd feel that claustrophobia all the stronger because you suddenly were in a 12-by-18 room with all these men trapped after having felt the expanses in the act before." Mangold and Konrad had other changes in mind as well, he added: "We had thoughts about the relationship between father and son and we wanted to expand on that in our attack and kind of make the role of Dan Evans, Christian Bale's oldest son, much larger in the film. And I also had ideas about the Transcontinental Railroad in kind of framing the journey from Bisbee (where the outlaw Ben Wade, played by Crowe, is taken into custody) to Contention (where Wade is to be put on a prison car train going to Yuma, Arizona where there's a Federal Court) in some way also charting a movement from the completely untamed west, where the story begins, to a place where the industrial revolution and the arrival of the railroad and modern commerce and corporate politics is beginning to infiltrate. "I thought that would be a really interesting counter-balance -- as people are talking about how evil Ben Wade is there's also this counter-balance of what's coming in the form of, quote, progress, which has its own malevolence, as well." Work on the screenplay began in 2002 right after they'd pitched the project to Amy Pascal. Although Welles is no longer here, his words live on from the original screenplay. "His script has always been there for us," Mangold noted. "There are passages that I never wanted to touch and there's even passages that I put back in after people did drafts. I put back in a scene verbatim from Halsted's original script because I just felt there was some really wonderful stuff in there that we didn't want to lose." "I'd say it was about three years of working on the script," Konrad said, "and then as we were in the middle of making 'Walk the Line' there was some polishing going on with the idea that once we were finished with 'Walk the Line' that would be our next movie. It was down for a little bit only because we were in the middle of another movie and then once that movie (was being finished) we sort of proclaimed this is what we want to do as our next film and we want to go after cast. That was in 2005." Did they have anyone in mind to star in the film while they were developing the script? "Russell Crowe was our first choice," Konrad replied. "I mean, he was the person that we wanted to see in the movie as Ben Wade." Asked how they wound up getting Crowe, Konrad told me, "He called us actually. We happen to share the same agent -- George Freeman at the William Morris Agency. So George knew how close we were getting to actually being able to realize this and he knows how passionate we are about Russell. We had been talking about Russell for several roles on other projects that we always are perking on and he just happens to be ranked very high on many lists as one of the greatest actors (and someone who's) flexible and can kind of change and be exactly who you need him to be and, at the same time, just totally feel powerful on screen. And, also, he's one of a very few handful of men that can actually get a movie made." "The other thing was," Mangold added, "that we thought Russell was tied up on (Baz Lurhmann's "Australia," a western type drama set in Australia and starring Nicole Kidman and Hugh Jackman, which Crowe was originally going to star in) so we hadn't submitted it to him as he was seemingly booked for the next year and a half." "We actually were going to wait (for Crowe to become available)," Konrad said, "and then they pushed their start date further and that made it seem next to near impossible and so then we had to pursue other paths and had gotten word that Tom Cruise was interested. And so we began having conversations with Tom about starring in it. That was right around the time that 'Mission: Impossible 3' was coming out. And then when (it) came out, I think there was a lot of reconsideration on his side and his team's side about what to do next and he sort of hit the pause button. When he hit the pause button it was right at the exact same time that Russell decided to step out of Baz Lurhmann's movie. It was sort of that cross-moment of everything happening in three days and Russell called Jim and said, 'I'm your man.' And there we were!" And that, as they say, started to make things happen. "At the same time," Konrad pointed out, "things became undone because Sony had decided that, cast aside, it didn't seem to matter whether it was Tom or Russell, they were not going to make the movie. Sony decided that this script and the western (genre) was not something they felt they could make. It was the same experience we had on 'Walk the Line.' You know, you started this conversation by saying, 'The western's making a comeback' and I think oftentimes in Hollywood until someone actually does make the comeback there's a reticence to actually be the first one to dip your toe in to figure out whether or not it's going to work. "We were very passionate about the material and for the power and the production value that's on the screen we made this movie for a very good price. But the way that the studios need to justify (their decisions is) they run their numbers and they do their things like that and they couldn't come up with a model that made sense to them and with that came the end." What was particularly complicated about the "Yuma" remake, she explained, "was that we had a screenplay, we had an actor and we had a budget, but unfortunately this particular piece of material also happened to be a library title at Sony and library titles are very rarely allowed to be put into turnaround by other studios because it's an asset of the studio. So we were in a little bit of a triple pinch because we actually had something that we wanted to do that couldn't travel and we had a studio that wouldn't make it. So we were really boxed in in the worst possible way. "Our savior came in the form of Ryan Kavanaugh, whose company is called Relativity Media and who has a financing deal at Sony. (He) had read the screenplay and had been talked to by Sony -- even prior to us even knowing about it -- about partially financing this movie as well as others on the Sony slate. He loved the movie and when Sony fell out, our agency and we all got together and he said, 'If you can make this movie for the price you say you can and we can shoot in New Mexico and get the rebate involved, I'll fully finance the movie.' With that we got wind back in our sails and were able to start pre-production before we even had a distributor because the window for when we wanted to make the movie was in the fall before the winter got too bad in New Mexico." The film's budget, Konrad said, was $55 million, which is a terrific price considering that the MPAA's average cost for producing a movie in 2006 is $65.8 million. "If you ask me, it's a bargain," Konrad agreed, considering "Yuma's" level of action "and the level of talent involved and the film was very ambitious, as well. We had our premiere the other night and the feedback I've been getting (is that) people think that it's an $80 million to $100 million movie. The picture actually got made very quickly. "A year ago to date we were putting the financing together," she said. "We were in pre-pre-production this time last year -- closing the deal while we were simultaneously scouting and putting the crew together and the rest of the cast together. We started shooting in October in Santa Fe, New Mexico. The hard part was putting everything together. The movie certainly had many challenges. The weather, which started out as our friend, became less of a friend in January when we had the worst snowstorm in three decades in Santa Fe. It dumped three and half feet on us and we had to hand dig ourselves out of our set. "But other than that, I think that putting it together (was the hardest aspect of making the film). Neither Jim nor I had ever made a picture -- I did way, way back in the early days with Harvey Weinstein -- the financing way of putting movies together where it's basically a bank financing the movie. It's a lot of paper. It's a lot of process. It's a lot of things that you don't really experience when you're making a studio picture because all of the mechanics of that get done internally in the studio system. So as filmmakers we were more readily exposed to the rigors of banking." "When something went wrong, there was no mommy or daddy to run to and talk to," Mangold added. "We got our money and we had to make our movie and that was that. In terms of getting it financed, the startling thing for us also was just that you imagine that after making 'Walk the Line' with the success it had that this would have been easier and yet we were reliving (the same problems). For Cathy and I part of the reason it was so frustrating getting the movie financed was that it felt like an absolute replay of exactly what we went through making a phenomenally successful film our last time out." "With the same studio," Konrad pointed out. "With Sony, who passed on that film at a budget point of $25 million," Mangold continued. "We developed 'Walk the Line' at Sony and we came to them when we wanted to make (it on) a $25 million budget," Konrad said, with "Reese Witherspoon, Joaquin Phoenix, T Bone Burnett, Jim and myself and they passed. I don't need to tell you how much that movie grossed (over $186 million worldwide) and the fortune that Fox is reaping (from having made it). And, of course, after we had that success we said, '3:10 should be easy because why would they let that go away? It's like we're making it for a good price. We've got a movie star. We've got the same thing all over again.' So when they said no to us three weeks out from actually getting underway it was devastating for us." "But I think it gets to another interesting topic," Mangold said, "which is just the unease with which Hollywood looks at genres and settings that are not necessarily urban and contemporary. I think there was a lot of apprehension on 'Walk the Line' about country music and about the kind of heartland nature of the movie. And I think on this you only have to shift it 18 degrees to see that there was a similar kind of suspicion about, 'Oh, is it going to be dusty? Are they going to be wearing hats? Are they going to have accents? Is it going to be dirty?' You know, there's a lot of apprehension (about such things). And by way, before Ryan saved us we had gone to a lot of studios." "Every studio passed. I shouldn't put the sole burden on Sony," Konrad noted. "But clearly after Sony passed and Ryan did step in we still had the challenge of finding a domestic distributor for the film because Relativity's not a distribution company. So we did take the same package to every studio in town. Jim and I went to every president's office and gave our pitch and presented our materials and everyone passed." So how did they finally find a home for the project at Lionsgate? "Lionsgate came in because Ryan has a deal with them on a lot of other projects," she answered. "They were able to work out the numbers and come up with an agreeable p&a that allowed more freedom internationally for Relativity to retain certain rights. So I think it was really just about them being able (to do things) because they're not really a major and they can kind of write their own rules (as to) what they will and will not take. There was a little bit more flexibility in there for a creative deal to be had that was more satisfying for Relativity." I couldn't let Mangold and Konrad go without asking them how it was working with Crowe, who's generally thought to be very difficult to work with. "He was a joy," they both said one right