Sergio Leone Web Board

Films of Sergio Leone => Other Films => Topic started by: Groggy on September 04, 2005, 04:54:05 PM



Title: 3:10 to Yuma (1957)
Post by: Groggy on September 04, 2005, 04:54:05 PM
Just a quick heads-up: "3:10 To Yuma" is on TCM tomorrow afternoon from 2:15 to 4:00 P.M. EST.  Due to the fairly good word-of-mouth about it on here, I'll watch it if I can.  As for tonight, I've got "Goodfellas" to check out.  ;D


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (1957)
Post by: Tim on April 20, 2006, 11:30:41 PM
  I know the subject of a 3:10 to Yuma remake came up semi-recently, but I couldn't find it so I'm using Groggy's post about it rather than start a whole new one.

  I was browsing around imdb and came across the listing for the possible remake.  A rather big name has been rumored to be involved in it.  None other than Mr. Tom Cruise.

  Now, for me, as long as he's playing the Glenn Ford villain character, I'm all for it.  I loved his turn as a hitman in Collateral, and I think he could pull off something similar here.

  Any opinions for or against?


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (1957)
Post by: The Firecracker on April 21, 2006, 11:03:58 AM

As long as he doesnt jump on a sofa, that is fine with me.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (1957)
Post by: titoli on August 05, 2006, 04:39:30 AM
Re-watched the movie. This is Glen Ford's movie, as it is to be expected. The sentimental parts do not go to the detriment of the plot, though there might have been some small cuts. The finale, well, let's say it is unsatisfactory. But who cares? One watches the movie for the Glen Ford character. Or at least I did. As I have said, I don't like Heflin, but can't come up with an alternative. Great dialogues.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (1957)
Post by: dave jenkins on August 05, 2006, 09:11:02 AM

  I was browsing around imdb and came across the listing for the possible remake.  A rather big name has been rumored to be involved in it.  None other than Mr. Tom Cruise.

 
This article makes it clear Mr. Cruise is no longer involved: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/film/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002950436


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (1957)
Post by: dave jenkins on August 05, 2006, 09:26:04 AM
Oh, and some time ago, I posted about the material in 3:10 that showed up in OUATITW (over in the 30 Westerns in Once thread):

Quote
Finally saw 3:10 to Yuma. An interesting film that starts out strong but gets stupid as it goes along. Still, from the perspective of a Leoneaste, it is fascinating, and as far as this thread is concerned, represents a motherlode of references.  There may be more quotations from it in OUATITW than from any other single film.

Before enumerating them, I should point out some general effects that Leone used not only in OUATITW but throughout his career. One is a particular shot of horses from the pov of a driver on a buckboard or coach; we see this used in GBU between the time Tuco and Blondie leave the mission and before they are captured by the blue bellies. We see  a very similar shot in OUATITW on the drive from Flagstone to the trading post. The antecedent for these is a shot in 3:10 near the very beginning of the film when a stagecoach is held up by Glenn Ford and his gang.

Ford uses cattle to impede the progress of the coach, and the steers kick up a lot of dust. This gives the director, Delmer Daves, the opportunity to present something that would later become a signature Leone shot: men emerging from clouds of dust. GBU and OUATITW both include such shots, but Daves did it earlier.

Also, Daves uses a *lot* of crane shots, maybe even more than the master himself. He even uses what we might call a reverse crane shot: intead of beginning close to the actors and moving away, he sometimes begins high above and then swoops down for a closeup.

Now for some of the references specific to OUATITW. The most obvious one is the casting-against-type of the bad guy. Long before Fonda's Frank, there was Glenn Ford as a cold-hearted killer. Even though this didn't work very well (Daves establishes Ford's ruthlessness early on, but for the rest of the picture Ford defaults to his usual on-screen persona), it is an attempt to put an actor associated exclusively with good-guy parts in the role of a baddie.

Another nod to Daves is the use of music in OATITW. Particular themes recur, sometimes under a scene (available to the audience, but not to the characters)and sometimes within the scene (the characters can hear or even create the music). Both films employ a character associated with a certain piece of music performing that very piece of music: OUATITW has The Man With the Harmonica, and 3:10 has The Man With the Puckered Lips (Ford whistles the theme while semi-reclining, his hat pulled down over his eyes).

Then there is the plan in OUATITW to ship a captive outlaw to Yuma as a safety measure, the exact situation of 3:10.

