Change Your Image
RichardWeddle
Reviews
20,000 Leagues Under the Sea (1997)
not Disney but a new adaptation that is faithful to the novel
If you are used to Disney's version of this Jules Verne classic, this Hallmark Hall of Fame made-for-TV special will take some getting used to. It's different, but in a good way. It is not a remake, but an altogether new adaptation by one Joe Wiesenfeld, who has clearly studied the novel carefully and crafted a script that is faithful to Jules Verne's original intent and exposition while cutting to the chase. The emphasis falls in different places than in the Disney film and at a faster pace, but it maintains a sense of wonder and adventure. Wiesenfeld is attentive to character and motivation and crafts a script that makes good dramatic sense. The biggest change -- making the doctor's assistant his daughter -- is necessary in modern times and most welcome, especially because she is played by the lovely and talented Julie Cox. Other women are glimpsed among the crew of the Nautalis, bringing the film up-to-date in period dress. The classically trained English actor Ben Cross was an excellent choice for Capt. Nemo. He is absolutely believable as the tragic and haunted Captain who recognizes no boundaries in the sea or his own conduct. All the contradictions and conflicts of the character are conveyed with subtlety by Ben Cross. Richard Crenna brings gravitas and presence to the role of Prof Aronex. The production design and costuming redefine the utilitarian world of the Nautalis as a ship we can believe in. The cinematography is by the great Alan Hume, and the direction by Hollywood veteran Michael Anderson (The Quiller Memorandum, Logan's Run) is both pictorial and dramatically engaging. This is a well-produced and legitimate version of Jules Verne's novel. It is not Disney, which may be taken as an advantage.
3:10 to Yuma (2007)
hard to like and harder to watch
When a sixgun fires a hundred bullets -- instead of only six -- it should be grounds for firing the director because it proves he doesn't know what he's doing.
The original 3:10 to Yuma is an eloquent drama about persevering through hardship, being a good role model to your boys and a hero to your wife, and doing the right thing in the face of life-threatening danger while not giving into the temptation to take the easy way out. It's an American classic and one of the great westerns of the 1950s.
I was hoping this remake would make a few adjustments to the original script and stage the story in an artful way, taking advantage of color, authentic costumes and props that are available now, and the beautiful New Mexico scenery. With everything going for it, including big stars and a big budget, this remake is a blown opportunity because the film makers have no idea what a western is supposed to be or do. Instead of telling a simple story we can relate to, this remake is an exercise in misandry (yes, that's a word, coined in the 1970s) that plays out like a spaghetti western made three decades to late, with ridiculous over-the-top action, sadistic violence, bombastic dialog, and vicious, whining, undignified characters who behave in unbelievable ways. It's a cartoon with people. There is not one single realistic or believable moment. There is not one moment that wasn't done better in the original. The new material, consisting mostly of an electrocution, an Indian attack, and various forms of carnage is no improvement. Even New Mexico, still the most pictorial location for westerns, looks better in other movies.
Compared to other recent westerns like Appaloosa, The Assassination of Jesse James By the Coward Robert Ford, Open Range, and There Will Be Blood, this remake of 3:10 to Yuma simply doesn't measure up. Skip it. Watch one of those or the original if you want to see a quality western.
Appaloosa (2008)
authentic and poignant western
Appaloosa is a classic western and a sophisticated drama.
Appaloosa unfolds at the right pace for a drama. The scale is intimate, close, and minimalist, more like Tender Mercies or Hud than The Magnificent Seven. There is some action and a couple of very impressive gunfights, but it is not an action movie. That's what I like about it. It is willfully and deliberately not an action movie. Why does everyone assume that a western must necessarily be an action movie? How refreshing to finally see a western that's a character-driven drama, and it is through character that it generates tension, suspense, and interest.
Appaloosa is authentic because it's about stoic people living in harsh frontier conditions. These characters are maturely written, and they behave in a credible 19th century way. The acting is deeply felt all around. Even Jeremy Irons, who plays the corrupt rancher with political connections, is accurate casting. The American west was full of English and Irish immigrants who participated in range wars, county feuds, and town-site disputes. I don't think I've ever seen a female lead quite like Mrs. Allie French in a western before. She's a complete original for a western, and reminds me of the real women I read about in historical and biographical texts about the American west. I don't mind that she is played by Renee Zellwegger. Ed Harris and Viggio Mortenson deliver understated performances as town-tamers who are loosely inspired by historical lawmen. These two actors play off of each other's nuances with alertness and self-deprecating humor. The audiences can tell their friendship has been tested and we can believe they are only still alive because of their mutual trust. How their conflict plays out over Mrs. French works against our expectations of the genre. They both love Mrs. French despite her weaknesses. They will not hesitate to sacrifice for her, but nothing can break the respect these two men have for each other. There is a refreshing gentlemanly quality to this bittersweet triangle that I haven't seen since the early westerns of Zane Grey.
Appaloosa is authentic not only because of its characters, but because it's filmed in New Mexico locations that are correct to the time and place in which the story is set. The scenery includes the old adobe pueblo of Rancho de los Golindrinas, which western buffs may recognize from The Man From Laramie (1955), the antique narrow-gauge railway near Chama, and the pristine landscapes of Glen Hughes's Bonanza Creek Ranch below Santa Fe with its frontier-era town set, one of the oldest operating cowboy ranches in New Mexico. It's dusty and appropriately weathered, and the cinematography by Dean Seamler is a pleasure. The filmmakers work hard to get props, firearms, and set dressings correct to the period. The actors work hard to capture the vernacular of western speech, and they wear the right costumes and haircuts. They even stop to carefully reload their weapons, instead of firing a ridiculous and endless number of bullets like in spaghetti westerns.
The "R" rating is so unfair. There is one four-letter word and a four-second shot of two bare behinds in the distance, but that hardly merits an R rating. There's no gore and less violence than in most PG films. This is the kind of mature drama and appreciative Americana that adolescents need to see at the movies.
Ed Harris has made a kind of acoustic folk ballad of a western. There is no cgi, no cartoonish action. Nothing is faked, everything is real, including the weather. The train rattles and the wind blows inside because it really rattles and the wind really blows inside the cars. A lot of attention is paid to authentic sounds and visual textures of the period. Don't miss Appaloosa when it comes your way. Go to see it expecting an authentic western drama that credits you with intelligence and appeals to your intelligence. I hope audiences know how to appreciate what writer-director Ed Harris has accomplished here.