after the other. "It is always that thing where you expect something (else) and, in this case, he was fantastic," Konrad went on. Crowe was, Mangold added, "collaborative, on time, joyful, brilliant, a team player, got along (with everyone). He and Christian and the rest of the cast were great chums. They would go riding together and practice on the weekends. I couldn't have imagined a more convivial set. And to be honest, I've had these moments in the past. When I made 'Cop Land' everyone warned me to fasten my seatbelt for Robert DeNiro, Sylvester Stallone, Harvey Keitel, Ray Liotta. I have to tell you that I was a pretty young director. That was my second feature. And (as it turned out) it was really easy. In fact, when there's trust between the collaborators on a movie all that power and intensity is used actually to protect the creative core of the movie instead of attacking it. I found that's exactly what happened (on 'Yuma'), which is that I had very, very strong allies not combatants on this film." "As grueling as the pre-production was because of the financing, what this process certainly allows is the luxury that you get if you do get freedom and a distance (away) from studio watching eyes," Konrad observed. "We were all our own bosses and we were all together doing what we wanted to do and making the decisions together for the best interest of the movie. It was great creatively that way." "We were very creatively in synch," Mangold said. "We all saw the same movie and worked together to make it." Looking back, Konrad summed it all up by saying, "Animals are harder to work with than actors. Russell was never the problem. It was the cows!" Filmmaker flashbacks: From Oct. 30, 1989's column: "With the end of the year now in sight, it's astounding to realize how far ahead of last year 1989 is in terms of boxoffice business. No matter what comparisons one makes, business is booming these days. "The first 43 weekends of the year, for instance, show a gross by key films -- those doing $500,000 or more per weekend -- of approximately $2.2 billion. That's an increase of 15.8% from $1.9 billion during the same period last year. This fall (Weekends 37-43), key films have grossed approximately $268.3 million, up 31.7% from $203.7 million in '88. As for the fourth quarter (Weekends 40-43), key films have taken in $155.7 million, a 28.7% jump from $121 million a year earlier. "There no longer is any sense of daring -- as there was when I first wrote about it here last summer -- to predict that 1989 will be a record-setting year with a $5 billion-plus gross for the first time. The one question mark that was always attached to that prediction was whether the fall season would bring Hollywood a blockbuster, as was true in 1986 ('Crocodile Dundee') and 1987 ('Fatal Attraction') but was not the case last year. While no one really saw it coming, 'Look Who's Talking' answered that question with a resounding 'Yes!' It's already well on its way to generating $100 million at the domestic theatrical boxoffice. "Thanksgiving is shaping up as a boxoffice feast with no turkeys. There's very encouraging advance word about Buena Vista/Disney's animated feature 'The Little Mermaid,' which looms as a hit that will play to family audiences, not just youngsters. Distribution sources also anticipate good business for MGM/UA's animated 'All Dogs Go to Heaven.' Both films arrive Nov. 17 and should continue the successful boxoffice trend enjoyed earlier this year by such family product as 'Look Who's Talking,' 'Honey, I Shrunk the Kids,' 'Parenthood' and 'Uncle Buck...' "Thanksgiving, itself, will revolve around the Wed., Nov. 22 opening of Universal's 'Back to the Future 2,' directed by Robert Zemeckis and starring Michael J. Fox. Here, too, there is a strong family appeal story line with Fox visiting himself in the future as a married man with children..." Update: While it was exciting in 1989 to be talking about the potential of a $5 billion grossing year for the first time, the film industry's growth since then has been astounding. This summer, according to Paul Degarabedian's Media By Numbers tracking service, is the biggest ever with Hollywood grossing $4.0 billion in revenues from May 1 through Aug. 26. It's a 10.2% improvement over last summer's $3.63 billion gross for the same period and attendance is up 5.4%. With the domestic boxoffice as healthy as it clearly is, what Hollywood needs to do is start restoring the marketing budgets it slashed in response to the disastrous summer of '05. Those cuts were the industry's the-sky-is-falling reaction to the poor performance of some truly rotten movies. Although the public rejected lousy product, it didn't say no to moviegoing in general. That's abundantly clear from how well audiences have embraced this summer's pictures. A $4 billion summer means that moviegoing is still high on the American public's list of favorite ways to spend their time and money when they want to be entertained. They may own big high-def plasma TV screens and they may be snapping up hit movies on DVD, but they're still going to the movies. Hollywood should start loosening its marketing purse strings and go after the sizable domestic audience that's either not watching network TV as much as they once did or that's just TiVoing through all those 30 second movie spots the studios are still running on the networks. With an average national ticket price these days of $6.85, a film that grosses $300 million has sold about 44 million admissions. That's a big number, but when you consider that the U.S. and Canada population is over 310 million people, it's clear that there's a huge audience out there that could be sold on moviegoing through broader marketing campaigns. The studio that commits the resources to going after this still untapped domestic audience stands to make boxoffice history. Martin Grove hosts movie coverage on the broadband television channel www.UpdateHollywood.com Visite o Russell Crowe Daily Planet, meu blog sobre o Russell Crowe e seus filmes, todo o dia sempre o primeiro com as últimas, e o que é melhor, em Português: Russell Crowe Daily Planet!
  8. Crítica Positiva da Films In Review, Via RottenTomatoes – clique aqui: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/click/movie-1183953/reviews.php?critic=all&sortby=default&page=1&rid=1667060 “Ainda bem, o diretor James Mangold estudou o apelo sexual de Russell e deteve-se nos seus olhares, sorrisos, e sua entrega sedutora de texto/fala. Crowe sabe exatamente o que ele está fazendo – ele transforma cada co-estrela em vitima brincalhão. Como o famoso fora da lei Bem Wade, Crowe é como uma grande gato viciado provocando gatinhos sem mãe.” Texto original: 3:10 to Yuma (2007) Movie Review Crowe and director Mangold resurrect the Western! But Ben Foster almost walks off with the movie. You will see it twice. by Victoria Alexander, FilmsInReview.com | August 30, 2007 Crowe and director Mangold resurrect the Western! But Ben Foster almost walks off with the movie. You will see it twice. My weekly column, “The Devil’s Hammer,” is posted every Monday. The Devil's Hammer on FTB. If you would like to be included on my distribution list for a weekly preview, just email me at [email protected] Here is one remake that delivers. I never saw the Van Heflin-Glenn Ford original and neither did you. (You’ll have to rent it on Netflix.) So this is a brand new Western for those of us under 75. And I am sure that the new screenwriters, Michael Brandt & Derek Haas (credit is also given to Halsted Welles, screenwriter of the 1957 original), bumped up not only the sexual quotient, but the dialogue. All the scenes between Crowe and Bale are terrific. There’s dialogue between Crowe and Bale discussing money that you will love. Thankfully, director James Mangold has studied Crowe’s sexual appeal and dwells on his glances, smiles, and seductive line delivery. Crowe knows exactly what he is doing – he turns every male co-star into playful prey. As notorious outlaw Ben Wade, Crowe is like a big alley cat teasing motherless kittens. He does it here with Christian Bale, whose role as rancher Dan Evans is callused by failure, debt, and cowardliness. It certainly doesn’t help that Bale’s character has two sons: a sickly young one and a 14 year-old, Will (Logan Lerman), who is ashamed of him. This is the kind of guy who comes up against Crowe’s sadistic, infamous outlaw who happens to be proud of his double-digit killings. Dan Evans (Bale), a former sharpshooter who lost a leg in the Civil War, is losing his ranch. The railroad is coming through and if he doesn’t pay off his debts, he will lose his ranch. His barn is maliciously burned down and his cattle feed is destroyed. Evans and his sons happen to come across Ben Wade’s (Crowe) gang robbing another stagecoach. Wade confronts Evans and, understanding the situation, let’s them go. The Wade Gang has been relentlessly targeting the Southern Pacific Railroad. Stopping off in a nearby town for a lazy assignation, Wade is cornered and arrested. The railroad’s representative, Grayson Butterfield (Dallas Roberts – much better here than in his wimpy, puppy role in Showtime’s “The L Word”), has to bring Wade to Contention and get him on the 3:10 prison train to Yuma. Everyone knows that Wade’s Gang will be following the stagecoach that will take their boss to Yuma. The journey is dangerous so Butterfield offers $200 to anyone who accompanies Wade on the 3-day journey and puts him on the train. Evans joins up with the posse that includes a ruthless bounty hunter, Byron McElroy (Peter Fonda), who has just been shot and left for dead by Wade in the stagecoach robbery. I’m going on a trek to East Africa next month (spending several days on my own in Nairobi!) and was horrified to read the State Department’s latest travel advisory which issued this very stern warning: “Kenya's crime and trans-national terrorism ratings both remain at critical levels. The State Department updated the Travel Warning for Kenya to note the sharp increase in violent crime. The greatest threats in Kenya are road safety, crime and terrorism. The most common crime in Kenya (especially in Nairobi) is carjacking in order to commit an armed robbery. In virtually every instance, carjackers use weapons to rob their victims. Criminals who commit these crimes will not hesitate to shoot a victim who is the least bit uncooperative, or may appear to hesitate before complying with his/her assailant. This includes victims who may be complying, but who must do something like unfastening a seat belt before getting out of the car. During a carjacking, if you must do anything as a prerequisite to following carjackers' instructions, be sure to tell them what you are doing, and assure them you are complying.” The Wade Gang, now led by charismatic psychopath Charlie Prince (Ben Foster), follows the stagecoach. Instead of being on the stagecoach, Wade is taken to Evans ranch. Now Wade has an opportunity to assess Evans’ circumstances, his unhappy wife, Alice (Gretchen Mol), and toy with the impressionable Will. The three day journey is thrilling, with the posse going into hostile Indian territory and a mine-blasting town (where the casting director should get special mention for the un-credited casting of Harp Corrigan and Luke Wilson as Bisbee townsmen). And the finale? It would be a spoiler if I went any further, except to say that Crowe and Foster are so electric, you will be disappointed and want another outcome. The Western is back. Visite o Russell Crowe Daily Planet, meu blog sobre o Russell Crowe e seus filmes, todo o dia sempre o primeiro com as últimas, e o que é melhor, em Português: Russell Crowe Daily Planet!
