Charlie Wilson's War

It's interesting how a person can know that something happened without knowing exactly how it happened. Such is the case with my knowledge of the Soviet-Afghan War. I knew of the fact that America helped train and arm Afghans to fight off the invading Soviets in the late 80's, and I knew that this incident played a major part in the fall of the USSR. Yet I never knew how the ball got rolling on our involvement. Charlie Wilson's War is the story of that ball, and, to steal the film's own metaphor, how it has been bouncing along ever since. That may sound like the potential for a long, stuffy, dull film - but you'd be wrong. Actors Tom Hanks, Julia Roberts, and especially Philip Seymour Hoffman turn this brisk film into a rousing crowd pleaser. It's not one of the year's best, and its Oscar possibilities aren't as strong as might have been expected, but it's the kind of movie that a lot of people will enjoy over the holiday season. I certainly had a fun time.

Charlie Wilson is a boozing, fun-loving congressman, played by Hanks. He gets wind of the troubles in Afghanistan and decides to get involved. He has no idea what exactly getting involved entails, however, until he travels to the wartorn nation and sees firsthand the atrocities that have been happening. From that point there is no looking back, as he begins to work on the largest covert operation in American history. The role fits Hanks like an old glove, and he is charming and fun as Wilson. Yet anyone expecting anything groundbreaking or layered will be slightly disappointed. Hanks never really digs into the role like he has in past roles, occasionally appearing to be on autopilot. I think the same argument people have against Jack Nicholson playing Jack repeatedly can apply here to Hanks. It's fun to watch, but not a revelation.

Speaking of Nicholson, it seems like Philip Seymour Hoffman is channeling a young Jack in his role. I don't think I've ever seen Hoffman light up the screen with charisma before, but here he is really chewing on the scenery, delivering the single best performance in the film. He's a hotheaded, sarcastic, very funny CIA operative named Gust Avrakotos who joins Wilson in the Afghan plight. When Hoffman isn't on screen, this is a good movie; when he is on screen, it's a great one. If this film does turn out to have any awards cache, expect him to be the first to benefit from it. The audience was howling at many of his scenes, yet he never sacrificed the character's fierce intelligence to get a laugh. Hands down, the best scene in the film is the introduction of Wilson to Gust. Spoiling it would be criminal, but it is both hilarious and a great insight into Gust's character.

Switching gears a bit, of this film's weak points, none are more glaring than the miscast Julia Roberts. Even if you feel Hanks isn't doing a whole lot with his role, you at least feel as though he is doing his job effortlessly. Roberts, on the other hand, never sinks into her character, and it brings you out of nearly every scene she is in. And the problem goes far deeper than simply her poor imitation of a Texan accent. Roberts hasn't been on screen since Ocean's Twelve back in 2004, and one gets the feeling that she has forgotten how to dig into a role. Her performance in Charlie feels a lot like that of an actress trying to refamiliarize herself with the craft. Her confidence just isn't there, and it's a shame. Her role was clearly meant to be a fun one, and she never appears to be having any.

The runtime, about 100 minutes, also feels short. That may sound good, and in some ways it is, but I never quite shook the fact that it felt like something was missing. Rumor has it the film has been heavily edited down, and I think that may have been a mistake. A two hour movie is not a chore to sit through if it's as entertaining as this one is, and I suspect another twenty minutes might have made it all flow better. For example, we never understand why Wilson wants to get involved with the Afghan plight. As far as we can tell, his first introduction to the conflict is when he briefly catches a new report on TV during a party. Surely a congressman has enough on his mind that a snippet of new footage isn't enough to so drastically change his life (even a congressman as fun-loving as Charlie is). Also, there is a whole subplot dealing with Wilson being investigated for his partying ways that feels like it never fully develops. We never get the sense that it has any real bearing on the rest of the film or Charlie's work in Afghanistan. Things like these could easily have benefited from a bit more development.

