Remake

Rating: 5/10 (19 June 2009)

There are so many remakes and imitations on the screen these days that I'm tempted to borrow a line from a thirty-year-old movie myself and remark that if the MBAs who greenlight these projects had an original thought it would die of loneliness.
The original was a modest black-and-white Western of relatively low budget and a more or less satisfying 1950s ending. The poor rancher (Van Heflin then, Christian Bale now) gets to successfully deliver his carefree prisoner (Glen Ford then, Russell Crowe now) to the train on time and collects the money that will save his ranch.
This rifacimento isn't badly done but it's gargantuan by comparison. It's updated. Currently, the word "updated" can only mean more brutal, sexier, bloodier, sadistic, muddier, dirtier, and characterized by filthier language. All the modern conventions are adhered to.
Gone are the familiar studio back lots. Gone are the sunny days of dusty streets at the imitation ranches outside of Los Angeles. This was shot in northern New Mexico in the winter and it looks it. Everyone seems cold, dirty, and grim.
Again, that's not necessarily bad news. The historic Old West, though probably nothing much like this, probably resembled the remake more than the original.
But, unpretentious as the original was, I think I prefer it. There was only one deliberate murder in the original, and a fairly gruesome one. A hapless helper is hanged by the neck in the hotel lobby. We don't see the lynching but the image of the abject body is startling. This one has multiple killings -- more than I could count, since I have only ten fingers, not counting the extra pinky, and can no longer reach my toes. Russell Crowe is a convincing enough chief heavy but lacks the fake charm that allows Glen Ford to talk barmaid Felicia Farr into bed.
Crowe has only to say a few words to Farr's replacement, Vinessa Shaw, before the cut to the bedroom scene, giving the viewer a chance to ogle her nude body, which, as a matter of fact, is worth an ogle or two.
Ford kills nobody but here Crowe murders two of his captives. In one case he creeps up on a sleeping figure and stabs him in the chest with a stolen fork -- whap whap whap whap. It's kind of disgusting. It projects the sense that the producers were pandering to an audience of violence-hungry kids who must have their periodic fix. The original was all tension. This one is tense enough, but the bloodletting seems designed to make us sigh with relief. At last, some gore after all that talk.
The original ended with Heflin getting Ford on the 3:10 to Yuma Territorial Prison (which is still there and can be visited). A Hollywood ending, one might say. This one finishes with the rancher being plugged full of holes by one of Crowe's gang, then dying in the arms of his teenaged son. Looking down at Bale's dying body, Crowe has a ludicrous epiphany, draws his gun, whirls around, and instantly kills off the gang that has just saved him from the rope, one by one. Unlike the original, the remake must end, as it started, with a cascade of gore. Then Crowe turns the whole movie into self parody by jumping aboard the train to Yuma and climbing into the barred cell. There has never been a hint of remorse in his attitude before, nothing but deadpan stoicism, so this comes as a complete surprise. Yet, although the climax must be bloody, the producers don't want the bad guy to go free, so at least a part of the old Hollywood ending is retained after all -- even if it must be forced onto the narrative like a one-size-fits-all sock that doesn't fit.
What will they come up with next? How about Roy Rogers' "Son of Trigger," only with Keanu Reeves, and this time we kill Trigger and then eat him. It will probably make a nickel or two. Is the portfolio of Hollywood's ideas completely bankrupt? It's a legitimate question.