  9. Crítica Não Muito Positiva do Roger Moore – Crítico do jornal Orlando Sentinel, clique aqui: http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_movies_blog/2007/08/310-to-yuma-the.html “Tem um grande visual, bem interpretado, filme sólido, com bons diálogos. Mas tematicamente, alegoricamente, logicamente e honestamente, tem problemas. Os quais irei enumerar em minha crítica (ainda por ser publicada em breve). O final me azedou seriamente sobre o todo, eu tenho que dizer.’ Bom, ele não gostou do final, mas também já pensou se o diretor tivesse que agradar à todos, o filme teria que ter vários finais e nunca mais conseguiríamos sair da cadeira do cinema, né. Texto Original: 3:10 to Yuma, the "early" reviews are raves Posted on Aug 30, 2007 9:41:13 AM I guess this means I need to post my online review early. Because this breathless praise is Ratatouille-level bull, in my book. It's a great looking, well-acted and solid film, with good dialogue. But thematically, allegorically, logically and honestly, it has problems. Which I enumerate in my review. The ending pretty seriously soured me on the whole, I have to say. Coming soon... Visite o Russell Crowe Daily Planet, meu blog sobre o Russell Crowe e seus filmes, todo o dia sempre o primeiro com as últimas, e o que é melhor, em Português: Russell Crowe Daily Planet!
  10. Renascimento do Western: Artigo da Universidade de Buffalo - Clique aqui http://spectrum.buffalo.edu/article.php?id=32571 no site da universidade oartigo fala do filme que está provocando o renascimento do gênero nos Estados Unidos. September 1, 2007 Arts & Life - AUGUST 31st, 2007 Western revival DAN MECCA - Senior Arts & Life Editor In this age of superheroes and super budgets, the Hollywood Western has been nearly abandoned, with only two fearless gunmen left in an empty ghost town. And yes, these desperados do have names: Russell Crowe (A Good Year) and Christian Bale (I'm Not There). Just when it appeared that the noose had been tied on this classic genre, the two vets shoot down the rope with 3:10 To Yuma, directed by James Mangold (Walk the Line). Bale stars as Dan Evans, a humble rancher with two kids, a wife, and too much debt. When the family man inadvertently intervenes with Wade and aides in his capture, he sees a financial opportunity in helping bring the prisoner to a town called Contention, to shackle up in the 3:10 to Yuma prison. Unfortunately, he must contend with Wade's gang members, riding hard to rescue their leader. The film is in no way original. This version is based on director Delmer Daves 1957 Western of the same name, which is based on a short story by writer Elmore Leonard. Yet despite the apparent redundancy in plot, this new age Western blazes a path of its own, substituting a once-safe, strictly good vs. evil story with a much more complex analysis of two flawed men. Deciding who ultimately wins the shoot off, in terms of acting chops, is an impossible feat. Bale's is a seemingly straightforward character and a good man. However, every day Dan fears losing his land, losing his house, and eventually losing his family. His gaunt face and sharp cheekbones only further accent the beautiful portrayal of desperation Bale paints during Dan's explanation to his wife (Gretchen Mol, The Ten) on why he must take Wade to the station. This is raw acting at its finest, and although it will most definitely go overlooked come time for awards, Dan Evans is a hero the audience roots for, and a father the audience prays for. But let's not forget Mr. Crowe. The man has made a career out of intensity. Everything about him—from his careless stare to the bump in between his eyebrows—paints the perfect picture of an outlaw on the jagged edge, yet with an immense amount of devilish charm he can't help but show off. Just when it seems that this outlaw really might be all bad, as he claims, there is a flicker of good—if only for a second. Supporting Crowe and Bale is Logan Lerman (The Number 23), who delivers a very convincing performance as Evans' fourteen-year-old son William, determined to prove his manhood. Along with Lerman's impressive supporting turn is Ben Foster's Charlie Prince, the right hand man to Wade. Foster is making a career out of playing crazed criminals—from his disturbing teenage murderer Mars, in Hostage, to the drugged out Jake in Alpha Dog earlier this year. Charlie is the perfection of Mars and Jake: a cold-blooded killer with an obsessive loyalty to his boss. And while all those expected to bring the goods don't let down, it is director Mangold who emerges as the most improved player. After directing the Johnny Cash biopic Walk The Line with absolutely no creative input, nearly making the Man in Black's eventful life seem boring, all bets were off on this Western remake. But the director has regained his filmmaking passion, shooting the film close and uncomfortable. Viewers can practically comb Evans' dirty, greasy hair, or scratch Wade's rough, yet handsome, beard stubble. Charlie's yellow, rotting teeth jump out onto the screen, behind him a town full of poor working men and their rich, corrupt authorities. This is the Old West that filmgoers remember, with a taste of new age style. The horses ride through the camera, rumbling past at breakneck speed, their riders thirsting for blood. There is blood, and it's by the buckets. Every gunshot snaps wood and splits flesh, giving us a taste of how the West once was won. Visite o Russell Crowe Daily Planet, meu blog sobre o Russell Crowe e seus filmes, todo o dia sempre o primeiro com as últimas, e o que é melhor, em Português: Russell Crowe Daily Planet!