So many political and war related films of late have failed miserably with both critics and audiences, and it's for the same reason in every case: they just seem too dreary and depressing considering what is going on in the world right now. That's not to say a depressing film about recent history can't work (United 93), just that it takes a skilled filmmaker to walk that line between depressing and insightful. Charlie Wilson's War deftly avoids this problem altogether by trying to be a fun film first and foremost, and I suspect audiences will flock to it more than other recent political films. It hits us every once in awhile with a powerful moment (Charlie's trip to a ravaged Afghan town, where he meets two children left disfigured after playing with a mine hits you in the gut, and one really hopes that those kids' appearance was digitally altered and not reality), but those moments are rarely the focus. Charlie, Gust, and to a lesser extent, Roberts' Joanne are all fun people you want to spend time with. They aren't there to lecture you, and as a result you can let the facts of the story sink in without feeling lectured to. It may surprise some, however, to find the film ends on a slightly melancholy and ambiguous note. Yes, Charlie got the ball rolling in Afghanistan, but he has no control over how that ball will bounce after the war is over. The final line of the film, delivered in text, is both decidedly amusing and strikingly sobering.

Catching Up: Mini Reviews

As Oscar season quickly approaches, my movie intake is increasing. I simply don't have the time to give all the movies the reviews they deserve, but I still felt I should sum up my feelings towards each.

Gone Baby Gone



Following in the footsteps of Clint Eastwood with Mystic River, actor Ben Affleck has crafted a masterpiece of moral ambiguity. Based on a Denis Lehane novel, Baby follows two private detectives (Casey Affleck and Michelle Monaghan) in search of a missing four year old girl. The plot unfolds in a surprising way, and it's a testament to Ben Affleck's directing abilities that he is able to keep it from feeling exploitative or familiar. At one point I honestly had no idea where the film was going to go next, a quality I wish more films had. All the performances are excellent, with Casey Affleck once again proving he is ready for the big time. Ed Harris as a morally ambiguous cop and relative newcomer Amy Ryan as the mother of the missing child give the best performances, however, and it would be truly surprising to not see at least one of them (probably Ryan) get an Oscar nomination. It all builds to one of the most thought provoking finales of the year, with a final shot that is a bit devastating. If this is the career Ben Affleck has in his future, I welcome it with open arms.




Bee Movie


There really is only one reason to see Bee Movie: Jerry Seinfeld. It's been almost a decade since his hit sitcom went off the air, and he has finally made the leap to the big screen (Comedian notwithstanding). If you were to remove Seinfeld's humor, though, this would be just another Dreamworks animated comedy, which is to say, not a very good movie. Yet Jerry brings enough wit and charm to raise this above the Shreks and Shark Tales and deliver an occasionally very funny film. The supporting cast is unfortunately largely wasted, especially Chris Rock, whose presence here amounts to maybe three scenes. Seinfeld definitely still knows how to make you laugh, though, and that's really all I expected from this to begin with.




American Gangster


With American Gangster Ridley Scott appears to have watched every major gangster film of the past 40 years, and then proceeded to copy them all. The result is one of the least original films of the fall season. Which isn't to say it's a bad movie. You've seen literally everything in this film before, but it's done with such precision here that it barely receives a pass. Denzel Washington is up to his usual tricks as Frank Lucas, a gangster on the rise, while Russel Crowe is satisfying as the cop out to catch Lucas. The best scene in the film is when these two men finally sit down to talk with each other (shades of Heat), which unfortunately doesn't come until over two hours into this epic. Don't go into this expecting anything new and you will be satisfied. Those who prefer to see a new take on an old genre best look elsewhere.




