Members Sophie Aubrey Posted August 13, 2007 Author Members Report Share Posted August 13, 2007 Fantástica entrevista do diretor James Mangold dada ao site americano Dark Horizons, onde ele fala do filme, de Russell e Christian: http://www.darkhorizons.com/news07/mangold.php Exclusive Interview: James Mangold for "3:10 to Yuma "By Paul FischerSunday, August 12th 2007 9:12am James Mangold is truly one of the most unique filmmakers in a Hollywood often criticized for its homogeneity. Mangold has taken some of the cinema’s most established genres and turned them on their head. Whether he focuses on police corruption and the morality of the cop confronting his own demons in Cop Land, or the country singer exorcising demons of a different kind in critically lauded masterpiece Walk the Line, Mangold is a director who thrives on taking risks and telling often dark and uncompromising stories. His latest film,3:10 to Yuma is no exception. Though a remake of the 1957 classic that starred Glenn Ford and Van Heflin, Mangold puts a new, contemporary slant on the Elmore Leonard story. The film casts Christian Bale as a rancher struggling to support his ranch and family during a long drought. Desperately needing money to build a well, he takes an assignment to transport a notorious outlaw, [an extraordinarily mesmerising performance by the always superb Russell Crowe] in the hands of authorities, to Yuma for imprisonment. The film explore’s the pair’s often complex relationship en route to Yuma. In this candid interview, Mangold talks about the problems getting the film made, working with Russell Crowe and the demythologising of the American western. Question: You know, I was talking to a director the other day who said to me how incredibly hard it is to make films in Hollywood and even though you have this track record and the last film that you did won a huge amount of acclaim, is it tough even with an established track record to make the kinds of passion projects that you want to make? Mangold: Well I don’t even have to be self-revelationary to answer our question. I can tell you the facts. This was a movie set up at Sony and they didn’t make it. Question: 3:10 to Yuma has been around a while --- Mangold: Well I started it with Cathy Konrad in development when we were making Identity in about 2002. And when it came time to make this picture, after Walk the Line, Sony passed. And they graciously they let us take it with the underlying rights which they owned, because the original film and script were their underlying rights, and we shopped around town and every single studio in town passed. Question: Why? Mangold: You’d have to ask them. You could call any one of them and ask why, ‘cause they all passed on Walk the Line and they all passed on this. All I could tell you is that my own suspicion is that there’s something similar between these two films which is that they take place between New York and LA in the world that exists previously – they’re both periods. One was exploring the life of a musician who, I don’t how many people in Los Angeles studios in green light positions listen to Johnny Cash and understood the kind of connection he has and I think that studios similarly are afraid of country music and what that means. I think similarly they’re afraid of westerns and they’re afraid that Nintendo playing people can’t get used to the world of watching the latest young stars in Spandex that doesn’t somehow translate to a western. I mean honestly when we made Walk the Line, Ray hadn’t come out - we were pretty much simultaneous with them, about a month and a half schedule wise behind. So a lot of times where people act like our movie was pulled together in response to Ray, we were little wrapping about a month or two after they did. I hadn’t even heard of the film until I was finishing shooting Walk the Line, but I think they had a hard time getting that movie financed. I mean that reality is that that it’s really hard to get ambitious movies about people in any period made and all you have to do is look at the films this fall, last fall and the ones that are interesting and then trace who green-lit them. The truth is that most of them are pickups or feature alternate financing or independent in nature. The studios are almost taking a pass right now on real filmmaking. Question: That seems so depressing to me. Mangold: It’s depressing but as long as the movies are getting made it’s not completely depressing and I think that the chickens will come home to roost in a sense. Let me put it this way, the seventies are a great moment in movies and emerged from one of the worst periods of movies. There is in a sense that whenever the paradigm is shifting, there is an opportunity for alternate methods of getting movies made. That’s how the whole Sundance generation happened, it’s how the whole Miramax moment happened. Corporations are just not going to be on the pulse of anything, hey’re going to be making what worked last year until it doesn’t work any more. So when finally one of these Marvel or DC movies fails, then another one and another one, I think they’ll think again. Question: What frightened studios about 3:10? Mangold: It was just literally genre. They’re scared of the genre. They’re totally great and truly misunderstood and studio execs think of them as shallow or kind of simplistic: ‘Oh the white hats, the black hats, the good versus evil’ Very few westerns fit that description. The truth is they’re usually grey morality. Question: Yeah look at The Searchers. Mangold: That’s what I mean. I mean the good guy is the killer and the bad guy is a killer and the hero’s father is cowardly. It’s a world of damaged people. Look at Unforgiven, look a The Searchers, as you said. I mean we could just list them all. The western is not about white hats and black hats. That’s really just Gene Audrey and a couple of other kind of films, The Lone Ranger – they’re not really the western. They’re really some other kind of very Hollywoodized, and they hardly exist even in movies. Question: When you finally got this set up, did you set it up at Lions Gate or did you have it independently financed and then went to Lions Gate? Mangold: Yeah that’s what happened. Relativity financed the film and then Lions Gate picked up domestic. Question: Now you hired an Australian and a Brit to play the quintessential American characters. Can you explain your casting choices? Mangold: Yeah I do think there’s a real lack of masculinity in the American male star system right now. Question: And also do you think that in order for audiences to buy these characters in that particular environment you need a certain kind of actor to pull that off? Mangold: Well I think I got two of the best actors alive and frankly two of the best actors in the history of movies. I think Russell Crowe is one of the great actors in movie history and Christian Bale is proving himself to be one of the great actors in motion picture history. And I think the fact that they originated from different countries is relatively meaningless to me, at the point where those are the guys I wanted and they were excellent and at that point I stopped thinking about it. Question: Why Russell in particular? Mangold: I’ve known him for a while. We met at least six or seven years ago, and we kept track of each other and really admire each other and I think he loves westerns. He’s a great rider, a gunman, he knows the iconography of the west and is comfortable acting. There’s not many guys you can plop on a horse and have them act and talk and turn their horse at the same time that they’re saying lines, and they don’t seem like a guy from Malibu slightly out of control hoping the horse doesn’t go left while he’s talking to the right. And the fact is, these guys, both of them are really comfortable in this world. Question: Let me ask you about why this this particular western? Mangold: It was first introduced to me by my teacher, Alexander McKendrick, in the middle 80s. And I studied the movie and took it apart, put it back together. I was the teaching assistant – I would analyse things. It got really inside my blood, this movie and this story. And the story seemed to me truly vibrant and relevant whether then or now. The way I looked at it and looked at it is, I think the word ‘remake’ can include a lot of things and in a world right now in which every TV show of the 70s and 80s is being made into a movie, there’s a lot of cynicism about what remake means. In the case of westerns, my feelings is that they are a kind of fever dream of America and they are a mythology. They are American yearnings and fears, angst and quests laid out in a kind of really beautifully barren and pure landscape that allows these themes to resonate in ways that they can’t in other settings. The only other world that I think has this kind of resonance is actually the American mob movie. That has a kind of similar code of conduct and genre, a kind of dance which allows similar kinds of moral questions to be asked. Which is why when I made Cop Land in 1995 I named Stallone’s character, Freddy Heflin, after Van Heflin and very much inspired by 3:10 to Yuma and there’s a hell of a lot of 3:10 to Yuma in Cop Land. What occurred to me when I was making Identity at Sony was just ‘Why not?’ These movies just don’t exist and I felt why not make this film? I felt like the original 3:10 is brilliant, beautifully made and truly wonderfully acted and beautifully written. But I also felt like, unlike some other westerns, there is a quality where it’s disappeared a little and it also feels a little dated in a way that some other westerns don’t. So I thought this is an opportunity not to outdo that movie or even to redo that movie but just, I view it – to look at the Shakespearean saga and the kind of power plays of Shakespearean text and then we’ve seen six Hamlets and twelve Macbeths and nine Henry Vs. The fact is that I think there’s some text that deserves to be reinterpreted and there’s nothing cynical or shallow about the fact that a director could come out, I think another director could come out and make 3:10 to Yuma again and I’d really be interested to see it, because I think the text is rich and allows actors flexing their muscles in this text and this landscape only produces another really interesting theatrical object to enjoy. It’s certainly not, I mean the way remakes are cynically considered is that because there’s a brand. ‘I’m making that brand again because I have an innate audience built in’ instead of, you know what I’m talking about. If you make a TV show again, if you’re making Mod Squad the movie, you have a brand. No one knows what 3:10 to Yuma is, the general public. I wasn’t getting any advantage of a brand and I was getting the disadvantage of a western which every studio in town believes no one wants to see. What I had the advantage of is great story. A great story by Elmore Leonard, a great script by Halsted Welles and a point of view about what I wanted to do with it that might make it different. Question: Is one of the challenges to try and make the film as contemporary as it needs to be to reach a wide audience? Mangold: Well, to speak as an actor’s director for a second, what you’re describing is a result and I don’t usually make movies thinking about a result, as much as I think about the process and the result happens. What does that mean? Well, that I didn’t think about the product I was going to make in this way that it’s going to be modern. I thought about ‘How would I tell this story?’ And I thought about what I felt had gone wrong in a lot of westerns made in the last twenty years - and Clint Eastwood is a vast exception, and there’s a couple of others, but I think that generally, I think what’s gone wrong and hurt the western standard is that people have turned them into one of two things. One is an historical epic in which it stops being what westerns really were and starts being a kind of tribute to factual accuracy, historical accuracy and it starts becoming a kind of Remington painting, as opposed to what westerns really were in their heyday, both in Italy and this country, which is morality plays. And they start becoming a kind of sweeping saga. I’m not interested in that and that’s not what Shane or High Noon or Unforgiven or Rio Lobo or Searchers – none of those are to me ‘sweeping sagas’. Suddenly it was like there was a, I don’t know how to explain it but I think there a westerns that taught people that westerns could be boring and uninteresting. It had too many subtitles on the screen about where you are right now and what day it is and what year. ‘Who gives a shit?’ is my answer. I watch Hang ‘em High, and I don’t know where it takes place. When I watch Once Upon a Time in the West, where does Henry Fonda get his head blown off? I don’t know. Where’s Charles Bronson riding? Where’s that train station? Who the hell knows? It doesn’t matter. Because the dream of the American landscape, the quest for freedom from religious persecution, the change to become an entrepreneur, to stake your own ground, to start your life again –that’s what’s important in a western. It isn’t the age of innocence. It isn’t an historical document. It is a kind of – it’s aesthetic. It could as well be a science fiction film. The setting is barren enough and open enough it allows us to explore man’s desires, greed, cowardice and bravery without the distraction of cell phones, television, cars. You know what I’m saying. And that’s what’s so attractive to me about the western. And I felt that’s when it got off track. So when I set about making this, I clearly was not interested in making a movie that was about a kind of accuracy of the West itself. It’s a very small sliver of time – post Civil War and pre Mechanical Revolution – that is like a moment that existed. And I know I’ve just delivered a major dissertation here, but the other thing I didn’t want to do was make a post-modern self-referential movie which is the other thing I think a lot of filmmakers in my mind had gone astray doing, which is they were so anxious to make a western that when they got the chance to do one they were only making a movie about movies. They weren’t making a movie about the characters on the screen. They were doing a gun fight like this movie and a stand-off like this movie, then in the end, it was a kind of simulation of The Searchers or a simulation of High Noon as opposed to just a movie standing on its own. All of that seems to me a way of intellectualising about something as opposed to really being there. Does that make sense? Question: Yes it does. Now both this and Walk the Line have a certain degree of nihilism, in that they are both dark character pieces and take risks. Do you want to do something very different next time around? Mangold: Well I’m sure I will. I mean I think that you’re more gifted than most to be seeing something really connecting the two directly. I think that the films have issues of fatherhood and family but, yes, I don’t think I’ll be directing another western after this, that’s for sure. I do think the most interesting connection I often thought about when I was finishing this movie and having gotten close to John Cash, was that he would have really liked this movie, because John I don’t think was ever a Nihilist but I think he was a realist and I think he was fascinated by the world of stark choices and life or death choices. Question: What do you hope to do next? Do you have any idea at all? Mangold: I don’t. I’m writing something right now that I don’t want to talk about but it certainly isn’t this … Question: If a studio just offered you a movie – a director for hire – which is just a crappy summer movie and they offered to pay you all the money would you think about it or have you decided that’s not the route you’re going to take? Mangold: Well every single thing I’ve made I’ve developed, at this point. And every single thing I’ve made I’ve written on, as this point – whether I get credit for it or not is a whole separate question. But the fact is that for me, the word that stands out in the question you just asked me is ‘crappy’. No I won’t make a crappy movie, intentionally. I won’t take on a crappy script. I wouldn’t ever rule out the fact that someone hands me some really interesting material – ‘Are you interested in doing this?’ But I really don’t feel – it’s two year of your life or more. And it’s a lot of work making a movie. I mean the whole thing when you’re talking to this person you were interviewing the other day. That is true. I mean it is labour. It’s serious labour. And you don’t do that, you don’t wake up every day at four in the morning wanting to gag from lack of sleep to do something crappy. It doesn’t seem to make any sense, at least when life is affording you the chance to make something at least potentially decent or morally valid or enriching but maybe make less money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Sophie Aubrey Posted August 13, 2007 Author Members Report Share Posted August 13, 2007 Eu fiz aqui a tradução de algumas partes da mesma: “Seu último fime, 3:10 To Yuma não e exceção, Embora a refilmagem do clássico de 1957 estrelado por Glenn Ford e Van Heflin, Mangold coloca um novo, contemporâneo ponto de vista sobre a estória de Elmore Leonard. O filme contratou Christian Bale como o fazendeiro que luta para manter sua fazenda e sua família durante um longo período de seca. Desesperadamente precisando de dinheiro para construir um poço, ele aceita a incumbência de transportar um conhecido fora da lei (uma extraordinariamente hipnotizante atuação por parte do sempre superbo Russell Crowe) nas mãos das autoridades, para ser preso em Yuma. O filme explora o constante complexo relacionamento da dupla à caminho de Yuma. Nesta entrevista sincera, Mangold fala sobre os problemas para conseguir realizar o filme, trabalhar com Russell e a desmistificação do western americano” .... “Pergunta: Agora você contratou um australiano e um britânico para interpretar a quinta essência dos personagens americanos.Você pode explicar suas escolhas de elenco? Mangold: Sim, eu penso que há realmente uma falta de masculinidade no atual sistema de estrelas americano no momento. Pergunta: E você também acha que para a audiência/platéia comprar/aceitar estes personagens na naquele ambiente em especial você precisa de um certo tipo de ator para realizar aquilo? Mangold: Bem, eu peson que consegui dois dois melhores atores vivos e francamente dois dos melhores atores na história do cinema. Eu acho que o Russell Crowe é um dos maiores atores na história do cinema e Christian Bale está provando ele mesmo ser um dos grandes atores na história dos filmes. E eu penso que o fato de que eles são de diferentes países não tem o menor significado para mim, ao ponto de esses são os caras que eu queria e eles foram excelentes e até o ponto que eu parei de pensar à respeito. Pergunta: Por que Russell em particular? Mangold: Eu já o conheço há um bom tempo. Nos conhecemos no mínimo há 6 ou 7 anos atrás, e nós mantivemos contato e realmente admiramos um ao outro e eu penso que ele ama Westerns. Ele é um bom cavaleiro, um atirador, ele sabe a iconografia do Oeste e está confortável atuando/interpretando. Não existem muitos caras que você pode colocar sobre um cavalo e os ter atuando e falando e virando seus cavalos ao mesmo tempo que eles estão dizendo as suas linhas, e eles não se parecem como um cara de Malibu levemente fora de controle esperando que o cavalo não para a esquerda enquanto ele está falando para a direita. E o fato é que, esses caras, os dois estão realmente confortáveis nesse mundo.” .... Sobre porque fazer o filme - Mangold: Então eu pensei esta ser uma oportunidade de não superar aquele filme ou mesmo refazer aquele filme, mas apenas, eu o vi – olhe para a saga Shakesperiana e o tipo de poder/força do texto Shakesperiano e então nós temos seis Hamlets e 12 Macbeths e 9 Henriques V.” Visite o Russell Crowe Daily Planet, meu blog em Português sobre o Russell, todo o dia sempre o primeiro com as últimas, e o que é melhor, em Português: Russell Crowe Daily Planet! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members balehead Posted August 13, 2007 Members Report Share Posted August 13, 2007 li metade da entrevista, muito legal. eu acho que a escolha dos 2 atores foi a mais acertada ambos nao precisam mais provar nada, já sao exelentes atores ( so falta o oscar do bale hehehehehe). e o genero western é bastante adorado, pelo menos por mim...além do mais será um espetaculo visual valeu a tradução, sophie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Sophie Aubrey Posted August 14, 2007 Author Members Report Share Posted August 14, 2007 Graças ao site da Murph e à fã Maria, mais uma boa crítica positiva para 3:10 To Yuma, do blog TLA Entertainment, que lhe dá 4 estrelas : http://www.tlablog.com/2007/08/310-to-yuma.html 3:10 to Yuma (2007, approx. 120 min) The 1950s may have been politically and socially repressive, but the era saw a rebirth in the American western thanks to the likes of such stars as James Stewart and Glenn Ford and directors such as Anthony Mann and Delmer Daves. Daves, in fact, in 1957 directed Ford in a now-little known film based on an Elmore Leonard novel, 3:10 to Yuma, which at the time was a critical and commercial hit. For decades it’s been one of the best kept secrets of that time… that is, until now. James Mangold, whose last film Walk the Line put the director on the A-list, brings this terrific story of heroism and villainy – but not always about heroes and villains – to the screen for a new generation who will revel in the film’s gritty dramatics, high adventure and cutthroat action. Add to that a great cast and a challenging, intelligent story line, and 3:10 to Yuma is possibly the best reinterpretation of an American film to hit theaters since Philip Kaufman’s incredible update of another ‘50s classic, Invasion of the Body Snatchers. Christian Bale, whose year is already in high gear with his dynamic portrayal of a POW during the Vietnam War, stars as Dan Evans, an idealistic Arizona rancher and Civil War vet who is in danger of losing his ranch. He owes money on the land and is being targeted by a local landowner who is not beyond using violence to obtain Dan’s property. In his own eyes, and possibly those of his eldest son as well, Dan’s self-image as a provider and protector for his family is in disrepair, and there doesn’t seem to be any quick fix for self-redemption or answers for their financial worries. That is, until the notorious gunfighter Ben Wade (Russell Crowe) arrives in town. Ben’s gang, including his loyal right arm Charlie Prince (Ben Foster), have been robbing the Southern Railroad with great regularity and success, and a determined marshal (Peter Fonda) is hot on Wade’s trail. When they finally catch Wade, with a little help from Evans, Dan is offered the dangerous mission to help escort Wade across a hostile terrain to catch the 3:10 train to Yuma and eventual justice. Knowing that Wade’s vicious gang will be in hot pursuit, Dan accepts the mission whose reward should solve his financial problems. Thus begins a perilous journey that takes its place among the best chase films westerns have to offer. On the trek, Ben and Sam, two opposites morally and often pitted against each other, come to learn to respect the other, each ultimately offering a sacrifice that comes with a price. There are good guys and bad guys here, to be sure, but like Clint Eastwood’s Unforgiven, it’s the gray areas that really make the characters and the story soar. Mangold has assembled a first-rate ensemble, with Bale and Crowe firmly in their element. Bale in constant search for redemption through acts of bravery; Crowe certainly enjoying his bit of villainy that is shaded with just the right tinge of civility and equal parts brio and malevolence. But the performance of the film is given by Ben Foster, who shatters any and all expectations as Charlie Prince, Wade’s ruthless but loyal henchman. Never over the top, Foster brings a startling absence of morality to Prince, whose acts of vengeance and violence are merely part of the job rather than a sociopath seeking pleasure in his actions. It’s at once brutal, subtle and revelatory. 3:10 to Yuma is that rarity, a western of the highest order. Clint Eastwood is second to none among contemporary directors in the genre, and Kevin Costner has demonstrated a serviceable knowledge as well. Director Mangold, whose eye and ear for atmosphere and pacing and whose ability to exploit maximum tension gives the film its remarkable punch, now joins a select group that – like Ben Wade and Dan Evans and their respective posses – is good company indeed. David Bleiler Visite o Russell Crowe Daily Planet, meu blog em Português sobre o Russell e que traz também notícias sobre Yuma, todo o dia sempre o primeiro com as últimas, e o que é melhor, em Português: Russell Crowe Daily Planet! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members balehead Posted August 14, 2007 Members Report Share Posted August 14, 2007 oba! 4 estrelas é uma cotação mais que boa, e nao poderia esperar menos das atuaçoes dos dois segundo a critica... show! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Sophie Aubrey Posted August 15, 2007 Author Members Report Share Posted August 15, 2007 Graças às fãs espanholas do RussellCroweNotícias, aqui coloca a tradução em espanhol da entrevista do James Mangold para o Dark Horizonts: http://rcnoticias.blogcindario.com/2007/08/01613-entrevista-con-james-mangold.html James Mangold es verdaderamente uno de los directores más originales en un Hollywood a menudo criticado por su homogeneidad. Mangold ha cogido algunos de los géneros más establecidos del cine y les ha dado vuelta en su cabeza. Si se centra en la corrupción policial y en la moralidad del policía que se enfrenta a sus propios demonios en Copland, o el cantante de country exorcizando demonios de una manera distinta en la obra maestra laureada por la crítica Walk The Line, Mangold es un director que prospera arriesgándose y contando a menudo historias oscuras e inflexibles. Su última película, 3:10 Yuma no es una excepción. Basado en un remake del clásico de 1957 con Glenn Ford y Van Heflin, Mangold pone una nueva vertiente contemporánea en la historia de Elmore Leonard. La película cuenta con Chrisitian Bale como un ranchero luchando por sostener su rancho y a su familia de una larga sequía. Necesita desesperadamente dinero para construir un pozo, toma la decisión de conducir a un importante fugitivo (una extraordinariamente hipnótica actuación del siempre soberbio Russell Crowe) a manos de las autoridades, para encarcelarlo en Yuma. La película explora la, a menudo, compleja relación de la pareja de camino a Yuma. En esta sincera entrevista, Mangold habla sobre los problemas que tuvo para realizar la película, trabajar con Russell Crowe y la desmitificación de las películas del oeste americano. Pregunta: Sabes, estuve hablando con un director el otro día que me decía lo increíblemente duro que es hacer películas en Hollywood e incluso cuando tienes una carrera consolidada y la última película que hiciste ganó una cantidad enorme de alabanzas; incluso teniendo esa consolidación ¿se resisten a hacer el tipo de proyectos apasionados que uno quiere hacer? Mangold: Bien, la preparación la comencé con Cathy Conrad cuando estábamos haciendo Identity en 2002. Y cuando llegó la hora de hacer esta película, después de Walk The Line, Sony pasó. Y ellos graciosamente nos cedieron los derechos, la película original y el guión les pertenecían, fuimos vendiendo la idea por los estudios independientes pero pasaban. P: ¿Por qué? M: Deberías preguntárselo. Podrías llamar a cada uno de ellos y preguntarle el porqué pasaron todos ellos de Walk The Line y de este proyecto también. Todo lo que podría decirte es lo que yo sospecho y es que hay algo similar en estas dos películas. Una exploraba la vida de un músico del cual, cuanta gente en los estudios de L.A. que dio luz verde escuchaba a Johnny Cash, y entendía el tipo de conexión que él tiene y creo que los estudios similarmente tienen miedo de la música country y de lo que ello significa. Creo que están igualmente asustados de los western y temen que la gente que juega a la Nintendo no puede conseguir ver más allá de las más recientes jóvenes estrellas en traje de superhéroe y que de alguna de las maneras no sepan interpretar un western. Creo honestamente que cuando hicimos Walk The Line, -Ray no se había estrenado- estuvimos muy cerca, alrededor de un mes y medio de diferencia. Así que muchas veces la gente actuaba como si nuestra película fuese en respuesta a la de Ray, estrenamos un mes o dos más tarde que ellos. Incluso no había oído hablar de la película hasta que terminé de rodar Walk The Line, pero creo que ellos lo tuvieron difícil para financiar la película. Quiero decir que la realidad es esa, es realmente duro realizar películas ambiciosas, de gente de otras épocas, sólo tienes que echar un vistazo a la cartelera de este otoño, del anterior y de aquellos que son interesantes y remontan son a quien dan luz verde. La verdad es que la mayoría son recolecciones, o se caracterizan por tener financiación alternativa, o simplemente independientes. Los estudios están ahora dando un paso adelante en filmaciones reales. P: Me parece tan deprimente... M: Es deprimente, pero tan pronto como las películas se están haciendo ya no lo es tanto y creo que las ovejas volverán al redil. Déjame darte un ejemplo, los setenta son un gran momento en las películas y surgieron de uno de los peores períodos del cine. Hay un sentido de que siempre el paradigma está cambiando de lugar, hay una oportunidad para métodos alternativos para conseguir hacer películas. Es lo que ha ocurrido con la generación de Sundance, es como ha ocurrido con Miramax. Las corporaciones no van a echar un pulso contra nadie, van a trabajar con lo del año pasado, hasta que no de para más. Así cuando finalmente una de esas películas de Marvel y DC falle, entonces no habrá ni una ni otra, creo que volverán a pensar. P: ¿Qué asustó a los estudios de Yuma? M: Fue literalmente el género en sí. Estaban asustados de este tipo de películas. Están enorme, total y verdaderamente mal entendidas y el estudio actúa sólo pensando en ellas con simplicidad: “Oh, los sombreros blancos, los sombreros negros, el bueno contra el malo”. Muy pocos westerns se ajustan a esa descripción. La verdad es