  11. Entrevista do Christian Bale ao site Aint´ It Cool - Clique aqui: http://www.aintitcool.com/node/33824 para ler esta longa entrevista onde Christian fala de Yuma, Rescue Dawn e Dark Knight: Capone With Christian Bale About 3:10 TO YUMA, RESCUE DAWN, And DARK KNIGHT!! Hey, everyone. Capone in Chicago here. Still slightly soggy, but in slightly better shape than a couple days ago. You guys have been great, even the nasty Talkbackers, who never fail to crack me up. The only thing worse than evil Talkbackers is no Talkback at all. I particularly laughed at those of you who somehow live under the belief that Harry doesn't pay us. I’m not sure where that rumor got started, but I loved watching it explode like the mold in my condo walls. And just to be clear, I was not asking for money from anyone. But many of the Chicago-based readers had asked if they could help out, and putting that PayPal link out there (which was actually a part of my wife's site before this incident) was the easiest way to make that happen. If you think it's unnecessary, that's perfectly alright. We have insurance, and we'll be fine. More importantly, I talked to Christian Bale, motherfuckers! For the entire summer, I've been practically tripping over film sets for THE DARK KNIGHT. A couple months ago, the crew was shooting about two blocks from my house. And just last week, the production took over the lobby, two floors, and most of the outside of the building where I keep an office in downtown Chicago. You can't walk through the Loop without hitting either THE DARK KNIGHT or WANTED (the new Angelina Jolie) filming somewhere in this city. Every week, I get an e-mail or seven from someone working in an office building telling me how some part of their building has been converted into a set for a weekend or an entire week. It's actually been kind of exciting, but also slightly frustrating since the production has been operating under a complete and total press blackout, and I can't arrange an official set visit. This doesn't necessarily mean I don't have a few things up my sleeves as far as THE DARK KNIGHT, including this interview with Christian Bale, in which the subject of Batman is hardly discussed (be patient; I really do have long sleeves, with many things up them). But let's be honest, you could fill pages just talking about the films Bale has impressed me with in just the last three years, including RESCUE DAWN; THE MACHINST; THE PRESTIGE; HARSH TIMES; THE NEW WORLD; and the upcoming 3:10 TO YUMA, which opens next Friday and is the reason I was put in a room with him, as well as November's I'M NOT THERE, in which he plays Bob Dylan, along with many other actors. I should add at this point that there were two other writers in the room with me asking question, but they were two guys I happen to like, so often their questions were on my list of topics to discuss as well. Bale is a soft-spoken but very focused man, and when he answers your question, when he's talking to you, he looks you directly in the eyes. I can't be sure, but I'm pretty sure he never blinked as he locked his laser-guided glare on me. It's slightly intense, but not scary, and it forces you to listen to him, since his body language and eye contact don't really change. That being said, getting him to smile or laugh seems to loosen him up (as I had evidenced the night before my interview with him at a post-screening Q&A he did for YUMA). And so I began my conversation with Bale with this question. Capone: Did playing a fake cowboy in NEWSIES prepare you in any way for 3:10 TO YUMA. Did you draw from that experience? Christian Bale: laughs I drew nothing from it, except for the quite annoying fact that when I first arrived in Sante Fe, I could not get the song from NEWSIES [“Sante Fe”] out of my mind. Every time somebody said ‘Sante Fe’…if you’re familiar with NEWSIES, there’s a song, and it would just go on through my head. And, it hadn’t been in my head for, whatever it is, 16 years or something like that. Dammit, if every time I saw a sign, a road sign or somebody mentioned it…and it took a good month or so for that to quit. Question: And, you just had to belt it out right there? CB: Oh, no. I definitely kept that inside. I wasn’t going to let anybody know about it there. C: But, it added to your character's torment, I'm guessing. CB: That’s actually what his conflict is. laughs Q: Were you familiar at all with the first film when you were approached for this one? CB: I wasn’t really approached more than just, the script was going around. No, I wasn’t aware that it was a remake at the time. I did watch it before we shot, but no. Q: So it was the script that attracted you, not the idea of remaking the film? CB: Yeah. Q: So, what about the script attracted you? CB: There was a time for me following BATMAN BEGINS--and I’d also made THE MACHINIST before that--where I felt that I was actually happy with the results of the movies I was making. And, I kind of was hoping to be able to continue that. And, I had a couple of projects, which were things that I had been wanting to make before BATMAN BEGINS came along--one of them being RESCUE DAWN, another being HARSH TIMES, and I'd also had spoken with Terry Malick about THE NEW WORLD beforehand. So, I felt, okay, I need to get these done. These have to be completed, this comes first. And, then, I decided to just really, instead of looking at a script and thinking, ‘Well, something could be made of this. There are many problems, but something could be made of this with the right people,’ just to really try and wait, and just hold out and wait for a script that I just really looked at and that stayed fixed in my mind for sometime after reading. That’s what happened with THE PRESTIGE--which was a lucky thing, because Chris [Nolan] was directing, so he was a phone call away--and then, with 3:10 TO YUMA as well. It’s just one of the those scripts that I read and didn’t stop thinking about. First of all, I wanted to make a Western. Secondly, Westerns can be great in their simplicity about ‘Here’s the bad guy, here’s the good guy’. This one presented you with that, but then, it kind of presented, like, 2+2=5 and showed you why that was correct. But, these two apparently, absolutely ethically opposed people had a great fondness and similarity in that they were both seeking redemption in very different ways. But, I liked very much all of the questions that arose from it in the midst of all the great Western gunfights and the horse riding. But, this land of lawlessness where you truly did have to stand by your belief, and people have to have a very strong belief. Nowadays, you can kind of get by without that. There’s so much infrastructure and support, at least in the major metropolises, you can kind of just have vague opinions about everything and still get through life. I think at that time you had to have much stronger opinions and beliefs, because you were completely unprotected. Q: Christian, Dan Evans [bale's character in YUMA] is certainly, as always, a much different character for you to play, but he's also someone who will go to extremes when he needs to. What attracts you to characters that sort of…at one minute they’re one thing, but when they’re pushed in a certain direction, they have to go through this serious change, because they’re up against so much? CB: Right. Doesn’t that interest you as well? I mean, circumstances that you can find yourself in and a whole different side comes out? The possibilities of who you could be, given different circumstances? And, everybody not having a predictable life? Everybody has a question throughout their lives, ‘If they were really put to the test, could they stand up and be the person that they would hope to be?’. And, I think, also particularly with Dan, it’s…I’m a father now, and I see in myself that principles and ethics that applied when I was not a father changed radically when I became a father. And, I kind of have two different sets of principles about who I am. Things that I would do for my daughter, which are pretty much limitless, versus what I will do for myself. And, I could see that in Dan, of him having to decide about the fact that he has a family now and at what point are his own beliefs actually destroying his family, and wanting to set a great example of somebody who has conviction, but really having to question whether his conviction has just become selfish pride. Or, whether it is actually something relevant and practical. That’s what I love about the character, is the conflict within himself, of needing to prove to himself and be the man he aspires to be. Also, needing and just dying to see his son actually respect him for once and his wife actually respect him as well. But, is this pure selfishness? It’s a great dilemma that he has, and, I think, it’s a dilemma that anybody can find themselves in to a lesser degree than Dan does, obviously. But, in life, when they do find themselves having people…loved ones who depend upon them completely. C: Actually, one of the more interesting elements of the film is how that part of Dan's character sneaks up on you, because you don’t really know until the end that he’s thinking in his head, ‘I want my son to respect me and look at me with dignity’ and regain some of that dignity that he lost in the war. And, by the end of the film, Russell Crowe is literally carrying Dan into his legend, making that little transition so his son will remember him, his father, in a very different way. Did you ever think about your own legacy as an actor? Especially in the last couple of years, you’ve really built up an incredible cadre of film roles, with each role being better than the one before. CB: Absolutely. I’ve been able to work on movies that I like very much in the past few years, which I think have turned out how I had hoped that they would. And, I’m human, you know; that makes me feel good. I like it when people like what I do. I don’t like it when people are laughing at me for what I do, you know? I mean, I’d love to say I was completely impervious to anybody’s opinion, but that just ain’t the truth. Of course, it matters. At the same time, there’s also a danger when you start playing it too safe. After all, what am I paid to do? I’m paid to essentially make an ass out of myself, if needed. And occasionally, in doing that, you’re going to fall flat on your face. But, I have learned, through doing that numerous times in my life, that there’s also a ton of enjoyment to what other people see as humiliation. You can actually come to sort of thrive on that, because in a way, it kind of leads to a sort of fearlessness, if you genuinely don’t mind. If the point is that you tried, I think that really is the most important thing. And, like you said, I feel like I’ve been very fortunate in the last couple of years that I’ve gotten to do what I loved, which is actually the making of movies, and on top of that, if I’ve liked how the movies have turned out themselves, then that’s fantastic. But, to start getting too comfortable within that would be eventually to start churning out boring, boring chaff. C: In the kind of films you make, "comfort" doesn’t seem to play into a lot of what you do. Q: For the viewer or for you. Q: You speak a lot about fortune and luck in the last couple of years, but do you think BATMAN opened doors, gave you the freedom to… CB: Okay, I don't mean luck. I’ll rephrase that, because I don’t believe that that’s luck. I can say that that’s ‘fortunate’, but certainly, it ain’t ‘luck’, because it wasn’t like me picking it out of a hat, is what I’m saying. I did choose the scripts; I did choose the people to work with. So, no, that’s just wrong terminology. Q: Okay, but do you look at anything that allowed you to take that turn, to give you the freedom to choose whatever part you have. Or, have you always felt that way? Did BATMAN change things and give you the freedom to say, ‘I’m going to wait for something like 3:10 TO YUMA to come along’? Or, did THE MACHINIST give you a new life in the eyes some directors and some people? Was there anything that happened recently that led to that two-year streak? Or, was it just fortune? CB: I think it also came from a year and a half before THE MACHINIST where I didn’t work at all, and nobody wanted me for anything, and…Well, a couple of people did, but it was for very bad things, and so it was kind of realizing, ‘Okay, I have to re-evaluate, reinvent at this point’. But, I don’t know, I’ve always had this kind of feeling in the back of my head that I’ll be back there again at some point. I’ll be sitting, staring at the wall, banging my head against it, and having to reinvent myself once again at some point. Q: You obviously have such an incredible dedication to the parts that you play and the things that you do. As you’re doing the preparation, are you just focused, knowing you can do it and you do it; or do you ever wake up in the morning or get the sense of, like, ‘What have I gotten myself into?’ CB: You mean feeling like the dedication is wasted? Q: Not wasted, but just sort of almost surprising yourself in what you’re willing to do and what you’re able to do. And, having a few moments of, like, ‘I’m not sure if I can do all this’. Q: …like for RESCUE DAWN or THE MACHINIST? CB: You know, there’s something also to taking yourself away from your everyday life. I don’t mean my family, I bring my family with me. But specifically talking about RESCUE DAWN…being away in Thailand, you feel completely removed. You don’t even have the sense that this is a movie that anybody’s ever going to see, you know. And, I think that’s a very nice feeling. I think it’s the thing that you have to battle against somewhat with larger movies, to still have the balls to treat it like it’s not a movie that’s never going to be seen, and therefore, I personally think, to come up with something more interesting. But, being away in Thailand, it was as much for me about the adventure of making the movie, you know, so everything I did in that movie, I loved doing. I mean, sure, bumps, cuts, bruises, headaches, all sorts of things, but, I willingly put myself in places to get all of that. If I’m understanding your question correctly, the times I’ve felt ‘What am I doing here?’ is when you realize that you’re working with people who aren’t dedicated to what they’re doing at all, and they don’t really care that much. At that point, you just start to feel like a fool, because you’ve committed yourself and you’re thinking much more about it, and you realize that, I don’t know, they’re just kind of walking in. Those are the times that you kind of sit back and think ‘Who’s the idiot here? Am I the idiot? Are they the idiot? I’m not sure.’ Q: So, doing something like THE MACHINIST, there’s no voice in the back of your head saying, ‘God, I could really go for a good cheeseburger at this point,’ or something like that? CB: Yeah, man, what, are you crazy? I chose not to go eat with anybody, because the second I saw or smelled that food, I was like a wolf. And, I had a couple of times when I did do that, and I ate five meals at one go, you know? And, I just went ‘Ahh-h-h-h’ [mimics ingesting a burger in one bite]. And, obviously, your stomach isn’t prepared for that. I felt terrible afterwards, so I just said, ‘I can’t do that,' because you do, you want a cheeseburger every day. C: At the Q&A last night, you mentioned that you didn’t really have a vast knowledge of film history and, because you’ve been acting since you were so young, you didn’t really have any formal training as an actor either. When you were younger--or maybe even today--did you feel like you had to try a little harder? Did you feel like there’s something maybe you have to prove to filmmakers and other actors? CB: Not anymore. I did. I used to feel that way. I used to feel, hey, there’s a lot of people who paid…they go and study for years to do this, and they have techniques that they use. And, I thought, ‘Ah, maybe I should do that’, but I don’t feel that anymore. I spoke with a few people, you know, who did study…with some pretty good actors, even a couple of heads of drama schools and things, and actually, after having the conversations with them, I kind of felt like ‘Alright, I don’t need to do that. I can quit with this guilt thing,’ you know? But, it was also partly because there was also a slight sense that at that age, you know--you’re talking about 17, 18, whatever—ages when most people I knew were heading to college, and studying and stuff. And, I wasn’t, you know, I was working, and that’s great, but what comes with that are bills to pay and responsibilities and stuff like that. I kind of thought, ‘Eh, maybe I should just throw this in and do what they’re doing, because they’re not doing anything but, you know, kind of studying and goofing off the rest of the time.’ There was a temptation there, sort of, being a bit more normal. But, not anymore, no. I don’t feel that at all. For me, I think that there’s too much talking done about how people act and how to get there and all that, as though it’s some--and I know a lot of other actors will disagree with me on this--sort of mechanical skill that you have to acquire. And, if you don’t have this certain knowledge, well, there’s no way that you could ever do it. I just don’t believe that at all. I don’t think you have to have taken a single lesson in your life, because all you've got to do is watch people. That’s it. You know when you’re faking situations with other people, when you’re in uncomfortable situations and you pretend to be somebody else. You know when you’re most feeling like yourself. Everybody knows that in themselves. Well, that’s it. That’s all you've got to know about, I think, personally. And, then, yeah, there’s a few, just very simple, technical things that just make it easier for yourself to do film acting in particular, where you know, okay, this is the way you do it when there’s a camera following. But, other than that, I don’t see it as being something that needs a whole lot of study. Q: Christian, can you name three situations that you would be willing to wear a cape in and three that you wouldn’t? CB: Three situations where I would be willing to wear a cape? You mean three situations within BATMAN? First of all, let me say, whichever superhero first came up with the idea of wearing a cape, he wasn’t really onto anything. The number of times I’m treading on that damn thing, or I throw a punch and it ends up covering my whole head, you know. It’s really not practical. As a superhero, I wouldn’t do it ever, myself. I’m not quite following, I mean, I’m wearing a cape every damn day, so I can come up with many more than three situations where I’m wearing a cape. But, practically, actually, the situations where I wouldn’t wear a cape would be crime fighting. I especially wouldn’t choose to don that. Q: Are you almost done filming [DARK KNIGHT]? How much longer are you going to be working on it? CB: No, we’re going until November. It’s a seven-month shoot. [At this point, the interview is brought to a close, but as I'm shaking his hand good-bye, I got out one more question I was dying to know the answer to.] C: In I'M NOT THERE, which era of Bob Dylan are you covering? CB: I cover two. I play, like, kind of the Troubadour of Conscience, as they called him when he first sort of hit New York, and then I play the Christian era. C: That's great, thanks. Capone Visite o Russell Crowe Daily Planet, meu blog sobre o Russell Crowe e seus filmes, todo o dia sempre o primeiro com as últimas, e o que é melhor, em Português: Russell Crowe Daily Planet!
  12. Diretor de Fotografia Diz Que o Filme é Mais Centrado Nos Personagens – Fala Phson Papamichael, em entrevista ao Hollywood Reporter, Clique aqui: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/features/columns/film_reporter/e3i6c73060cbd03d818542dbc3406427d01 “É mais um drama de personagens”, ele diz do filme, que é estralado por Russell Crowe como o fora da lei Ben Wade, que está para ser entregue no trem das 3:10hs no seu caminho para o julgamento pelo lutador e dono de terras Dan Evans (Christian Bale). “É realmente mais sobre a psicologia dos personagens, e entrando dentro do seu espaço e mente. Uma poderosa luta de vontades contra o mal, e costumes contra a imoralidade.” Texto Original: 'Yuma' DP: Focus is more character than cowboy By Carolyn Giardina Aug 30, 2007 Director of photography Phedon Papamichael doesn't view his latest work, Lionsgate's remake of "3:10 to Yuma," as a classic Western. "It is more of a character drama," he says of the film, which stars Russell Crowe as outlaw Ben Wade, who is to be delivered to the 3:10 train on his way to trial by struggling land owner Dan Evans (Christian Bale). "It's really more about the psychology of the characters, and getting into their space and head. A power struggle of the wills against evil, and morals against immorality." The cinematographer did watch classic Westerns in preparation for the production, and he says that his approach is most closely connected to "Once Upon a Time in the West" with its look and use of extreme close-ups on faces with extreme wide shots to play the action. Yet in his third collaboration with James Mangold (Papamichael previously lensed the helmer's "Walk the Line" and "Identity"), the director of photography says that the pair stuck with a visual language that was more about storytelling than genre. "When I work with Mangold, we decide the best way to tell the story when we see the performance as things unfold in front of us, rather than preconceiving and predesigning the whole picture." Papamichael likens certain approaches in "Yuma" to "Walk the Line," saying: "When we did Joaquin Phoenix onstage, there was such an energy and intensity in his face. That told us we need to be on that stage with him and the camera had to be right in there. Same with this. When you have Russell Crowe and Christian Bale and these exchanges of dialogue, it's so intimate and so focused in terms of their conflict that it really required just being on their faces." The emphasis on the characters also applied in the rendering of the action sequences. "I'm a believer that action without a firm understanding of the character becomes unemotional and uninvolving," Papamichael says. "We spent a lot of time with the characters and establishing their emotions before we got engulfed in these action sequences. "Even in the action sequences, we tried to be right there in their faces and stay with them so we feel like we are less of an observer and we are really right in that gunfight." The inspiration for that approach was the "Saving Private Ryan" beach landing sequence. "That movie, more than any other movie I can think of, let the audience really feel like they were on the beach that day," Papamichael says. In "Yuma's" action scenes, Papamichael also aimed to involve the audience by letting events unfold naturally in front of the camera. "It has a more random feel to it, so when (action) happens, it is more effective," he says. "It's not perfectly framed and telegraphing what will happen. You catch (events) as if you were there and involved. You won't know where the next hit is coming from; you won't know where the next person is popping out from. It's nice to be able to create that for the audiences." About 90% of the film -- shot in Super 35mm -- was lensed either handheld or using a Steadicam. The film went through a digital intermediate process at Modern Videofilm. More recently, Papamichael directed the psychological thriller "From Within," currently in postproduction. Visite o Russell Crowe Daily Planet, meu blog sobre o Russell Crowe e seus filmes, todo o dia sempre o primeiro com as últimas, e o que é melhor, em Português: Russell Crowe Daily Planet!