No Country for Old Men


I wanted to try and write a full review of this film, but I just don't feel like I've been able to digest it the way I should have. Clearly this is a very ambitious film, and the Coen brothers have rarely stumbled in their long career. Yet for some reason I felt distanced from this film throughout. What frustrates me is that I can't pinpoint what it is I found so alienating about this film. Tommy Lee Jones as a weary cop is stoic and melancholy, a man who has seen the horrors of the world and walked away dumbfounded. Javier Bardem as the psychopath Chigurh is chilling, one of the best villainous performances in recent years. And capping off his comeback year, Josh Brolin centers the film with his portrayal of a conflicted man on the run. It's interesting that no character here is meant to really be liked or sympathized with, perhaps aiding my conflicted feelings towards this film. Everything is shot with bravado, the sound is beautiful, the lack of any real score adds tension. In fact, the only thing that I can immediately point out as being a misstep is a jumpcut towards the end of the film that essentially skips one of the most important parts of the story. We spend so much time with Brolin's character that it feels like an outright cheat to not see how he gets to where he is at the ending, even if we can piece it together on our own. I wanted to love this movie, and I see no reason why I didn't, which makes this such a maddening experience. This isn't your typical quirky, offbeat Coen brothers movie, instead feeling cold and calculated - and perhaps that is what threw me off. In a way it surprisingly feels more like a Stanley Kubrick film than a Coen brothers film. Kubrick is a man who rarely made a movie I outright loved upon initial viewing, and yet I now consider most of his films to be among the best cinema has every produced. No Country for Old Men is not a film that I can fully dissect right now, but given time it might become a classic - or its coldness might just put me off to it for good. It's simply too soon to tell.

Southland Tales

A few incarnations ago, way back in the early days of 2005, I started a movie review site. My first post was a preview of the movies I was looking forward to in the upcoming year, and number one by far was Southland Tales, from writer/director Richard Kelly. His first film, Donnie Darko, was one of my favorite movies at that time, and I couldn't wait to see how he would follow it up. The year came and went, but no Southland. 2006 started, and again this was my most anticipated movie, as I was now certain it would be released by year's end. Sure enough, it was submitted to Cannes in May, seemingly guaranteeing its impending release. But the reception at Cannes was a disaster, and suddenly no one knew what would become of Kelly's second film. Another year passed with no release in sight. Even the most steadfast Kelly fan would be dubious at this point, and I was certainly getting frustrated. Good or bad, I didn't want to wait any longer to see this film. But finally, after nearly four years of patiently waiting, I was able to see Richard Kelly's Southland Tales. No movie has provided me with such a rollercoaster of anticipation and dread, and reviewing it in light of all that has happened over the years proves no easy feat.

Southland is essentially about a group of people in Los Angeles all interacting in the final three days before the end of the world. At the center of it all there is amnesiac actor Boxer Santaros (Dwayne Johnson), porn star turned media mogul Krysta Now (Sarah Michelle Gellar), and mysterious twin brothers Roland and Ronald Taverner (Seann William Scott). Going any further than that would be both difficult and useless: so much happens to so many people that describing it would both spoil it and color it with my own interpretations. Suffice it to say, it is something along the lines of Brazil mixed with Donnie Darko and Starship Troopers.

So I guess the big question is "Is it a disaster like we've been told?" In short: no. It is a very, very flawed movie, but not one without its charms. It's a case of Richard Kelly's ambition getting too far out of control, resulting in a project he was not able to fully have a handle on. I suspect the biggest problem most will have is that it is nigh impossible to fully get it without reading the companion graphic novel, which sets up the first half of the story. Unlike Star Wars, which can start on Episode IV and make sense, this one is fully dependent on the viewer's knowledge of how everything got to where it is at the film's start. The quick introduction at the beginning is simply not enough. Thankfully I was familiar with the prequel story, so I was able to fully grasp what was going on. But most people won't ever read the prequels, and thus, will not appreciate much of what happens.

Kelly has said he wanted to cast people in roles you wouldn't associate them with, and that tactic surprisingly works for the most part. Dwayne Johnson (no longer "The Rock") is good as the befuddled, loopy action star. I always have found him to be a charming actor, and I hope this film proves to be a leap in a new direction for him. Sarah Michelle Gellar brings a quirky ferocity to her porn star character, and I would argue she gives the best performance of the film. It could have been just a ditsy idiot, yet it never is. There is depth to Krysta that is always shining through. Seann William Scott was extremely subdued and contemplative as the Taverner twins, and not once did I think of him as a comedic actor. In fact, for a film that is meant to be a satire, he is possibly the only character that isn't meant to be funny at all. The supporting cast is all very eclectic, with Jon Lovitz shining as a truly scary racist cop and Wallace Shawn enjoying himself as the bizarre creator of a new source of energy known as Fluid Karma. Some might not like the fact that everyone is playing against type, but for the most part they all succeed (Mandy Moore, however, plays her spoiled senator's daughter character way too over the top, and is the weakest part of the cast).

