James Mangold
Quel Treno Per Yuma

Arizona, second half of the 1800s. Farmer Dan Evans (Christian Bale), increasingly in debt, decides to escort the famous criminal Ben Wade (Russell Crowe) for two hundred dollars.

Remake of the 1957 film of the same name, this movie is one of the few examples of a classic western revisited in a modern key. The setting and atmosphere are taken from the western films of the sixties, while everything else, starting from the spectacularity, is due to third millennium technologies.

The main flaw of the feature film, that defect that does not elevate it to "great film" status lies in the lack of pathos which in a genre film cannot be missing. Right from the initial scenes, we witness some confused moments that culminate in an attack on a money vault: this sequence is too implausible, maxed-out spectacularity but really not convincing. Then the director, as the story progresses, takes to the extreme those feelings that were initially opposed. In a true western it wouldn't have ended this way...

Despite some scattered and yet quite evident flaws, the film manages to "not be anonymous" thanks to actors in good form. If at the beginning the scene's master is the Australian Crowe, as the minutes pass Christian Bale definitely steals the scene, bringing to life a charismatic yet simultaneously insecure character. The impressive "canyon-like" settings can be considered a real character.

James Mangold focuses especially on an important theme: the journey, from the real one to the existential. In fact, perhaps the most important figure in the whole story is William (Logan Lerman), Dan's son. On his own, he will undertake the journey that will lead him to grow up and become an "adult". Another key figure is Charlie (played by a finally convincing Ben Foster), Ben's right hand. If things end up the way they do, it is mainly thanks to these two. Two characters that replace the real protagonists?

Although it cannot be considered a great film, 3:10 to Yuma is saved from mediocrity thanks to interesting cues. There is an underlying confusion, sometimes a presence of scenes that could be defined as trivial, but despite these flaws, the direction and well-executed dialogues (above all, the one inside the hotel) make this film a cinematic work, alas, half successful...