  13. . Critica do CHUD Elogia Ben Foster: Média 7,5 - Clique aqui: http://www.chud.com/index.php?type=reviews&id=11624 “Quando um lendário fora da lei e um fazendeiro de estilo calmo se posiciona para trazê-lo à justiça, quem vence? O próximo ator Ben Foster. Enquanto Christian Bale e Russell Crowe estão acima do talento do título neste filme, é Foster quem é a coisa real, roubando os holofotes do carismático homem de Down Under (Austrália) e da cara carrancuda de sua co-estrela. Foster interpreta Charlie Prince, o infinito braço direito leal para o bandido de Crowe, Ben Wade. Foster interpreta Prince como um homem ferido que achou um pai em Wade, mas também como um frio, assassino sem compaixão que mais freqüentemente achar que matar é a solução mais vantajosa para seus problemas.” ... “O filme precisa de Prince como um vilão porque o suposto homem mau é mais nobre do que se pensa. O Wade de Russell Crowe vem mais como um velhaco/patife do que um assassino, um mais rude, mais sóbrio e menos a versão gay do Capitão Jack Sparrow, talvez.” Texto Original REVIEW: 3.10 TO YUMA (DEVIN'S TAKE) 08.29.07 By Devin Faraci When a legendary outlaw and a mild mannered rancher set on bringing him to justice lock horns, who wins? Up and coming actor Ben Foster. While Christian Bale and Russell Crowe are the above the title talent in this film, it’s Foster who’s the real draw, stealing the spotlight from the charismatic man from Down Under and his grim-faced co-star. Foster plays Charlie Prince, the infinitely loyal right hand man to Crowe’s desperado, Ben Wade. Foster plays Prince as a wounded man who has found a father in Wade, but also as a cold, merciless murderer who more often than not finds killing the most expedient solution to his problems. While Wade and Bale’s rancher, Dan Evans, have their journey and their battle of morality, it’s Prince’s single minded quest to rescue Wade from the law that gives 3:10 To Yuma its oomph. Foster brings menace to a movie that needs more of it. Prince is unpredictable in the way of the best cinematic sociopaths; Foster never hams it up because he understands that while he’s in a mythological western and he’s playing a character who is bigger than life, hamming it up would kill the illusion. So Foster bottles him up instead, playing the madness only through his dark, dancing eyes. The movie needs Prince as a villain because the supposed bad guy is too noble for words. Russell Crowe’s Wade comes across more as a rogue than a murderer, a more ruthless, more sober and less gay version of Captain Jack Sparrow, perhaps. Anyone who has seen a movie will know that the arc of Wade’s character must lead to some kind of redemption, so all of his sparring with his captors rings hollow. We’re told that he blew up a train full of pioneers, but the only killing he does onscreen are mercenary agents of the law or people we’re hoping will bite it. Even his womanizing has a soft edge – after bedding the local bar wench he sits and sketches her nude form. It’s a Leo moment! Wade is a rock star among outlaws (a thematic element explored more fully and more satisfactorily in the far superior The Assassination of Jesse James By the Coward Robert Ford), and we can see the film’s main conflict being set up when the son of one-legged, on the verge of losing his land rancher Dan Evans is seen reading fantabulizing outlaw fiction. When Wade is captured, Evans volunteers to help take him to the town of Contention, where they will catch the titular train that will take Wade to prison, where he will be hung for his many crimes. There’s a fee involved, which would get Evans out of his massive debt, but it’s also a chance for the man to be a man, at least in the eyes of his son. And maybe in his own eyes, considering the history Evans doesn’t like to talk about. The film is a remake of a middling western from the 50s; the script by Michael Brandt and Derek Haas essentially adds a second act to the story, creating a danger-filled journey from the Evans ranch to Contention. Along the way Wade’s escorts are picked off one by one as they encounter Apaches, renegade railroad men, a grossly distracting Luke Wilson, and Wade’s gang, set on springing him from custody. This is not bad stuff; the second act almost crackles at time. The western is a fine, pulpy genre, and the second act of 3:10 To Yuma pays homage to that sense of boy’s adventure, of men camping out in rocky outcroppings and always aware of the branch snapping approach of an Indian raiding party. It’s the first act that sets the film off limply; the script and director James Mangold spend too long establishing what a chump Evans is. I think that Christian Bale’s ‘I’ve never enjoyed anything, even a blowjob from my wife, played by Gretchen Mol,’ performance sells that plenty well without hammering it home to the point that liking Evans feels like masochism. Obviously Wade is the guy to root for here, since he at least retains control of the muscles one uses to smile. But maybe that’s the point. By the time the third act rolls around we get a lot of people sitting around contemplating right and wrong and cowardice and duty, and when Wade makes the choices that lead to his inevitable redemption, they honestly feel like charity, since Evans is such a goddamned Debbie Downer. Can he bring the first smile to this man’s face? Considering that they’re locked in a hotel room together for hours, the film could have obviously explored some fascinating avenues in answering that question. What does happen, though, is that the film sets up a tremendously great problem – Charlie Prince offers all the townspeople of Contention money to kill anyone holding Wade, and a whole fucking lot of people throw their guns into the ring – without a real idea of how to solve it. There’s a good contrast here, of people doing wrong for money while Evans is doing right for money… or maybe something more than that. Whatever the case, it never feels like the film uses this conceit properly, and just gets rid of it when it becomes too complicated its own good. To the film's credit it does just get rid of it during a long and loud gunfight, so it's very possible that once the squibs start going off most of the audience won't even mind that the promise of a morally tinged toss down has been trashed. James Mangold stages his action with complete competence, but without sizzle. This is a very middle of the road film, one that will never get your heart racing or piss you off too much. The world of cinema needs directors like Mangold, who make movies that are mostly OK, if only so we can pinpoint the people who watch these films and think they’re great. Mangold’s films are perfectly middlebrow, without any elements that could confront or test us, and with just enough signifiers of quality to make you feel like you’ve watched something finer than average. It’s like when fast food places use fancy bread. Let’s put it this way: Mangold is on a career trajectory right now that could see him getting a Best Director Oscar before Paul Thomas Anderson. He's just that safe. Which is not to say that 3:10 To Yuma is a bad film. It’s a fine enough movie, if overlong, and when it sheds its pretensions it approaches the levels of a fun movie. There’s something funny about westerns these days – they can’t just be fun genre movies. Of course that’s sometimes wonderful, like with The Assassination of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford, a film that should be in the running for Best Picture if there is a God, but once upon a time the western was a junk genre… and I kind of like that. Imagine if thirty years from now cop action films or science fiction films are only prestige pictures – how sad would that be? I love the idea of using a supposedly debased genre to tell a sublime story or to find universal truths, but sometimes I also like to just see guys on horses being badasses and shooting each other. When 3:10 To Yuma is providing that, I am happy. But too often the film decides this is not enough, and it yearns to be more important than it is. Cutting many of these scenes out would bring the film’s running time to a more manageable hour and forty minutes and streamline it into something unashamed to be having a lot of fun. 7.5 out of 10 Visite o Russell Crowe Daily Planet, meu blog sobre o Russell Crowe e seus filmes, todo o dia sempre o primeiro com as últimas, e o que é melhor, em Português: Russell Crowe Daily Planet!