Unlike Darko, where every element seemed to fuse together into one great product, here things don't flow so naturally. For example, Kelly's seemingly preternatural ability to use sound and music in his last film is wasted here. The often beautiful score from musician Moby seems like an afterthought, always used in unnatural scenes. And with the exception of a scene featuring a Pixies song, none of the song choices stand out either. Kelly's interspersal of cutaways, news footage, maps, and other visual elements to tell his story are often relied on too heavily in place of simple storytelling. While they help to create the sense of a real, lived-in world, they become too much of a crutch for his overly ambitious story. And perhaps most disappointing is his lack of strong characters. In Darko there was a sense that each character has something important to add to the story, yet here so many characters are expository or superfluous. You get the sense that Kelly had a film so big in his mind, that no single element of the film got the full attention it deserved, resulting in a film full of deficiencies.

The tone of the film is something that I had some serious contentions with: this thing has mood swings worse than a newborn child. It's a satire, yet it wants us to take it seriously, especially at the end. It's OK to have some funny, lighthearted moments (even end of the world movies need some humor), but entire characters are meant to be over the top and goofy. So when the end hits, and we are supposed to take some sort of special meaning from the final scene, it falls flat. Either make an end of the world satire like Dr. Strangelove, or make a serious-minded look at how me might bring about our own downfall; you can't have it both ways.

Yet in spite of all these flaws, I liked it. I think. I appreciate Kelly's ambition, his steadfast determination to create something different. I wasn't bored, and there were some truly shining moments (Justin Timberlake's musical number set to a Killers song was a lot of fun). I wish it could have all worked out, and I am very curious to see the half hour of footage left out of this final version. It probably won't make the film better, but it sure would be interesting to see if Kelly was able to reign in his film in the final months. I don't think it's the disaster many have claimed it to be, but it's not especially great, either. I am pretty sure I've never anticipated a movie as much as I have with this one - which wasn't helped by years of delays - so it is hard to gauge my true feelings for it. It could soar in my mind over the coming months, like Darko did after I first saw it. Or it could completely collapse as I get more and more removed from the insane buildup in my mind. But right now, at this moment, I see Southland Tales as a gloriously flawed cornucopia of ideas, and one that I am glad to have finally put behind me after all these years of waiting.

Michael Clayton

As the years pass, I find myself more and more in agreement with the general consensus of film critics, and many of the top rated movies this year on Rotten Tomatoes are some of my favorites as well. But it seems like every year there is one movie that somehow blinds critics to how poor it really is, and this year that movie appears to be Michael Clayton. Movies like this one make me question my sanity, as surely I can't be the only one who sees the numerous flaws with the film.

With a very, very limited number of exceptions, I've found that movies that begin at the end and then flash back to the beginning are movies completely devoid of creativity. So when Michael Clayton began at the end, I already knew something was wrong. The movie starts with Clayton, who is a corporate "fixer," trying to help a new client. He realizes that the man he's been assigned to help is out of luck, so he leaves and just drives. He eventually stops in the countryside, gets out of his car, walks over to look at some horses (something that made no sense then, nor after we see what led to this), and finally his car explodes behind him. The reason the movie begins like this is simple: it's the only exciting part of the movie, and if you didn't know the car explosion was in it, you would certainly leave before it happens. By placing this scene at the start, it's a sign that the filmmakers had no faith in the material or the audience, so they tried to hook us with a scene that is tonally different from the rest of the film. Call me jaded, call me cynical, but I hate movies that do that.

From there we head back four days and find Michael (George Clooney) asked to help with a situation involving a friend of his, named Arthur (Tom Wilkinson). Arthur is a litigator for the same law firm that Michael works for, and it turns out he had a psychotic breakdown during a deposition, stripping off all his clothes and chasing the plaintiff down a street. Arthur apparently has realized that the company he's devoted his life to protecting has been killing people with toxins in its products, and he no longer wants a part of it. This makes the bigwigs at both his legal firm and the corporation releasing the products, u-North, very nervous, especially when they begin to realize that Arthur is planning to provide documents to the plaintiffs so that they can bring down u-North. Let it be said now that Tom Wilkinson, a vastly underrated actor, almost single-handedly saved this movie. He is astonishing with the limited screen-time he has, and he deserves some serious recognition come awards season. He is intense and frightening as a mentally unstable man, yet very sympathetic as we see him losing his mind while trying to finally do the right thing with his life. It's just a shame the film didn't focus more on him.

