After watching Forest Whitaker become the best TV actor in the history of the universe in the best TV show in the history of the universe (The Shield), I picked up a bunch of his movies. This was one of them, and it's been languishing in my to watch pile for several years now. Thanks for the review, I think it might move up the pile slightly (though nowhere near the top).
I really like 3:10 To Yuma. The remake isn't bad, but it's a little over-done. They change the very end of the film and while I prefer the original, I have to give them credit that they had an alternative view that they were committed to.http://www.dvdcollectorsonline.com/index.php/topic,5638.msg96999.html#msg96999
Quote from: Jon on January 08, 2012, 06:30:04 PMI really like 3:10 To Yuma. The remake isn't bad, but it's a little over-done. They change the very end of the film and while I prefer the original, I have to give them credit that they had an alternative view that they were committed to.http://www.dvdcollectorsonline.com/index.php/topic,5638.msg96999.html#msg96999I felt what carried the original was Glenn Ford who's Wade character never loses control at any point despite his lengthy incarceration. Ford was thoroughly convincing as a master manipulator but he still warms you over as he eventually takes a liking to Dan which shows another side to a usually cold blooded killer. Heflin was good too but I don't really know how much more he is capable of as I haven't had a lot of exposure to him as of yet. For me Ford really stands out in this film.
Tommy Lee Jones, as the small town sheriff, I thought was more of a bystander in this film... aware of what was transpiring but always at least 2 steps behind and resigned to the fact that he was helpless to stop it. Woody Harrelson's character, a bounty hunter looking for the money also, was a meaningless blip, his role's purpose like an annoying mosquito buzzing around a behemoth of a plot. If you watched this movie again only this time with his part removed from the film I doubt that you'd even notice.Part of the cleverness of No Country For Old Men is that often you think you know what is coming and then suddenly the tale is headed off in a completely different direction which leaves you momentarily taken aback. I was thoroughly convinced of and hyped to see a climactic, winner-take-all battle between Llewelyn and Chigurh and it didn't happen! I was very nearly stamping my foot like a petulant child. [...]To counter the many fantastic aspects of this movie were a few frustrating things including at least one huge unanswered question and a cryptic monologue by Jones' character followed by an abrupt end to the movie. I'm sure if you asked the Coens WHY?!?! you would get synchronized, aloof, unapologetic shrugs...
Quote from: KinkyCyborg on January 08, 2012, 06:50:10 PMQuote from: Jon on January 08, 2012, 06:30:04 PMI really like 3:10 To Yuma. The remake isn't bad, but it's a little over-done. They change the very end of the film and while I prefer the original, I have to give them credit that they had an alternative view that they were committed to.http://www.dvdcollectorsonline.com/index.php/topic,5638.msg96999.html#msg96999I felt what carried the original was Glenn Ford who's Wade character never loses control at any point despite his lengthy incarceration. Ford was thoroughly convincing as a master manipulator but he still warms you over as he eventually takes a liking to Dan which shows another side to a usually cold blooded killer. Heflin was good too but I don't really know how much more he is capable of as I haven't had a lot of exposure to him as of yet. For me Ford really stands out in this film.3:10 was one of those regular westerns that was being churned out frequently and benefits from a crew who clearly know what they're doing. In a few years, it would be old fashioned and complacent, needing the spaghetti westersn to spice things up, but for now, it was always reliable. Ford was so good at this stuff he really was the fastest draw on the gun! Probably faster than a few of the original gunfighters, considering much of the Old West is myth. Heflin I thought was very well cast, but he had an unremarkable CV and you're right that there was probably little more he could do with it. He was in Shane too. I only have one other film with him in. One of the Fox Noir series called Black Widow. It's ok, but his performance is not enough to recommend it alone.Quote from: KinkyCyborg on January 08, 2012, 07:59:44 PMTommy Lee Jones, as the small town sheriff, I thought was more of a bystander in this film... aware of what was transpiring but always at least 2 steps behind and resigned to the fact that he was helpless to stop it. Woody Harrelson's character, a bounty hunter looking for the money also, was a meaningless blip, his role's purpose like an annoying mosquito buzzing around a behemoth of a plot. If you watched this movie again only this time with his part removed from the film I doubt that you'd even notice.Part of the cleverness of No Country For Old Men is that often you think you know what is coming and then suddenly the tale is headed off in a completely different direction which leaves you momentarily taken aback. I was thoroughly convinced of and hyped to see a climactic, winner-take-all battle between Llewelyn and Chigurh and it didn't happen! I was very nearly stamping my foot like a petulant child. [...]To counter the many fantastic aspects of this movie were a few frustrating things including at least one huge unanswered question and a cryptic monologue by Jones' character followed by an abrupt end to the movie. I'm sure if you asked the Coens WHY?!?! you would get synchronized, aloof, unapologetic shrugs... I love this film! Your response is interesting and I suspect if and when you see it again, the bits that had you scratching your head will drop into place for you, especially Jones' character. You saw him as a bystander and that is precisely what he is and if you look at him from another angle, you might see why he was a lead character. His monologue embodies the title and I find it amusing you follow 3:10 with this... I'll spoiler the next bit for the sake of those who haven't seen it. (click to show/hide)Jones is an old fashioned sheriff who would be much more at home with the problems posed in 3:10. He might consider, "He's good, he's bad, I know where I stand, I know where they stand, I understand this world" as a basic philosophy. In steps Chigurh and screws up that whole outlook. He can't catch him, because he isn't following the 'rules' and when he sees the debris left behind, he wonders if he really wants to catch him. Chigurh's philosophy is so wide of his own, it rocks him. Genuinely scares him.In that monologue he looks at his disabled friend and admits, "I don't understand this world any more" (paraphrasing). He is admitting defeat by saying "I'm an old man and this is no country for me", better he walks away and enjoys his retirement. Why risk it all when he can't grasp what he's trying to catch? And this is why I say Jones is the lead character, because when he throws his hands up and says "Enough!", the narrative has nowhere to go, hence the abrupt, rather unresolved ending. It sympathises with him and essentially says to us, the viewer, "I got nothing. My main character has done a bunk, we might as well go home and just say that this fella is so damn scary, we're safer knowing where he isn't rather than go looking for him." I think that is superb writing and it works because I think we all have a certain age ahead of us where we look around and wonder what the hell happened. Nothing makes sense any more.
That's an interesting interpretation of Jones comments at the end of the film and it certainly makes sense. (click to show/hide)It's like he is saying that the world is populated with a new breed of criminal that men from his generation are unequipped to deal with so why should I risk my neck trying? Kind of reminds me of my father who worked on cars for 25 years but now it is at a loss on how to fix the modern day vehicle thanks to today's technology... so he doesn't bother anymore.I don't however think that his understanding of the situation propels Jones into the focal character though, rather more of a narrative role and it still leaves a bitter taste in the mouths of the viewers who watch Chigurh walk away and begs the question... if the law in it's present state can't deal with a monster like him, who can? A sequel might answer that question but I'd rather they didn't and run the risk of diminishing the greatness of this movie.
Author
Topic: KinkyCyborg's Random Reviews 2012 (Read 10530 times)
