Skip the ‘3:10 to Yuma’

I grew up watching Westerns, both on television and the big screen. That’s why I was excited about seeing James Mangold’s “3:10 to Yuma.” I even rented Delmer Daves’ 1957 original a few weeks ago to prepare myself.

Bummer on both accounts.

The original, which is basically a low-budget version of “High Noon,” features a powerful performance by Glenn Ford as the movie’s villain, the murderous robber Ben Wade. But it also has an ending that comes seemingly out of nowhere and involves Wade’s changing his essential personality.

So I wasn’t expecting much.

Mangold’s remake, though, boasts it own problems. Sure, its production values are first rate, and its tone is a lot more realistic than Daves’ original.

And while Russell Crowe ’s screen presence may be equal to Ford’s, Christian Bale – who stars as the farmer/hero named Dan Evans originally played by Van Heflin – is a far better actor than Heflin ever thought of being.

Even so, Mangold undercuts his films strengths. Just exactly how will be hard to explain without using spoilers. But I’ll try.

Mangold fills his film with one weak moment after the next. Most involve unbelievability. Or convenience. Or, at the very least, illogic.

A man gets shot in the gut, in a pre-antibiotic era in which such a wound means certain death. And not only does he survive the bullet’s removal but he doesn’t scream during the operation.

A sharpshooter can’t miss, until he’s aiming at Bale’s character. Evans and his posse, facing down a band of gunmen, escape with the greatest of ease. A trio of Apache threatens the same posse but get dispatched with even greater ease, making them seem even dumber than Tonto after having downed a few firewaters.

Evans’ wife argues against his taking the job of shepherding Wade to custody even though she knows that they desperately need the money.

And in the end, the same unaccountable personality change occurs. Only in this instance, it makes even less sense. Especially since it ends up blurring the line between good … and bad. More so, even, than Clint Eastwood did in “Unforgiven.”

It’s all such a waste. There are moments in which Mangold seems on the verge of bringing back the greatness that once was the Western.

He just rides his pinto down too many false paths