For a movie titled Michael Clayton, it's astonishing to see just how uninteresting and how unimportant Clayton is to the story. He's called in to help with the Arthur situation, but he is unsuccessful. It basically becomes a movie about Arthur's attempts to bring about justice, and the woman who is hiring people to follow him and try and stop him (Tilda Swinton). Clayton is just kind of there. There is a turn of events that leads to Clayton being the center of the action in the final act, but even then, he is such a minuscule part of the overall story. It doesn't help that the screenplay does an awful job of characterizing him. The film must have started a half dozen loose threads that were meant to give insight into Clayton, yet they never went anywhere. We see that he may have a gabling problem, we see that he is trying to open up a restaurant, and we see he has an alcoholic brother he doesn't want to speak to. Yet none of these threads ever go anywhere or tell us anything interesting, making it that much more frustrating to watch the movie.

You've seen this movie many times before, as the story structure is lifted directly from a number of other legal thrillers. The problem here is that they try and overwhelm you with too many subplots and confusing dialogue to mask the fact that this is a highly generic movie. The filmmakers are hoping you'll walk out slightly confused so that you'll assume that it must have been a smart movie. It's not. With the exception of Tom Wilkinson, everything in this movie falls flat or strikes a false chord. If you end up seeing this movie, savor Wilkinson. This would be a one star affair were it not for him.

The Darjeeling Limited

The Darjeeling Limited, from director Wes Anderson, is a rare beast indeed. It's the kind of film that I enjoyed watching, but when it was over, I knew that I could not recommend it to others. How could someone like a movie and not recommend it, you ask? It's not easy, to be honest, but Anderson has pulled it off. The problem is that Darjeeling feels far too much like his last two efforts: The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou and The Royal Tenenbaums. It looks the same, touches upon the same themes, and overall has the same vibe (each one is about a maladjusted family coming to terms with each other while confined to a location - be it a house, a submarine, or a train). In other words, if you've seen other Wes Anderson movies, this one offers nothing new at all. And if you've never seen one of his movies, I can't recommend it either, as it never tackles any of these elements nearly as well as Tenenbaums did. That's not to say there isn't stuff to enjoy, just that the things I enjoyed never amounted to enough to satisfy me as a Wes Anderson fan.

The film follows three brothers played by Owen Wilson, Jason Schwartzman, and Adrien Brody as they attempt to reconnect with each other during a spiritual train ride through India. Each brother has serious personal issues they are trying to deal with, all made more difficult by the recent death of their father. Wilson's Francis may have tried to kill himself by crashing his car (a sad irony in light of Wilson's recent problems). Schwartzman's Jack is a writer who based his novels on real life experiences, yet refuses to believe that they are in fact autobiographical. He is currently trying to deal with his obsessive infatuation with an ex lover who ruined his life. Brody's Peter is a cynical man who can't accept that he is about to become a father, using the trip to India as an excuse to get away from his pregnant wife. None of these characters are particularly likable, but that doesn't quite seem to matter. You never hate them, instead simply seeing them as deeply flawed characters that need some sort of life changing experience on this trip to turn them around. Suffice it to say, that experience happens in the most unexpected way.

For two thirds this is largely an outright comedy with spiritual inclinations, and if you're familiar with Anderson's style, you know what kind of humor to expect. But the final third of the movie takes a surprisingly dark turn, one you will either be able to get behind, or one that will ultimately turn you off to the film. I was able to accept this incident simply because it allowed us to see how it reflected the three brothers' reaction to their father's death a year before. Still, it takes the film on a twenty minute detour that is very sobering and not at all like what has lead up to it.

