New project for me and my silly blog.

A coworker of mine who is fond of horror flicks decided he would watch every horror movie we had for rent in the store. He is currently plowing through our entire library from A-Z and indiscriminately watching each one- no matter how horrendous- to its bitter end. I laughed when I heard this. It sounded fun and dreadful at the same time. I can’t imagine sitting through that much bad (or even good) horror.

It got me thinking about how interesting it would be to take on an entire genre. I mean, why not? I spent the last few hours of my Saturday night shift deciding whether to tackle the impossibly large comedy or drama sections (My company is lame and doesn’t have cool sub-categories like ‘dramedy’ and ‘parody’ and such.) Since horror was already being done by my coworker, I decided on action. Action is quite the umbrella term for my store. Because we don’t have sub-categories for martial arts, western, espionage or science fiction movies, it’s all just mixed in together and I’m going to watch it all.

Yup. The entire action section. A-Z. Yeah. And I decided it’d be kind of fun to write about it and all since I like discussing (and making fun of) movies. So before I could talk myself out of it, I grabbed the first movie in the alphabet that was on our shelf, “3:10 to Yuma” a remake of an old western starring Russell Crowe and Christian Bale.

On my way home, I started realizing how daunting a task this whole thing will be. Of course the basic rule is that I’d watch the movie no matter how unappealing or bad it may look. I’m not taking it so seriously that I won’t skip a title that is checked out only to watch it later when it comes in. If it’s not there when I rent the next one- I’ll move on down the list. Also, I’m limiting myself to what we have available in our store. Sadly, we don’t carry the original “3:10 to Yuma” so, I’ll just have to leave it behind. On a more cheery note, I don’t think we have a copy of “Battlefield Earth” anymore. I haven’t watched it but I have read that many consider it to be the worst movie of the millennium. I may have to dig up a copy out of pure curiosity.

Lee doesn’t think I’ll make it through the 'A' section let alone the entire category. I have doubts myself. Which is why I’m writing. Maybe it’ll feel like more of an assignment that I’ve got to finish this way. I know of at least two people who’ll be checking up on me.

Oh. SHIT. I have to watch all the James Bond movies! I'm beginning to realize how much of this is going to be difficult to get through. Such as some of the blatant disregard of women as human- serving merely as object. Then again, the argument might also swing the other way. How the roles and expectations of masculinity are portrayed and grossly exploited in film. Or I might take the vapid route and just drown myself in stunts, guns and special effects. Who knows?

*Cue dramatic music*

Only time will tell.

* * *
Right. Here goes: “3:10 to Yuma” (Incidentally, in case anyone is curious, the movie titles that start with numbers get organized at the beginning of the section. Yay for numbers!)

Well, for the first movie of the gauntlet, it wasn’t bad. I haven’t seen a ton of westerns in my life, but what I have seen I’ve been partial to. It could be the costumes or sets of the period. Seriously, I love the spurs and hats and those fun batwing doors that always inevitably get smashed open by some disgruntled outlaw or drunkard. I’m talking about the liquid awesome of handle bar mustaches, greasy shoulder-length hair and horses that know how to run like the dickens even while their rider is full of bullet holes and hanging off the side in a half-conscious stupor.

And this movie, folks, has all of it. Of course they’re all staple stereotypes of the genre and I might be tempted to start a check list as I pass by more westerns. Maybe I’ll tally how many times the bad guy spits out a giant wad of gross before advancing toward his prey. Or how many times someone’s kicking back a shot of the ol’ reliable amber favorite, whiskey.

Christian Bale and Russell Crowe. A Brit and an Aussie (or is he from New Zealand?) in a Hollywood western. Bale has had an American accent in everything I’ve ever seen him in that it wasn’t until recently that I learned he was British. Still they’re not a bad couple in this flick. Their characters are a bit on the easy side to predict- as is the plot- but I still found myself sated. Once I excused the utter absence of women, I allowed myself to relax and let the bullets fly.

The locales were gorgeous for one. I read that much of the shooting had been done at a ranch in New Mexico. The pacing wasn’t too slow with what kind of light fare they were offering up. The plot is pretty straight forward. Poor rancher struggles to make ends meet for his family. Poor rancher stumbles upon stagecoach robbery by notorious outlaw. Poor rancher and notorious outlaw slowly sum each other up throughout movie as the outlaw is arrested and the rancher accompanies a small band of guards (they really suck at being guards, though) to deliver the outlaw to the train station so he can *here comes the title!* catch the 3:10 to Yuma. However, by the time they reach their destination, the rancher and the outlaw have fallen madly in love and ride off together into the sunset. Now that would have been an unpredictable ending. But alas, I’m not going to give away the real ending suffice it to say it’s not entirely surprising.

But still, a solid movie, admittedly due mostly to the visuals. I was impressed that I wasn’t annoyed with either the presence of Bale or Crowe. Usually these two get on my nerves. I haven’t seen much with Crowe in it but I can say this is the best I’ve seen him in so far. I have a feeling I’m going to see quite a bit more of them before the end of this epic saga of action overload.

Up next: “7 Colombian Kilos”