  14. Entrevista no Coming Soon com os roteiristas do filme, Derek Haas e Michal Brandt: www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=36634 “CS: Vocês tem esses dois grandes personagens e esses dois grande atores os interpretando, então quando o Russell Crowe e o Christian Bale vieram à bordo, ele imediatamente leram o que vocês escreveram e assinaram na hora ou eles esperaram por um monte de mudanças nos personagens e nos diálogos antes de concordar/assinar para fazê-lo? Brandt: Jim é um bom diretor de atores, ele também é um bom escritor/roteirista, e quando você tem atores deste calibre, eles virão trazendo sua própria maneira para fazê-lo. Parte de ser um roteirista, ultimamente é sobre servir o ator e as necessidades do ator para o personagem. Tão logo aquilo se transforme para ajudar a estória, então cada filme que temos escrito, o ator traz sua própria maneira de falar, seu próprio vocabulário, e nós apoiamos isso. Hass: e o diretor.” Texto original: Exclusive: The Writers of 3:10 to Yuma Source: Edward Douglas August 30, 2007 The screenwriting team of Derek Haas and Michael Brandt had been friends since college, but they only started to get their feet wet in Hollywood when they wrote the hit action sequel 2 Fast 2 Furious. Although their output has been relatively quiet since then, they've been grinding away over the last few years, writing many scripts that have been bought and put into production. The first one of them to get released is next week's remake of the 1957 Western 3:10 to Yuma, directed by James Mangold and starring Russell Crowe and Christian Bale, followed next year by Timur Bekmambetov's take on the comic book Wanted. They have many other scripted projects in the works including one they plan to direct called Miamiland, but they recently joined up with Writing Partners, a co-op of writers that includes "Pirates of the Caribbean" scribes Ted Elliot and Terry Rossio, Stuart Beattie (Collateral), John August (Charlie and the Chocolate Factory) and more, who have signed a spec deal with 20th Century Fox. ComingSoon.net talked about all of these things and more with the duo in a recent phone interview. ComingSoon.net: How did you guys get involved with this? Did you know James Mangold beforehand? Derek Haas: It was good agenting actually. Our agent also reps Jim, and we found out that Jim's favorite movie growing up was "3:10 to Yuma" and he was interested in remaking it. Literally, they put us in a room together, and we just started talking out how you make this for modern audiences. Together, over the course of several meetings and phone calls and talks, we all went in and pitched Columbia on the remake and they bought it in the room, but then they put it in turnaround. It was a Columbia movie back in '57. CS: Was it put into turnaround after it was shot or before it got made? Haas: No, no, before it got made. CS: When you started working with Jim on this, what was the direction you had on what to keep or change from the original? Brandt: Our feeling was that original was fantastic. It was based on a great short story, but in watching the original, we thought there is kind of a middle section of this movie that is missing in a way. The Elmore Leonard short story was kind of leading up to the third act, and then the movie dealt with the set-up, but the original movie is almost a two-act play. It goes from Dan catching Ben Wade to cutting to the hotel room when they're already in Contention waiting for the train. We thought it was rife for an additional meaty section in the middle where they're on the road, Wade's gang is after them, and that's when we decided that Dan should have a son who ends up joining them along the way, so then it becomes that battle over the son's soul so to speak. CS: Did you already know the movie when you first heard about Jim wanting to remake it? Haas: We knew the movie, and in fact, when we pitched Columbia, we got them to give us the 1957 script by Halsted Welles. There was so much stuff we admired from the original movie that it just felt like we're not going to change things that are working, that are great. Let's just try to take these and take it further. CS: What about the Elmore Leonard story? Had either of you read it before you started working on this remake? Haas: We hadn't read it, but we did read it before we ever talked to Jim and Cathy (Konrad, Jim's wife and the film's producer), but we weren't familiar with it until we found out that it was a movie that Jim wanted to make. Brandt: It's very short. It's only two pages. Haas: It's probably like six or seven. It's very much the waiting in the hotel room scene and then attempt to get to the train, that's pretty much the gist of the Elmore Leonard short story. CS: Were you guys fans of Westerns in general? It would seem to be something out of left field after something like "2 Fast 2 Furious." Haas: (both laugh) That's funny. I grew up in Texas and Michael's from Kansas City and we both went to school in Texas, and we grew up big Western fans. We've pretty much written all different genres, but to get to do a Western now, when they're making so few of them, for us was a goal and an honor. CS: It seems like such a different thing since there's been so few Westerns in the past few years… "Brokeback Mountain"… "Open Range"…When you went into this, were you hoping to reinvent the genre or try to write a traditional Western that might interest audiences who aren't necessarily into Westerns? Brandt: Jim was adamant about not making a walk-down-Main Street, dusty Western that felt clichéd. Part of the reason he hired us--because at the time we were definitely guys known for writing more poppy action movies--and he admittedly said he wanted to write a Western with a bit of a modern sensibility attached to it. He was very aware of the financial ramifications of making a Western, that it can be difficult if you fall into the clichéd world of Westerns. I think that's part of the reason he hired us actually. CS: There's some fairly intense action scenes, including the shoot-outs. Did you go into a lot of detail about what happened while writing it or did you leave some of it for Jim to work out on set? Brandt: We write every beat of the action that we possibly can, and then once production gets closer and they start working with the stunt coordinator and doing storyboards, it certainly may change, and it usually will become expanded or contracted depending on the budget. Generally in our screenplays, we try and write every beat of action, everything that's happening, so that when somebody's reading the script, they can see and understand exactly what's happening. Hopefully, your action will not only inform the story but inform the character, too, and if you don't write the specifics of the action, then that's just wasted time and space. Haas: For instance, in "Yuma"--not to give anything away--one of the things we wanted to give in that final third act gun battle was his son, who is watching this unfold--in fact the whole movie is kind of seen through his eyes as a morality tale in front of him. We thought, "Okay, we need to give him something that's believable but that propels the action, but is also germane to his character. Here's a kid who grew up on a ranch, dreaming to be a gunslinger. What skills does he have? Well, he knows how to herd cattle and manipulate livestock." In that climactic part when they need to get to the train, he uses those old skills. Literally, we wrote that out, but that's the thought that goes behind any kind of an action sequence. You can't just write "Point A to Point B." It's gotta all be based on the characters. CS: You have these two great characters and these two great actors playing them, so when Russell Crowe and Christian Bale come on board, do they immediately read what you did and sign on or do they expect a lot of changes in the characters and the dialogue before they agree to do it? Brandt: Jim is such an actor's director, and he's also a good writer, and when you have actors of that caliber, they're going to come in and bring their own thing to it. Part of being the screenwriter, ultimately it's about servicing the actor and the actor's needs for the character. As long as that in turn helps the story, so every movie we've written, the actor brings their own way of talking, their own vocabulary, and we support that. Haas: And the director. CS: How about balancing the two characters, because you really do have these two leads and the movie could be about either one, which is amazing since you don't really have many movies like that. Haas: Right, right, and honestly, that's in the original movie, too. I mean Glenn Ford and Van Heflin were so good together. I mean it goes way back to the Elmore Leonard short story. You had on one side of the ledger, this outlaw who is basically a rock star of the old West--that's what we always referred to him as we were going--but who would also charm the parents off of you. Then on the other side of the ledger, you've got a guy who's never been able to realize his dreams, and who is complex but who wants to do the right thing, but life's beating him down. When you start with that premise, which we go right back to the original material, and then get to go from there, and then you get these two amazing actors that get to play it, for us, it's just a dream come true. CS: Were you guys able to spend any time on set watching it being filmed? Brandt: We did. We took a trip down there and hung out for a little while, and there's nothing greater than standing on a set of a Western, standing in the middle of two cow-patty studded roads where there's a saloon, a hotel and all those things. It was just a fantastic set to be on, and Jim runs such a tight ship, and he's such an easy guy to get along with on the set. The whole experience was really positive for everybody. CS: Where did he shoot the movie? Haas: Right outside of Santa Fe. Brandt: There was a lot of dust. CS: For some of the scenes, like the chase in the mines, were those locations found or did Jim have to build some of that to fit the story? Brandt: Both locations and builds. I mean, the towns were built, but they found those caves. They expanded them obviously. I think it was a little bit of both. Haas: We weren't there for the days when they were shooting in the caves, but they were telling us, yeah. CS: That's why I asked about how detailed you wrote the action, because to come up with a scene like that and then actually find a place in which to film it… Haas: That was actually fun to write because one of the things that we did different the original, when you put it on the road, we were trying to find, "Okay, what's the thematic link to how the second act can play out" and it was always about the train. Since the movie's called "3:10 to Yuma," it's about a train coming, and if you can set it post Civil War in the time when the railroads were just linking up America, which is the death of the Old West, it's such a perfect place to do it, so then their journey mirrors… like the town of Bisbee where they catch Wade, they're just planting the flags for the new rail station that's going to be there. In fact, it's the payroll to the railroad that gets held up in the opening, and then as they go backwards or towards Contention, you see the evidence of the rails going down and we go through a Chinese labor camp, and that's why they're blasting through tunnels and the strange set piece in the old West of this gigantic operation going on. For us, it was fun, 'cause then you get to set an action sequence in that backdrop. (At this point, we talked a bit about their work on Wanted, based on the comic book by Mark Millar and J.G. Jones, which you can read here.) CS: Going back a bit, you two