As you would expect, this is another visually stimulating film from Anderson, with an amazing set (Anderson actually used a real train to film on and had it travel around India while he filmed). He is one of those few directors who has found a unique visual style that works from film to film and doesn't seem to get too old, much like Tim Burton, Michael Mann, or Terry Gilliam. And while it could be argued that his films revel too much in their music video qualities - such as numerous slow motion shots set to indie songs - those moments often end up standing out as the best parts of his movies anyway. Take, for example, the opening scene in which a businessman and Peter are racing each other to catch the leaving train, perhaps the best scene in the movie. It sets the mood for the movie and is a fun introduction to a character and the location of the film.

I think my biggest problem with this film was that it felt so heavy-handed. Unlike Anderson's other films, this one relies far too much on a visual metaphor involving the brothers' father's travel bags that they carry everywhere with them. They've had these bags with them ever since he died, and they continually cause discomfort and trouble as the three men travel across India. If you can't figure out what happens to those bags by the film's end, then I envy your simple-minded naivety: you are surely one who is easily impressed by any movie you watch.

It's time for Wes Anderson to shake things up. If he does this story again for a fourth time, he will be in danger of losing many of his fans. It's not that it's a bad movie at all, just that I've come to expect these same things from him every outing. Unlike the Burtons and Gilliams of film, he is happy using his visual style to tell the exact same story over and over. It's frustrating, as anyone who has seen The Royal Tenenbaums and Rushmore knows, he has some great talent that shouldn't be wasted on these facsimiles of his past films.

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford is a two hour and forty minute talky Western that spoils the climax in its title. It's a very deliberately paced, contemplative film with only a few scenes of action. It's a film that has been "sitting on the shelf" for over a year. In short (a word this film is not familiar with in any way, as indicated by the title choice) it has everything going against it. So how on Earth did it turn out so spectacularly?

I'm not sure who we can thank for this cut of the film, as it's been rumored that the studio and director Andrew Dominik have been quarreling over the final cut for a year, but whoever it is, they did a fabulous job. They were able to create a film that doesn't make "long" synonymous with "slow." It's a film that plays out almost like a novel, complete with a narrator giving us inside details on the characters, life at the time, politics, and whatever else might set the mood. It's not the kind of film that is meant to entertain you in a surface way, instead trying to evoke certain feelings and emotions that will last long after you've left the theater. If that's the kind of experience you want to get from your movie-going adventures, then this movie is for you. If not, 3:10 to Yuma is an equally enjoyable Western that operates on the opposite spectrum of the genre.

One can't talk about this film without first noting its strongest asset: cinematography. You'd be hard-pressed to find better cinematography in a film this year, as DP Roger Deakins has crafted a sight to behold. Whether it be James wandering through a field, or people traversing through the snowy mountains, every shot is stunning. On top of that, these shots serve to set the mood. Many wide shots of James alone in big open spaces help to illustrate how lonely and shuttered off from the rest of the world he feels. Ford, on the other hand, seems often to be so tightly framed that he feels uncomfortable, like the world is pressing in around him, suffocating him. It's a visually spectacular film, almost reason enough to see it.

Thankfully, the visuals are not the only reason to see Assassination. Brad Pitt and Casey Affleck both give quite possibly their career best performances. Pitt is able to make James frightening and menacing, while also adding hints of sorrow and longing for another life. He's a conflicted man who ultimately receives our pity when the titular action occurs. Affleck, on the other hand, has created a role that should finally launch him out of his brother's shadow and into the forefront of Hollywood. His take on Robert Ford is truly a sight to behold. You may often find yourself asking what is this character thinking? His shifty eyes and cracking voice make you question him from the get go. What is he after, exactly? What are these big things he thinks he is destined for? To call him the film's villain would be misleading, as there isn't a villain per se. He is a man who is thrust into a world that he simply wasn't ready for, and as a result he did something that ruined his life and many others' forever. We grow to dislike him as we watch him, but the film's final twenty minutes attempt to pardon him, reminding us that he was only human. He sees the errs of his way, and is forced to live with that for the remainder of his life. It's surprisingly poetic.