que normalmente tienen una moralidad gris. P: Síii, mira “Centauros del Desierto” M: Eso es a lo que me refiero. Quiero decir que el chico bueno es un asesino, el chico malo es el asesino y el padre del héroe es cobarde. Es un mundo de gente herida. Mira “Sin Perdón”, mira “Centauros del Desierto”,como decías. Podría nombrar toda una lista. El westerns no es sólo sombreros blancos y sombreros negros. Es realmente justo eso Gene Autrey y un par de otro tipo de películas, “El Llanero Solitario”- no son realmente westerns. Es un estilo Hollywoodiense y que difícilmente existen incluso en las películas. P: Cuando conseguiste el proyecto, ¿se lo presentaste a Lions Gate o tuviste que financiarlo independientemente y entonces vino Lions Gate? M: Sí, eso es realmente lo que ocurrió. Relativity financió la película y entonces Lions Gate se unió. P: Empleaste a un australiano y a un británico dando vida a personajes que son la quinta esencia americana ¿Puedes explicar tu elección de casting? M: Sí, creo que hay una ausencia de masculinidad en las actuales estrellas masculinas americanas. P: Y también ¿no crees que para este tipo de personajes y lo que les envuelve hace falta un tipo de actor que lo eleve? M: Bien, pienso que tengo dos de los mejores actores vivos y francamente dos de los mejores actores en la historia del cine. Creo que Russell Crowe es uno de los mejores actores de la historia del cine y Christian Bale está demostrando que será uno de los grandes también. Y creo que el hecho de que sean originarios de dos países diferentes es relativamente significativo para mi, se encuentran en el punto que yo quería, estuvieron excelentes y ahí dejé de pensar en ello. P: ¿Por qué Russell en particular? M: Le conocí hace un tiempo. Quedamos hará al menos 6 o 7 años, y nos seguimos la pista el uno al otro y creo que le encantan las películas del oeste. Es un gran jinete, pistolero, conoce la iconografía del oeste y actúa de una manera cómoda. No hay muchos tipos que puedan actuar, hablar y manejar el caballo al mismo tiempo que dicen el guión, y que no parezcan como un tipo de Malibu un poco fuera de control esperando que el caballo no les tire mientras dicen bien el guión. Y el hecho es, estos chicos, están realmente cómodos en este mundo. P: Déjame preguntarte por qué este wenster en particular M: Fue lo primero que me mostró mi profesor Alexander McKendrick, a mediados de los 80. Estudié la película, la separé y la puse junta. Fui el asistente del profesor-analizaría cosas. La tengo realmente en mi sangre, esta película y esta historia. Y esta historia me parecía verdaderamente vibrante y relevante, entonces y ahora. La forma en que la ví y la veo, creo que el mundo del remake puede incluir un montón de cosas, y en el mundo de ahora en que se están haciendo los shows de la tv de los 70 y los 80, y hay un montón de cinismo en cuanto a lo que es remake. En caso de los westerns, mi sentimiento es que son un tipo de fiebre del sueño americano y que son mitología. Son deseos y miedos americanos, angustias y búsquedas presentadas en un paisaje bello, puro y estéril, que permiten que estos temas no puedan realizarse en otros sitios. Lo otro que pienso es que tiene este tipo de resonancia es que actualmente es la película americana de la multitud. Ese tipo de código de conducta y género parecido, un clase de danza que permite ciertas preguntas morales que han sido formuladas. El motivo por el cual cuando hice Cop Land en 1995 y nombré al personaje de Stallone, Freddy Heflin y me inspiró mucho para 3:10 Yuma y hay una diferencia abismal de 3:10 Yuma a Copland. Lo que se me ocurrió cuando estaba haciendo Identity con Sony fue “¿Por qué no?“Estas películas apenas se hacen y pensaba ¿por qué no hacerla? Pienso que la original es brillante, está magníficamente hecha y tiene unas maravillosas interpretaciones y un precioso guión. También me sentía como si algunos de los otros westerns no me gustaban, como si la calidad hubiese desaparecido un poco, y sentía que tenía que encaminarme un poco donde otros western no lo hacían. Así que pensado todo esto, hay una oportunidad que no podía dejar pasar o incluso un reto para mi - mira el poder de los textos de las obras de Shakespeare, ya hemos visto seis Hamlet, doce Macbeths y nueve Henry V. El hecho es que creo que hay un poco de texto que merece ser reinterpretado y no hay nada oscuro y cínico sobre el hecho de que el director lo haga. Creo que otro director podría modificarla y hacer 3:10 Yuma y realmente sería interesante verlo, porque creo que el texto es rico y permite que los actores sean flexibles y este paisaje produce otro objetivo teatral interesante para disfrutar. Los remakes están considerados cínicamente porque tienen una marca de la casa “estoy haciendo de nuevo una versión” porque tengo una audiencia innata que construir, ¿sabes de lo que te estoy hablando?. Si haces un show de tv de nuevo, y si estás haciendo el remake de Mod Squad, sabes que tienes una marca de la casa. Nadie conoce 3:10 Yuma, el público en general. No he tenido ninguna ventaja de hacer una marca de la casa, he tenido la desventaja de un western que los estudios creen que nadie quiere ir a ver. La ventaja que tengo es que es una gran historia. Una gran historia de Elmore Leonard, un gran guión de Halsted Welles y un punto de visto sobre lo que quise hacer con ello y que quizás lo hice diferente. Visite o Russell Crowe Daily Planet, meu blog em Português sobre o Russell e que traz também notícias sobre Yuma, todo o dia sempre o primeiro com as últimas, e o que é melhor, em Português: Russell Crowe Daily Planet! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Sophie Aubrey Posted August 15, 2007 Author Members Report Share Posted August 15, 2007 Algumas críticas positivas sobre o filme de quem já atendeu algumas exibições avançadas: Crítica do blog ScottsDale, 14/08: http://www.thescottsdaleincident.net/?p=30 I should start this particular review by mentioning what an awesome girlfriend I have. She and I talk film a sizeable amount of the time, so she knew three important things about me that led her to the upcoming story of her awesomeness: 1. I like Christian Bale as an actor; he’s great as Sean Bateman in American Psycho (a rare “movie that is a decent film interpretation of a good novel”), awesome in The Machinist, highly entertaining in Harsh Times, and is even one of the only good things about the absolutely horrible Batman Begins. He doesn’t salvage it, but he does come fairly close. If that doesn’t prove that he has a large amount of talent, then I don’t know what does. 2. I don’t particularly like Westerns, but one western that I do enjoy is 3:10 to Yuma, the 1957 version with Glenn Ford. 3. I had known for awhile about the reinterpretation of the movie that was being cast with Christian Bale and Russell Crowe, and had expressed interest in seeing it multiple times. Knowing this, and being an avid reader of the newspaper (one of the other reasons that I enjoy dating her), she was able to discover that there was a special screening of the movie being put on by the folks who run the Sedona Film Festival, and she snagged some tickets and brought me as a surprise to see it. In other news, I am chaining her legs together and keeping her in my closet so that she doesn’t go anywhere. OK, that’s not true, but I can’t reiterate enough how cool my girlfriend is. Here’s some more really good news: the newest production of 3:10 to Yuma is almost as awesome as she is—a tall order, by the way. But it does the job. PLOT/STORY: The short of it is that a poor rancher (Bale) who is in danger of losing his land to a shady land baron is drawn into transporting a known criminal (Russell Crowe) from Bisbee to Contention in Arizona. The rancher does so in order to catch a train that will take the criminal to prison in Yuma so that the rancher can make two hundred dollars, pay off his debts, and keep his land. The long of it is that the plot is a classic Western that acts as the driving force for a movie that, as Peter Fonda put it—oh yeah, I forgot to mention this, but he did a Q and A after the movie—was character-driven. There’s not much past the traditional plot conflicts that a Western has—the examination of manhood, honor, and morality in an untamed land; the classic contrast between good and evil; and furthermore in this movie, the way that good and evil are almost never black and white, but are usually varying shades of gray. The film doesn’t force laughs, nor does it force action or toughness or any other sequence that comes up within the movie. There is a perfect balance between gun slinging bloodiness, contemplative discussion upon universal topics such as right and wrong, and one-liner wittiness (mostly from Russell Crowe as head of the villainous gang Ben Wade and from Wash’s, um I mean Steve the Pirate’s, um I mean Alan Tudyk’s doctor character). Each part is paced wonderfully; there is never a dull moment throughout. CHARACTERS/ACTING: Christian Bale is awesome as the admirable Dan Evans. We know he’s admirable because he fought for the North and the movie makes sure to let us know this (a cheesy way of establishing his character, and about the only complaint I have about this movie). Bale might be described as slightly stubborn, and his wife and oldest son hold varying levels of shame in him, but overall he is the moral compass that this movie and the outlaw desert settlements in it need. Bale is a likable person–you just can’t root against him because he isn’t a perfect guy, but he is a good one, one whose bravery maybe dawns in the night of frustration and abuse. Bale conveys this well, in an understated manner, one Thoreau might call a manner of “quiet desperation.” The secondary characters all do an excellent job of illuminating Bale. Gretchen Mol, who I have liked since The Shape of Things, plays his wife Alice, and relates her disappointment with her husband with few words and many shame-filled looks at him. She also, along with Vinessa Shaw’s bartender character, help Russell Crowe establish Ben Wade’s considerable charismatic pull. Peter Fonda is wonderful as the vengeful stagecoach owner who Wade attempts to rob, starting as a