Not a bad movie but the original was much better

Rating: 6/10 (11 January 2010)

It's not a bad movie watched in isolation, however, as a remake of a classic it's not feasible to judge it on its own. It has to be compared to the 1957 version and it clearly doesn't stand up to the original.
It adds a lot of story arcs and action sequences that don't really add anything to the story and in effect detract from it.
The original was elegant and cohesive in its simplicity. The remake is fairly chaotic and doesn't seem to know where it's going.
The cinematography was also a lot better in the original, with many scenes reminding of Ansel Adams photographs. The cinematography in the remake is nothing special and misses the epic feel of the better Westerns.
The characters aren't as well developed, although Crowe gives a reasonable performance and Bale, though a bit whiny, is doing a decent job as much as the script lets him.
Fonda, Foster and Durand stand out well as supporting cast.
Overall, it's not a bad movie at all, but it feels like a letdown compared to the original which even after 50+ years seems to have very little flaws and has aged really well.
My suggestion - start with the original.