This is a film that feels unfair to point out what is great, because everything is as good as it could possibly be. Yes, the writing, acting, directing, and cinematography are excellent - but so is the sound design, with such fine attention to details. So is the score, perhaps the year's best with its simple, melancholy piano cues. So is the art design. So are the costumes. You get my drift. There is no weak point to be found, assuming you are open to this sort of tale. It is a rewarding experience to those who like to be sucked in to a mood, to a story. Few movies can warrant a length much over two hours, but this is one of the few that I would have gladly sat through another hour had there been more to tell. Simply stunning all around.

3:10 to Yuma

Some people have been exclaiming that 3:10 to Yuma will be the film to revive the largely dormant Western genre. While I suspect it will take more than one movie to accomplish such a feat (where, for example, are all the pirate movies after the success of Pirates of the Caribbean?), 3:10 is certainly a monumental step in the right direction. Filled with searing action, crisp dialogue, and a number of pitch-perfect performances, this is the sort of film that transcends the Western genre and appeals to all fans of movies.

A remake of the 1957 original, 3:10 follows two seemingly different men who may have more in common than either would suspect. Ben Wade (Russell Crowe) is one of the most notorious outlaws in the west. Dan Evans (Christian Bale) is a weary rancher trying to support his family while facing a foreclosure on his land. The two meet by chance one day when Evans and his two boys stumble upon Wade and his men robbing a stagecoach. From that point on, it seems the two's lives are destined to be intertwined. Wade comes across Evans again in town later that day and ends up helping the lawmen capture Wade. Realizing he can make the money needed to save his land, he offers to help escort Wade to the town of Contention, where a train will be arriving in a few days time that will take Wade to be tried and hung in Yuma. It becomes a task easier said than done, as Wade's men are on their tail.

That the film is filled with crackling action is no surprise. There are many extended gun fights, great chase scenes, and an explosive climax. Like some of the greatest of Westerns, violence is a way of life in these men's lives. The way in which director James Mangold depicts the violence, however, is often quite shocking and unpredictable. I was at times reminded of Scorsese's The Departed in the way that you're never sure who will die or what will happen next. For example, the way in which a major character is so matter-of-factly killed off half way through the film without a second thought serves to remind us that this film doesn't play by the typical rules of most Hollywood films. No film I've seen this year kept me on the edge of my seat guessing what could happen next quite like 3:10 did.

What wasn't so expected about 3:10, and what serves to elevate it from a great action film to a great film, is the brilliant script and the performances that bring that script to life. The characters, especially Wade and Evans, have some very intelligent discussions about life and honor, right and wrong. Some people have criticized the end of the film as being a little too out of character for one of the leads, but I believe that if you listen to what the characters say throughout the film, it will make sense how the end plays out. It also helps that Crowe and Bale deliver some career high performances. Bale is his usual overly serious self, but with a hint of something more, perhaps desperation. This isn't just a man beat by life, but a man who knows he's been beaten by life and has realized that only some sort of miracle can save him. Crowe, on the other hand, seems to be having the time of his life. I've never been a big fan of Crowe for some reason, but here he is nothing short of genius. He is alternatively funny, scary, thoughtful, amused, and wounded. He's so interesting that we begin to wonder if we actually want Evans to get Wade to that train in the end. Supporting them are Peter Fonda as a grizzled old lawman who may be an even less decent human being than Wade, and Ben Foster as Wade's right hand man. Fonda is wonderful and mysterious, but it is relative newcomer Foster that really shines in the supporting cast. He is so frightening and menacing without ever going over-the-top that you begin to wonder why he isn't in charge of the band of criminals instead of Wade.

The Western has long been feared dead, but 3:10 reminds us why the genre was such an important part of film history. It has that rare ability to entertain us while delivering something more, something with weight. The final act is both smart in its dialogue about heroism and exciting in depicting two men who may both be heroes given the right situation. Director James Mangold is a man who had yet to impress me up to this point. His Identity was a fun thriller with an ending that betrayed all the film's built up suspense. Walk the Line was an example of why biopics are so dangerous, as he seemed to be on autopilot. Here he finally gets it right, and as a result he delivers one of the most exciting, thought-provoking, and downright fun pictures of the year.