victim and becoming a perpetrator and a hypocrite as the film continues, muddying again the vision of what “good” and “evil” are. The actor who pays Dan’s son is neither a detraction nor a spectacular addition, but he does connect on some very nice levels with Bale in a couple of scenes. Luke Wilson also showed up and was incredibly entertaining for about eight minutes, though I was confused when he showed up in this particular movie, wondering if he lost his bearings on the way to the Blue Streak 2 set (and no, I wouldn’t mind if they made another one). Two big things to note: first, Ben Foster came out of nowhere and played a consummate scummy badass as Ben Wade’s right hand man. The only other thing I can remember him from is his role as Angel in X-Men: The Last Stand, so it’s not his fault that he was underutilized just like every actor not named Hugh Jackman in that particular film. Here, he is the epitome of pure evil–to a point. Even he shows an unwavering devotion to his buddy Wade, becoming volatile in his emotion when a fellow gang member suggests leaving the captured Wade behind. The other note I have to make is of Russell Crowe’s performance. Now, I will never understand how Gladiator won a Best Picture Oscar, nor why he was supposed to be so good in the role of Maximus. Don’t get me started on Master and Commander. I think Crowe’s a very good actor, but is slightly overrated. Or at least, I thought that until I saw this film. Crowe’s Ben Wade is both a violent, calloused sociopath and a honorable man of thoughtfulness and decency at the same time. This inner conflict is not only believable, it is universal. Furthermore, Wade was one of the most charismatic characters that I have come across in a very long time. Crowe was perfect in this film; he did not overshadow anybody so much as he was, along with Christian Bale’s Dan Evans, the life-giving sun of the movie’s fantastically populated galaxy. It was a pleasure to see him work in this film. SFX/CAMERAWORK: Here’s how movies like The Matrix and The Bourne Identity have influenced movies negatively—they have influenced the jump-cutting, vertigo inducing action scenes that lesser directors and movies have no ability to do properly. Now everyone wants to do blaring scenes where so much action and so many cuts happen that it’s hard to keep up. Even a movie that I loved and praised as an excellent entry for action-packed summer blockbusters like Transformers ran into the issue of too many jump cuts and too much whirling the camera around like the center of the action got caught in a tornado. 3:10 to Yuma, however, delivers the action straightforwardly and with a sort of bloody panache. The gun battles are exhilarating, and there are a few very cool sequences thrown in (a deadly Ben Wade sneaking up on a handful of Apaches comes to mind here, as does the final shootout sequence). There is much blood shed; in fact, the movie is somewhat gory in a couple of places, particularly when they pull a certain bullet out of a certain character. Okay, the bullet isn’t all that special, but you get the point. It’s the kind of gore that any good western needs, though—and at least one death is pretty creative in its bloodiness. It even made me cringe a bit. PIVOTAL SCENES: Though I think many of the action scenes, in which a lot of characters that the viewer will come to care about one way or the other die, are pivotal in nature, I will just say that the last 20 or 25 minutes of the movie is one giant roller coaster, and honestly is the best consecutive 20 minutes of film that I have seen in a long while. I’m scared to really expound on any of this because I don’t want to give anything away. I will say that when Dan reveals the final piece of information about how he lost his foot, it’s pretty depressing, and quite pivotal for reasons that I won’t mention here. INTANGIBLES: They just did a study that says that males like movies more when they begin in media res, and women like them more when they follow the traditional manner of storytelling. This might be why the ensuing explosion to begin the movie pretty much set the tone for the rest of my viewing of it. In any case, I’d just like to say that this movie is better than the previous adaptation, better than any movie adapted from an Elmore Leonard story–even Jackie Brown, which is high praise from me–and is better than any movie that has come out this year. It was an absolute pleasure to watch this one. It gets the full monty here. Com a crítica é longa, portanto só vou traduzir um trecho dela: “A outra menção que eu tenho que fazer é sobre a performance de Russell Crowe. Agora , eu nunca irei entender como Gladiador ganhou o Oscar de Melhor Filme, nem porque ele foi supostamente considerado tão bom no papel de Maximus. Não vamos começar sobre Mestre dos Mares. Eu acho que Crowe é muito bom ator, mas levemente superestimado. Ou no mínimo, eu pensei até eu assistir este filme. .O Ben Wade de Crowe é ao mesmo que violento, um sociopata endurecido e um homem de honra de consideração e decência. Esse conflito interno não é somente acreditável, é universal. Além disso, Wade foi um dos mais carismáticos personagens que eu tenho confrontado nos últimos tempos. Crowe foi perfeito para o filme; ele não ofuscou ninguém tanto como ele estava, junto com o Dan Evans de Christian Bale, o sol vivo de um filme povoado por uma fantástica galáxia. Foi um prazer vê-lo trabalhar neste filme.” Visite o Russell Crowe Daily Planet, meu blog em Português sobre o Russell e que traz também notícias sobre Yuma, todo o dia sempre o primeiro com as últimas, e o que é melhor, em Português: Russell Crowe Daily Planet! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Sophie Aubrey Posted August 15, 2007 Author Members Report Share Posted August 15, 2007 Crítica do Blog do Ian Randall Strock, do dia 14/08: http://ianrandalstrock.livejournal.com/49549.html Review of "3:10 to Yuma" Last night we saw 3:10 to Yuma, a western starring Christian Bale and Rusell Crowe. It's scheduled to be released the first week of September. This one is a remake of the 1957 film 3:10 to Yuma, a western starring Glenn Ford and Van Heflin. I'm not an aficianado of westerns, but I think this is a pretty good film. There's action, suspense, character growth, a little mystery, some good chases, a decent shoot-out or two… lots of things to recommend the movie. But if you're a bit squeamish, you won't like the blood, the shooting, or the surgery scene. Story: the down-on-his-luck rancher is in imminent danger of losing his land to the wealthy land speculator who wants to turn around and sell it to the railroad for a lot more. The cattle are dying, there's been no rain, and the river's been dammed. The bad guys come to town, action takes place, and the rancher winds up part of the posse that's taking the head bad guy in. But his gang has other ideas. That's all the set-up you really need. If you're any sort of movie fan, you can probably write the interaction between the rancher and the bad guy yourself, but it's done well here. Minha tradução de parte da crítica: “Na última noite nós assistimos 3:10 To Yuma, um western estrelado por Christian Bale e Russell Crowe. Está escalado para ser lançado na primeira semana de setembro. Este é um remake do filme de 1957, 3:10 To Yuma, estrelando Glenn Ford e Van Heflin. Eu não um apaixonado por Westerns, mas eu acho que este um filme muito bom. Há ação, suspense, desenvolvimento de personagem, um pouco de mistério, algumas boas perseguições, um ou dois tiroteios decentes, muitas coisas para recomendar este filme. Mas se você for um pouco sensível, não irá gostar do sangue, do tiroteio, ou da cena da operação.” Visite o Russell Crowe Daily Planet, meu blog em Português sobre o Russell e que traz também notícias sobre Yuma, todo o dia sempre o primeiro com as últimas, e o que é melhor, em Português: Russell Crowe Daily Planet! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Sophie Aubrey Posted August 15, 2007 Author Members Report Share Posted August 15, 2007 Crítica do Blog Shared Darkness – Do dia 14/08 http://shareddarkness.com/2007/08/14/yuma-advance-thoughts.aspx Advance Thoughts on 3:10 to Yuma Again, I've been remiss about pumping out some quick thoughts on both the good and bad of what I've seen long lead, but James Mangold's remake of 3:10 to Yuma , the 1957 western starring Glenn Ford and Van Heflin, is a very, very good film... like, go-ahead-and-start-the-Oscar-derby good. Starring Russell Crowe, Christian Bale, Ben Foster and Peter Fonda, the movie is a slow (pleasantly so), protracted chess match of wills. Set in Arizona in the late 1800s, it centers on captured outlaw Ben Wade (Crowe), and his date with a train that will take him to justice. Bale plays Dan Evans, a broken down Civil War veteran struggling to keep the respect of his headstrong son (Logan Lerman) and the support of his wife (Gretchen Mol), as well as merely hold onto control of his drought-plagued ranch. Needing cash, Evans volunteers to help deliver Wade, but is set upon by the latter's vicious gang. The script is tight, the acting and production value top-notch, and Crowe — speaking in a low, hypno-masculine purr — drives this well-oiled baby inexorably forward in charismatic bad-boy fashion. Bale's performance, meanwhile, is a master class in measurement and subtle reaction. Looking to beat Warner Bros.' The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford out of the gate, LionsGate has moved the film's release date up to September 7, nationwide. More to soon follow. Minha tradução de parte da crítica: “Pensamentos Avançados sobre 3:10 To Yuma – De novo eu tenho sido desleixado sobre colocar alguns pensamentos rápidos sobre o que há de bom e de ruim daquilo que eu tenho visto, mas o remake de James Mangold de 3:10 To Yuma, o western de 1957 estrelando Glenn Ford e Van Heflin, é um filme muito, muito bom ... como, vá em frente e comece a corrida do Oscar. Estrelando Russell Crowe, Christian Bale, Ben Foster e Peter Fonda, o filme é um vagoroso (agradável sim), prolongado jogo de xadrez de vontades/intenções/desejos. Protagonizado no Arizona no final dos anos 1800, é centrado na captura do fora da lei Ben Wade (Crowe), e seu encontro com um trem que o levará para a justiça. Bale interpreta Dan Evan, um veterano ferido da Guerra Civil lutando para manter o respeito do seu filho obstinado (Logan Lerman) e o apoito da sua esposa (Gretchen Mol), como também apenas controlar do seu rancho na seca. Precisando de dinheiro, Evans se candidata para ajudar a entregar Wade, mas está prestes à ser atacado pela gangue de viciosos. O script é enxuto/rigoroso, a atuação e a produção valem altas indicações, e Crowe – falando num baixo hipnótico masculino ronronar/sussurrar – conduz este bem azeitado/oleoso bebê de forma inexorável através de uma forma de bandido/homem mau bem carismático. A performance de Bale, no entanto, é uma aula mestra em reação medida e sutil. Parecento que irá bater a produção da Warner Brothers “O Assassinato de Jessé James pelo covarde Robert Ford” fora do portão, Lionsgate antecipou o lançamento do filme para 7 de Setembro, lançamento nacional. Mais a respeito em breve.” Visite o Russell Crowe Daily Planet, meu blog em Português sobre o Russell e que traz também notícias sobre Yuma, todo o dia sempre o primeiro com as últimas, e o que é melhor, em Português: Russell Crowe Daily Planet! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Sophie Aubrey Posted August 15, 2007 Author Members Report Share Posted August 15, 2007 Critica de um Membro do Fórum do Filme no IMDB, do dia 14/08: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0381849/board/thread/77081550?d=82516523&p=2#82516523 I saw a screening of this last night and I must say I was never a big Crowe fan, but he was excellent in this film. He played his character with a subtle mix of ruthlessness and humanity, where you can understand where he gets his evilness, but also why he isn't purely that way. But believe me he's a cold b***ard. And I agree, in an era that death was a means of survival, Ben Foster's Charlie Prince was really the true psychopath. As Ben Wade called him, an "animal". Minha tradução: “Eu vi a exibição disto na noite passada e eu tenho que dizer eu nunca fui um grande fã do Crowe, mas ele estava excelente neste filme. Ele interpreta seu personagem com um mix sutil de crueldade e humanidade, onde você pode compreender onde ele consegue sua maldade, mas também porque ele não é puramente daquele jeito. Mas acredite-me ele é um cara frio. E eu concordo, numa era que a morte era um significado para sobrevivência, o Charlie Prince de Ben Foster era realmente o verdadeiro psicopata. Como Ben Wade o chamava, um “animal”. Visite o Russell Crowe Daily Planet, meu blog em Português sobre o Russell e que traz também notícias sobre Yuma, todo o dia sempre o primeiro com as últimas, e o que é melhor, em Português: Russell Crowe Daily Planet! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Big One Posted August 15, 2007 Administrators Report Share Posted August 15, 2007 Obrigado pelo tradução Sofhie... Russel Crowe na corrida pro Oscar? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members balehead Posted August 15, 2007 Members Report Share Posted August 15, 2007 bom, ate agora so há pontos positivos...mas na primeira critica o critico disse que nao acha que crowe fez nada em gladiador? puts...só eu achei que ele estava supimpa no papel alem de amar aquele filme? altas expectativas, chega logo senhor! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RaH!!! Posted August 15, 2007 Members Report Share Posted August 15, 2007 Olá a todos, como vão??? Bom, seguindo o conselho da minha linda e gata Balehead cá estou eu aqui nesse fórum para buscar um pouco de informação a respeito desse filmão q será 3:10 To Yuma... Além do Bale q pra mim é um baita ator tem tb o Russel q eu curto pacas tb.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Sophie Aubrey Posted August 16, 2007 Author Members Report Share Posted August 16, 2007 Bom, todos os críticos e pessoas comuns que já tiveram a oportunidade de assistir o filme tem elogiado muito o trabalho do Russell e do Christian, e muitos pensam que realmente o filme e sua equipe são dignos de receber algumas indicações, então ficamos na torcida. Do blog 2Reels: http://2reels.blogspot.com/2007/08/310-to-yuma.html 3:10 To Yuma **EARLY REVIEW** Directed by: James Mangold Written by: Michael Brandt, Derek Haas, Halstead Wells, and James Mangold (uncredited) Starring: Russell Crowe, Christian Bale, Ben Foster, Gretchen Mol, Peter Fonda [b/]Bandits to the left of me, Bounty Hunters to the right... Not only is “3:10 To Yuma” the best western this decade has seen, it is also one of the year's finest films. In a genre where so much can easily go wrong (artistically, that is), it seems “Yuma” nails everything. The story is quite simple and a noir-Western at it. Ben Wade (played by Russell Crowe) is a villain the town he plights has never seen. He’s evil but there’s something impeccably charming and charismatic about him, despite the fact that he has killed more people than even he can recall. Without spoiling too much, the film truly begins when a robbery goes sour. Wade and his crew stay at a nearby town but Wade himself ends up getting caught. Dan Evans (played by Christian Bale) is an honest farmer who is desperately in need of money. His property is about to be sold off so he needs something to support his family. When he sees Wade -- an opportunity arises and the journey begins. Evans is enrolled by a banker to deliver Ben Wade to a prison (the train station that leads to a prison, to be more precise). Everything is set-up and it seems like an easy ride, but it is anything but. Evans and his men face every difficulty imaginable, starting from Apache Indians and ending with Wade’s gang trying to rescue him at any cost. Along the way, certain truths about Evans and Wade spill out and these characters really emerge as fleshed out beings, which is all too rare in Westerns. They come to understand each other, which is what makes the ending so satisfying and unexpected. Despite all this, the film never loses grip of what it’s really supposed to be, a thrilling action film, and it completely delivers, while at the same time being a pitch-perfect character study. The drama rolls on only long enough to get us to know and sympathize with these characters. Cliche as some parts may be, it is important to remember the roots of this film, and mostly, the cliches really pay tribute to the old great Western classics, while having enough fresh ideas to give the film its own spin. Supplemented with fantastic cinematography and a playfully inventive score, this film is surely different from the other films I’ve seen this year. Maybe it’s the earnest nature of the characters, or the perfectly executed ending, but overall it’s one exhilarating experience. The score, like the film, is more active rather than contemplative, and that adds more to the tension because it feels like we‘re with the characters, running for cover. Christian Bale and Russell Crowe shine as two guys who aren't really good and aren't really bad, but just are. Crowe gives a performances that mirrors Hannibal Lecter and establishes him as someone beyond good and evil, and not a true 1-sided villain we‘re accustomed to seeing, which is really the point of good westerns - to show people as what they are in reality, characters in shades of grey. James Mangold’s direction is steady but electrifying, knowing exactly when to ease the tension or keep us on the edge of our seats. I wasn’t sure about his readiness to do a Western after “Walk the Line”, but this film certainly proved me wrong, and then some. 9/10 Minha tradução de um parte do artigo acima: Não só 3:10 To Yuma é o melhor western que esta década já viu, é também um dos melhores filmes do ano. Num gênero onde tanto pode facilmente dar errado (artisticamente), parece que Yuma prega tudo.” “Crowe dá uma performance que espelha a da Hannibal Lecter e o estabelece como alguém além do bom e do mau, e não apenas o verdade de um lado do vilão como estamos acostumados à ver, que é realmente o ponto dos bons westerns – mostrar as pessoas como elas são na realidade, personagens em sombras de cinza. A direção de James Mangold é consante mas eletrizante, sabendo exatamente quando acalmar a tensão ou nos manter na ponta de nossas poltronas. Eu não estava certo sobre prestreza/boa vontade para fazer um western depois de Johnny & June, mas este filme certamente me provou o errado, e muito mais.” De 10, nota 9. Visite o Russell Crowe Daily Planet, meu blog em Português sobre o Russell e que traz também notícias sobre Yuma, todo o dia sempre o primeiro com as últimas, e o que é melhor, em Português: Russell Crowe Daily Planet! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members balehead Posted August 16, 2007 Members Report Share Posted August 16, 2007 Rahzinho bem vindo! espero ver voçe sempre aqui hehehehehe. mas é como eu ja tinha dito á respeito das atuações, eu tenho a impressão de que se alguem for indicado, será o Russel. mais criticas positivas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Sophie Aubrey Posted August 16, 2007 Author Members Report Share Posted August 16, 2007 Terceiroe fantástico poster para o filme, enfim finalmente do jeito que queríamos,com o Russell e o Christian,no site Cinematical: http://www.cinematical.com/2007/08/16/exclusive-final-one-sheet-for-3-10-to-yuma/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Sophie Aubrey Posted August 16, 2007 Author Members Report Share Posted August 16, 2007 Excelente crítica/review do Hollywood Reporter,Agosto 16: Hollywood Reporter 3:10 to Yuma Bottom Line: James Mangold's expertly performed remake does the original justice. By Michael Rechtshaffen Aug 17, 2007 Christian Bale and Russell Crowe turn in strong performances. Pulling into theaters a full 50 years after the arrival of the original Van Heflin-Glenn Ford classic, James Mangold's expanded take on "3:10 to Yuma" makes for a largely compelling ride on the strength of a powerful cast led by Russell Crowe and Christian Bale. Based on a Elmore Leonard short story originally published in a 1953 issue of Dime Western magazine, this thoughtful remake -- and how often do those two words go hand in hand? -- attempts to delve even deeper into the complex dynamic between a struggling rancher and the notorious outlaw he volunteers to escort to a prison-bound train. While a good part of the 1957 version was confined to a single hotel room and Mangold's decision to open up the piece considerably doesn't always work in its favor, Crowe, Bale and the rest of the crack ensemble keep the trip intriguing, even over those occasional bumpy parts. Lionsgate has bumped up the film's release to get a prime berth on the awards-season express, but "Yuma" still remains a tricky commercial proposition. Obviously much is being made of the fact that the film is from the directing and producing team responsible for "Walk the Line" as well as that matchup of two of the more intense actors in the business. But the genre and the darker subject matter is still going to require strong word-of-mouth and stronger marketing to attract audiences. And then there's that curious title. As it turned out, the particular screening at which "Yuma" was reviewed commenced at precisely 3:10 p.m. Perhaps exhibitors should take note. While on the subject of time, both versions of the picture owe a tip of the Stetson to "High Noon," which also was governed by a ticking clock and featured good guys and bad guys who wore intricate shades of gray. Here, Bale is Dan Evans, a peaceable rancher and former Union Army sharpshooter with a bad limp who's about to lose his drought-ravaged land to a deed-holder looking to make a tidy profit from the incoming railroad. He's also fighting a losing battle to win the respect of his 14-year-old son, Will (movingly played by Logan Lerman), and his wife, Alice (Gretchen Mol) as he falls deeper into debt. Fate plays its hand when Evans witnesses the capture of Ben Wade (Crowe), a ruthless outlaw, who, with his fearsome gang, has just pulled off yet another violent Pinkerton robbery. Still smarting from previous Wade Gang attacks, Southern Pacific Railroad rep Grayson Butterfield (Dallas Roberts) enlists volunteers who will ensure that his prisoner makes the three-day trek to the town of Contention, where he will board the 3:10 prison train bound for the Federal Court in Yuma, Ariz. Evans offers his services in exchange for a $200 delivery fee, and he finds himself joining the decidedly motley posse that also includes a grizzled bounty hunter who was injured in the most recent Wade attack (a terrific Peter Fonda) and a gentle veterinarian (Alan Tudyk). But with Wade's fiercely loyal second-in-command, Charlie Prince (a perfectly psychotic Ben Foster) hot on their trail, a showdown is only a matter of time. With an extra half-hour to play around with over the original's 92-minute length, Mangold -- whose 1997 film "Cop Land" also took its inspiration from the Delmer Daves-directed, Halsted Welles-penned picture -- has plenty of opportunity to lay down all that extra psychological track, as well as build in action sequences and scenic vistas, vibrantly captured by cinematographer Phedon Papamichael. While all that opening up makes sound commercial sense and allows a greater interplay between its two intelligent leads, it's at the expense of the original's satisfyingly self-contained structure and tightly calibrated claustrophobia. As it is, the Mangold version, credited to original screenwriter Welles along with Michael Brandt & Derek Haas, feels truncated in places, most notably after a sequence taking place just before the arrival at Contention. By the time it gets down to the final philosophical face-off between Evans and Wade in that hotel room, the exchanges already feel somewhat played out, with Crowe's character doing an awful lot of asking questions for a guy with a reputation for shooting first. But Mangold again draws memorable performances across the board, and while Crowe and Bale should figure into awards campaigning, all -- including Kevin Durand as a smirking thug and an unbilled Luke Wilson -- are right on the money. The impressive work extends behind the scenes to Andrew Menzies' effectively parched production design and Marco Beltrami's percolating score, which subtly yet effectively signals "Yuma's" status as a thinking-person's Western. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Sophie Aubrey Posted August 16, 2007 Author Members Report Share Posted August 16, 2007 Outra excelente crítica, agora do Variety,Agosto 17: http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117934435.html?categoryid=1263&cs=1 3:10 to Yuma By TODD MCCARTHY A Lionsgate release presented in association with Relativity Media of a Tree Line Films production. Produced by Cathy Konrad. Executive producers Stuart M. Besser, Ryan Kavanaugh, Lynwood Spinks. Directed by James Mangold. Screenplay, Halsted Welles, Michael Brandt, Derek Haas, based on the short story by Elmore Leonard. Ben Wade - Russell Crowe Dan Evans - Christian Bale Byron McElroy - Peter Fonda Alice Evans - Gretchen Mol Charlie Prince - Ben Foster Grayson Butterfield - Dallas Roberts Doc Potter - Alan Tudyk Emmy Roberts - Vinessa Shaw Will Evans - Logan Lerman Tucker - Kevin Durand Marshal Weathers - Luce Rains Tommy Darden - Johnny Whitworth Mark Evans - Benjamin Petry "3:10 to Yuma" is a tense, rugged redo of a film that was pretty good the first time around. Reinforced by a strong central premise, alert performances, a realistic view of the developing Old West and a satisfying dimensionality in its shadings of good and evil, James Mangold's remake walks a fine line in retaining many of the original's qualities while smartly shaking things up a bit. A Western these days needs to be more than a solid, unfussy programmer to break out of the pack commercially, but this Lionsgate release should be able to generate moderately good theatrical returns prior to a solid home entertainment life, where casual viewer curiosity will be well rewarded. Russell Crowe may be the biggest name in the cast, but one curious sidelight of the project is that the author of the 1953 short story on which the original 1957 film is based, Elmore Leonard, reps far more of a draw now than he did half a century ago. Tightly focused yarn was at the time viewed as firmly in the Western-with-a-conscience camp of "High Noon," in which lawmen and ordinary citizens alike were tested by their willingness to confront the evil in their midst. Unlike in "High Noon," however, the man putting himself on the line here is not a sheriff or marshal, but a lame rancher whose life and family are just one bad season from coming apart at the seams. In the first of many tight, anxious scenes fraught with violence or the threat of it, the barn of Dan Evans (Christian Bale) is set afire. But Dan's vow of vengeance falls on deaf ears; so seemingly ineffectual has he become that his wife (Gretchen Mol) and older son Will (Logan Lerman) differ only in the degrees of their loss of faith in him. In a subsequent bracing scene, a wild bunch led by the dapper Ben Wade (Crowe) attacks a payroll coach with a Gatling gun. Numerous bloody deaths ensue, but so does a big payoff for Ben, who, after his men take off, tarries too long with a luscious barmaid (Vinessa Shaw) in a nearby town and is arrested with Dan's help. Although tempted to kill the notorious outlaw on the spot, local authorities prudently decide to turn him over the feds for official hanging. This, however, will involve transporting him to the railway town of Contention, where in two days' time, Ben can be put on the train to Yuma. To pay off his debt, Dan volunteers to help escort Ben to his destination. Thus begins a war of nerves that plays out in tasty ways across a vivid landscape. Although handcuffed and surrounded by several armed men, it's Ben who sets the tone and exerts the power. Quoting Scripture when it suits the occasion, he elicits information with seemingly innocuous questions, taunts his guards, and baits Dan about his missing leg and inability to support his family or please his beautiful wife. An excellent judge of character and master manipulator, he manages to kill one, then another of his guards, and is on the verge of getting away when who should turn up in a pinch but young Will, who wants to help his dad but harbors an ill-concealed admiration for the charismatic bandit. As the diminishing group proceeds through renegade Apache territory and into a mountainous railway construction site, they are shadowed by Ben's remaining gang, headed in his absence by his No. 2, the psychopathic Charlie Prince (Ben Foster). If anyone's going to gain the most, career-wise, from "3:10 to Yuma," it will definitely be Foster, who puts the kind of indelible imprint on this juicy role that, in earlier eras, allowed such thesps as Lee Marvin, Richard Boone, Dan Duryea, James Coburn, Jack Palance, Lee Van Cleef, Strother Martin and others to immortalize themselves in the annals of Western villainy. With his albino coloring, pinched mouth, reedy voice and remorseless wall-eyes, Foster's lightning-draw killer brandishes a dementia amplified by an intense loyalty to Ben that gently borders on homoeroticism; he'll do anything for his boss, for some reasons that are clear and for some that must be intuited. Foster is a mad delight to watch, and a reminder that the relative scarcity of Westerns deprives a generation of character actors of opportunities to shine. Eventually, the few surviving wayfarers wind up in Contention to await the train. The least satisfying aspect of the original film -- which was confidently directed by Delmer Daves and written by Halsted Welles, who receives shared script credit here with Michael Brandt and Derek Haas -- was the ending, which wrapped things up too thoroughly. Conclusion has been significantly altered here, with an eye toward more complex layering of emotion and meaning. But qualms persist, as aspects of the physical action and psychological motivation remain murky and forced. All the same, "Yuma" provides an absorbing ride, with helpful contributions from all hands. Honoring tradition in the storytelling but pushing for a heightened visual realism, Mangold has lenser Phedon Papamichael thrust the camera right into the action with a lot of handheld and perspective shots that must keep pace with constantly mobile characters, horses and coaches. Michael McCusker's cutting and the clangy, propulsive score by Marco Beltrami keep a cattle prod on the proceedings. Crowe is completely in his element here as, in the best tradition of great stars, he betrays no effort in conveying the masculine confidence, psychological acuity and manipulative power of his alluring bad guy; his Ben is one slick customer and more. Bale, whom one can imagine being effective in his own way as the villain, well embodies the strengths and frailties of the Eastern-bred rancher without sentimentality, and Lerman earns notice as a kid ready to skip adolescence and burst into full-blown manhood. Supporting turns are vivid, including a wonderfully leathery characterization by Peter Fonda as a supremely tough old bounty hunter. Camera (FotoKem color, Panavision widescreen), Phedon Papamichael; editor, Michael McCusker; music, Marco Beltrami; production designer, Andrew Menzies; art director, Greg Berry; set designers, Roger Lundeen, Rich Roming; set decorator, Jay R. Hart; costume designer, Arianne Phillips; sound (DTS/SDDS/Dolby Digital), Jim Stuebe; supervising sound editor, Don Sylvester; assistant director, Nicholas Mastandrea; second unit director/stunt cordinator, Freddie Hice; second unit director, Mark Vargo; casting, Lisa Beach, Sarah Katzman. Reviewed at Raleigh Studios, Los Angeles, Aug. 15, 2007. MPAA Rating: R. Running time: 120 MIN. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members balehead Posted August 17, 2007 Members Report Share Posted August 17, 2007 MEU DEUUUUUUUUUUUUUUS O POSTER TA LINDAÇO! O MELHOR DOS TRES ATE AGORA... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Sophie Aubrey Posted August 18, 2007 Author Members Report Share Posted August 18, 2007 Do site britânico sobre cinema Screen Daily.com, 17/08: http://www.screendaily.com/ScreenDailyArticle.aspx?intStoryID=34026 3:10 To Yuma Allan Hunter in London 17 Aug 2007 06:00 Dir: James Mangold US . 2007. 117mins The western has become the most unfashionable of genres, with a reputation for box-office poison that persists despite the relatively recent success of Open Range (2003). The fiftieth anniversary remake of 3:10 To Yuma is sturdy enough to withstand the jinx. Handsomely crafted, it represents a largely successful fusion of old-style storytelling virtues with a modern Hollywood ethos in which action speaks louder than words. Audiences should welcome Russell Crowe's return to a role that is a much more comfortable fit than his tally-ho cad in the misfire, A Good Year. The added marquee value of Christian Bale, the film's novelty and the prospect of generally positive reviews should all combine to position 3:10 To Yuma as a solid Autumn performer with an appeal that tilts more towards an older demographic. Less widely remembered than High Noon (1952) or Rio Bravo (1959), 3:10 To Yuma (1957) is still one of the great westerns of the 1950s; a taut, tensely handled account of the mutual respect that develops between a ruthless outlaw (Glenn Ford) and the decent, hard-working rancher (Van Heflin) determined to deliver him to justice. The new version revisits the basic Elmore Leonard story but opens it out and embellishes it, significantly upping the gunplay and expanding the back-story. The result may be more tailored towards the supposed requirements of a modern audience but the whiplash tension of the original is lost a little in the translation. A one-legged Civil War veteran, Dan Evans (Christian Bale) is now struggling to provide a living for his wife Alice (Gretchen Moll) and their two sons. It seems only a matter of time before the bank forecloses and they will have to abandon their farm. Dan is in the wrong place at the wrong time when outlaw Ben Wade (Russell Crowe) and his gang pull off another daring stagecoach robbery that leaves Pinkerton bounty hunter McElroy (Peter Fonda) badly wounded. When Wade is subsequently captured, the desperate Dan accepts $200 to join a group that will deliver Wade on to the 3: 10 train to Yuma prison. All they have to do is outsmart Wade's vicious gang, survive the wrath of renegade Apaches and face a whole army of people who would rather see Wade dead than sent to jail. 3: 10 To Yuma boasts several scenes, including the stagecoach robbery, that offer a rousing reminder of the adrenaline kick that a good western can provide. The thundering hooves, blazing guns and jangling, Morricone-style soundtrack will lift the spirits of any genre fan. The film falters by fracturing the intense focus of the original. The weight given to McElroy and Dan's teenage son Will (Logan Lerman) act as a distraction from the mind games between the philosophical, Bible-quoting Wade and the grimly resolute Dan. The film is well-acted with Russell Crowe bringing a wry, roguish charm to the role of a man who takes what he wants and lives with the consequences. Christian Bale is earnest and understated. It is entirely believable that Dan would envy Ben's bravado and that Ben would grow to admire Dan's quiet heroism. Ben Foster lends a typical, scene-stealing intensity to the role of Wade's trigger happy sidekick Charlie Prince and if there appears to be something of Clint Eastwood in Peter Fonda's performance then Logan Lerman has the look and ability of a young River Phoenix. Director James Mangold and producer Cathy Konrad, the team behind the Oscar-winning Walk The Line (2005) seem to lack faith that an audience can be held spellbound purely by the developing relationship between Dan and Will. Consequently, there is an emphasis on action in the helter-skelter finale that may stretch credibility beyond breaking point for some audiences. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Sophie Aubrey Posted August 18, 2007 Author Members Report Share Posted August 18, 2007 Página Especial do filme no Yahoo Movies, com fotos novas, trailer e um clip com um trecho do filme: http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/310toyuma.html;_ylt=ArUY4rFwRhn.K2ORFK1Ss41fVXcA O filme é matéria da próxima edição de outubro da revista americana Cowboys & Indians: http://cowboysindiansblog.blogspot.com/2007/08/first-rave-for-310-to-yuma.html O filme também é matéria na revista American Cowboy, edição de setembro/outubro, mas a capa ainda não está online. Postarei as matérias das mesmas tão logo me cheguem às mãos.Sophie Aubrey2007-08-18 09:32:32 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Sophie Aubrey Posted August 18, 2007 Author Members Report Share Posted August 18, 2007 Do site da Entertainment Weekly, edição especial sobre a prévia de outono (não sabemos se o texto é o mesmo da revista que está saindo nas bancas esta semana, No. 949/950, com data de 24/08): http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20051361_20051365_20051638,00.html Despite the appearance this season of Jesse James, the past couple of decades have seen the Western largely vanish from theaters, with spandex-clad superheroes displacing white-hatted gunslingers in the hearts of studio executives. But James Mangold, director of the 2005 Johnny Cash biopic Walk the Line, wasn't willing to let the genre ride into the sunset. ''I found it tragic that it was dying,'' he says. ''I thought, Wow, I can get movies made now — why don't I wade into the West?'' Mangold had long been a fan of the 1957 film 3:10 to Yuma — the tale (adapted from an Elmore Leonard short story) of a small-time rancher (Christian Bale) who has to deliver a murderous outlaw (Russell Crowe) to the train that will take him to jail. But getting a remake onto the big screen proved more arduous than expected. Mangold began developing the film for Sony in 2002, though he couldn't lasso up much interest. ''Nobody wanted to make it,'' says Peter Fonda, who plays a member of the posse bringing the villainous Ben Wade to justice. ''The Hollywood axiom is Westerns don't make money. Well, explain to me Unforgiven, explain to me Dances With Wolves.'' In 2006, Tom Cruise entered talks to play Wade, and it looked like things were finally on track. But just when the project seemed nearly camera-ready, Sony — perhaps unsettled by the negative press swirling around Cruise and the underwhelming performance of Mission: Impossible III — put the project in turnaround, and Cruise moved on. Undaunted, Mangold quickly lined up new financial backers and cast Bale as rancher Dan Evans opposite Crowe, who, he says, had always been his first choice to play Wade. ''There's only a handful of guys who could pull off this combination of savage rage and brilliant charm,'' says Mangold. ''Russell's got that in spades.'' Crowe also happens to live on a ranch in Australia, so riding horses across the plains of New Mexico wasn't an issue. Not so for some of the other cast members. ''After a couple of days of cowboy boot camp, from my groin to my knees was the color of a pinot noir,'' says Ben Foster, who plays Wade's sinister second-in-command. ''But you don't want to be complaining on that set to all those stunt guys.'' What would John Wayne think? Visite o Russell Crowe Daily Planet, meu blog em Português sobre o Russell, todo o dia sempre o primeiro com as últimas, e o que é melhor, em Português: Russell Crowe Daily Planet! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members -felipe- Posted August 18, 2007 Members Report Share Posted August 18, 2007 Entrevista com o Mangold sobre o filme: http://www.darkhorizons.com/news07/mangold.php Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Sophie Aubrey Posted August 18, 2007 Author Members Report Share Posted August 18, 2007 Obrigada Felipe A mesma já tinha sido postada na página 2 deste tópico! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members balehead Posted August 18, 2007 Members Report Share Posted August 18, 2007 a Sophie esta super informada!!! graças a deus, isso é que é fâ e o terceiro poster, esse é bem melhor, o melhor dos 3. será que veremos muita violencia em Yuma? oba, tomara! mas quero principalmente suspense...suspense é o que abrilhanta esse tipo de filme.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.