first met in school? Haas: We did. We met in grad school actually. I was doing English Lit, and Michael got his masters in film, and we realized we liked the same things. That was back in '93 or '94, but we didn't really start writing together until '97/'98 and that's when we sold our first script, so we've been doing this ever since. CS: What else do you guys have in the works? Brandt: We're adapting a novel for Universal called "Deceipt." The author of the novel was James Siegel who wrote "Derailed." Lorenzo di Bonaventura is producing that, so we're just finishing that up. Haas: We have a spec that we've written that we can't talk too much about, but we're trying to get going with Michael directing, and we're pretty far down the road. You talk about breaking through the next ceiling. That's the thing we want to do is make our movie with Michael directing. (At the L.A. junket for the movie, Haas and Brandt revealed that the movie is called "Miamiland" which they're currently casting and trying to get together with UK financing. It takes place in New York and Miami and it's about two educated con men who have to go to Miami to separate the biggest kingpin in Miami from his money. They hope to start shooting soon, but it depends on when the writer's strike happens, which they talk about below.) CS: How did you decide which one of you would direct the movie? Brandt: Well, it's kind of natural. I went to film school, and I moved out to Los Angeles after film school and was editing and at one point, I was living down in Austin, working for Robert Rodriguez as his assistant editor, so my background has been in filmmaking, while Derek's background is in English literature, he has his masters in that, so early on, we decided I want to direct, Derek's going to produce and we'll write together, and that's kind of the way it's been working. CS: I read something about a movie called "Countdown" that you're producing, so what's that about? Haas: "Countdown" is cool. It was a thing that a couple of younger writers, Scott Burn and Stephen Gregg came to us. They had an idea to take this old "Twilight Zone" episode based on a Richard Mattheson short story called "Death Ship" and turn it into a feature movie. They basically took the kernel of the idea from "Death Ship" and ran with it, and we ended up helping them get it set-up acting as producers, so we ended up setting it up at Summit with Erik Feig there and Mandalay. Now we're just trying to get a director on, and that's getting close and we're very excited about that. Those guys did a great job. CS: It seems like you guys have a lot on your plate right now, though I'm guessing that this is stuff you've been working on over the years that's just all coming together at once. Haas: And then they all pop up. You're exactly right. Brandt: (laughs) CS: Were you also involved in the attempt to adapt the video game "Spy Hunter"? I know that every writer in Hollywood that I've talked to has taken a crack at that. Brandt: We did a draft along with everybody else in town. It's a tough nut to crack. Ultimately, you're given an action star like The Rock, who was attached when we were doing it, and a car that turns into a motorcycle, and it's just really hard to keep a movie like that grounded. CS: I think that if that movie ever gets made, the WGA is going to have a field day trying to figure out who should get credited. Haas: I think there's been 15 writers on it. CS: I know. I think I've talked to at least half of them. (both laugh) I'm not kidding either. Why did you guys decide to sign onto this Writing Partners thing? The line-up of writers involved is pretty amazing. What was the incentive Brandt: We thought it was a chance to do something different and a chance to change the way writers are treated in this town. We thought as a group we could parlay our ability to write, and our ability to write commercial movies, and exchange that for creative control over some movies and a back-end, real gross points. We really wanted to bring back-end and creative control into the conversation as far as writers and studios go. It was only by banding together with such great names and people who've been so successful that we could do that. CS: How do you see this looming writers' strike affecting this deal, if at all? Brandt: Well, it shouldn't affect the Writing Partners thing at all Haas: It doesn't affect the Writing Partners, but it is something we have to plan for, and we know that the Guild is extremely serious about. CS: Do you think that the Writing Partners might be a good step to working things out the way everyone wants it to? Brandt: It's interesting. The two studios who have made deals with writing co-ops, Warners Bros. and Fox, are two of the lead studios, and as far as the production end sees it, the writers are going to strike again. It's a double-edged sword, and from our personal point of view, we're not really sure how to take that, if you understand that. Haas: My feeling is that what Writing Partners did is less about… I don't think it will affect the potential strike. What I do think it does is break through a barrier that all writers can strive to emulate. In fact, that the president of the Guild, Patrick Verone, sent an Email to Craig Maizen, our friend and partner in this, just basically saying "Thanks for doing this. It's a positive thing for writers. If one set of writers can get this going, then why can't everyone." That's why we feel very proud about it. 3:10 to Yuma opens nationwide on Friday, September 7, and there will be a special sneak preview in select cities this coming Sunday night, September 2. Check back next week for interviews with James Mangold, Russell Crowe and Christian Bale. Visite o Russell Crowe Daily Planet, meu blog sobre o Russell Crowe e seus filmes, todo o dia sempre o primeiro com as últimas, e o que é melhor, em Português: Russell Crowe Daily Planet!
  15. Outra boa no site da Film School Projects: Média A+ http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/reviews/review-310-to-yuma-2007.php “O que rege o universo: ordem ou caos? Há algum plano estabelecido por um ser supremo ou estamos todos nós o fazendo conforme andamos? Como você suas respostas afetam a forma como você vive sua vida? Você é limitado pelas regras acordadas pela sociedade oou você ao invés disso escolhe fazer aquilo que é melhor para você? E faz essa mudança quando a vida o trata de forma injusta? O diretor James Mangold lida como essas idéias provocativas nesta atualização do wester de 1957 baseado no pequeno conto de Elmore Leonard.” ... “3:10 To Yuma conta a maravilhosa estória que pode ser levada como um filme direcionada de aventura, enquanto também oferece temas para explorar e contemplar. As atuações de todos, especialmente das estrelas prinicpais, tão grandes de assistir. Bale e Crowe são dois dos melhores atores trabalhando hoje e eles cumprimentam um ao outro muito bem. Todas as equipes excedem nos sés papéís/funções, criando autenticidade em todas as cenas. É o melhor filme de longe deste ano e merece ser honrado/glorificado assim.” Texto original: Review: 3:10 to Yuma (2007) by El Bicho What rules the universe: order or chaos? Is there a plan set forth by a supreme being or are we all making it up as we go? How do your answers affect the way you live your life? Are you bound by the rules agreed to by society or do you instead choose to do what’s best for you? And does that change when life treats you unfairly? Director James Mangold deals with thought-provoking ideas in this update of the 1957 western based on Elmore Leonard’s short story. Dan Evans (Christian Bale) is a former Civil War soldier struggling to make a life for his family. He bought a ranch in Bisbee, AZ with the money he received after being badly wounded in the leg, but his cows are dying due to a drought. He has to choose buying medicine for his youngest son over paying the mortgage. That decision further proves to the property owner the land is worth more selling it to the railroad. The situation is grim and the doubt felt by his wife and oldest son, Will, weigh heavy on Evans’ shoulders. Ben Wade (Russell Crowe) stands in sharp contrast to Evans as a man appearing in control of his fate rather than beaten down by it. He is a well-known outlaw responsible for many robberies and deaths. Yet, he is an appealing figure to some, including Will, who reads dime stores novels that tell Wild West tales similar to ones Wade has lived, because he is smart, resourceful, and charismatic. After the latest of many heists of the Southern Pacific Railroad’s payroll, Wade and his men celebrate in Bisbee. The gang takes off, leaving Wade behind to enjoy some female companionship for the night. With his confidence high and his guard down, the local sheriff captures Wade the next morning. He needs to be escorted to the town of Contention, three days away on horseback, so he can be put on the 3:10 train to Yuma where he will be tried and put in federal prison. The railroad offers a reward to any who help transport Wade, enough in wages to save Evans’ farm. The money is so high because Wade’s men will kill to get him back. Evans decides to take the risk because it’s the only way to save his farm. As they head towards Contention, Wade gets away only to be caught by men who act no different than he does. When Evans and the others catch up, they find Wade tied up and being electrocuted, receiving a punishment many feel he deserves: vengeance, Old Testament style. However, Evans and the others see this lawlessness no different than Wade’s and demand he is turned over. In Contention, Wade’s men catch up. Not even the railroad man is willing to risk his life against the overwhelming odds. Similar to High Noon, Evans becomes the lone man to stand against the bad guys and is determined to bring Wade to justice. Wade tempts Evans with ten times the amount of money the railroad offered and safe passage. Besides, he’s already escaped from Yuma before. Whose will and determination will win out? The story of both men slowly unravels and is smartly revealed by the writers throughout the film. The two characters grow to respect each other as they and the audience learn more about what drove the choices they made and who they really are. They aren’t simply good guy and bad guy as they first appeared and could have ended in each other’s places if different decisions had been made. Both men know The Bible. Wade quotes it, but has rejected the path suggested. Evans struggles with it, but ultimately believes. He is Christ-like and the film is filled with religious imagery throughout. That’s not to say the film proselytizes Christianity, but like many great stories, such as Cool Hand Luke and One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest, it uses the metaphor of the Christ myth to speak about the human condition. Wade takes the role of Lucifer with his “Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven” attitude, but he comes across like an avenging angel at times. Notice the people who receive punishment at his hands. 3:10 to Yuma (2007) tells a marvelous story that can be taken solely as a straightforward adventure film while also offering themes to explore and contemplate. The acting performances by all, especially the leads, are great to watch. Bale and Crowe are two of the best actors working today and they compliment each other well. All the crew departments excel in their roles, creating authenticity in all the scenes. It is the best film so far this year and deserves to be honored as such. Grade: A + Visite o Russell Crowe Daily Planet, meu blog sobre o Russell Crowe e seus filmes, todo o dia sempre o primeiro com as últimas, e o que é melhor, em Português: Russell Crowe Daily Planet!
×
×
  • Create New...