Finally, the biggest quote of 3:10 in OUATITW is Frank's dangerous walk down the streets of Flagstone. In 3:10 Van Heflin must also negotiate a street overwatched by ambushers, and there is even a moment when a spotter (Henry Jones) shouts out a warning that enables Heflin to down a gunman before he is shot (followed by the appropriate stunt work). There are differences, of course (the spotter is in the street and Heflin, at that point, is up on the second floor of a building), but you only need to watch this sequence once to know what inspired Leone's similar (but much superior) scene.

These are the quotations that leapt out at me on my first viewing of 3:10. No doubt more can be found......


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (1957)
Post by: Tim on November 06, 2006, 09:14:45 AM
  I've read it a couple places, SWWB and IMDB, but it sounds like filming is starting on the remake of 3:10 to Yuma.  Christian Bale is the Van Heflin character and Russell Crowe is the Glenn Ford villain character.  I like both actors so I think this could be pretty good.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (1957)
Post by: cigar joe on November 06, 2006, 03:35:23 PM
Yea lets hope its decent, we could use a good Western, and it should have a train too!


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (1957)
Post by: Tim on November 06, 2006, 05:34:57 PM
Quote
Yea lets hope its decent, we could use a good Western, and it should have a train too!

  I love the use of the train in the original at the end.  Very tense scene as Heflin tries to get Ford aboard, and then the brief chase when Jaeckel and the other henchmen try and run to catch up.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (1957)
Post by: cigar joe on May 21, 2007, 10:26:34 PM
Got the DVD of this today will do a review soon.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (1957)
Post by: Sonny on May 22, 2007, 12:10:54 AM

well... 3:10 to Yuma is shown fairly often on TCM.  The only problem is it's on usually very late... I don't know if it's cut, however...


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (1957)
Post by: Tucumcari Bound on May 22, 2007, 09:29:38 PM
I think we're in for a surprise with the remake. Great cast, and the director James Mangold is a huge fan of the original. I don't think he'll let us down.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (1957)
Post by: cigar joe on May 22, 2007, 10:58:16 PM
Ok watched this twice now and was struck by the B&W cinematography, its excellent (a shout out to Charles Lawton Jr.) The story has sort of a noirish feel to it all the interiors have an interesting use of shadows and quite a few of the exterior shots look like they were shot early in the morning or close to sundown the shadows thrown are long.

One of the best sequences is near the beginning when Ben Wade' s (Glen Ford) Gang rides into Bisbee Arizona and invades a saloon with Felicia Farr (a former dance hall/brothel chanteuse (that Wade knew from Dodge City) is the barkeep) Ford is excellent as the "good" bad guy and he sweetalks & charms himself into her pantaloons. By the time they disappear into the back room you get the feeling she is dripping with anticipaton. He begins to work his magic again later on on Van Heflins wife also.

Also check out the set design of the saloon interior, nice barrel bar!
 
But Rather than go into what has already been covered I'll add to dave jenkins comments



Quote
Finally saw 3:10 to Yuma. An interesting film that starts out strong but gets stupid as it goes along. Still, from the perspective of a Leoneaste, it is fascinating, and as far as this thread is concerned, represents a motherlode of references.  There may be more quotations from it in OUATITW than from any other single film.

I didn't find it that bad a story, it was plausible. There are quite a few quotes from this in OUTITW agreed  O0

Quote
Before enumerating them, I should point out some general effects that Leone used not only in OUATITW but throughout his career. One is a particular shot of horses from the pov of a driver on a buckboard or coach; we see this used in GBU between the time Tuco and Blondie leave the mission and before they are captured by the blue bellies. We see  a very similar shot in OUATITW on the drive from Flagstone to the trading post. The antecedent for these is a shot in 3:10 near the very beginning of the film when a stagecoach is held up by Glenn Ford and his gang.

I'll add that there are also shots that have something in the immediate foregound and others that are looking through various objects.

Quote
Ford uses cattle to impede the progress of the coach, and the steers kick up a lot of dust. This gives the director, Delmer Daves, the opportunity to present something that would later become a signature Leone shot: men emerging from clouds of dust. GBU and OUATITW both include such shots, but Daves did it earlier.

Also, Daves uses a *lot* of crane shots, maybe even more than the master himself. He even uses what we might call a reverse crane shot: intead of beginning close to the actors and moving away, he sometimes begins high above and then swoops down for a closeup.

You will notice this its very obvious, agreed.

Quote
Now for some of the references specific to OUATITW. The most obvious one is the casting-against-type of the bad guy. Long before Fonda's Frank, there was Glenn Ford as a cold-hearted killer. Even though this didn't work very well (Daves establishes Ford's ruthlessness early on, but for the rest of the picture Ford defaults to his usual on-screen persona), it is an attempt to put an actor associated exclusively with good-guy parts in the role of a baddie.

Yes this sequence could have been emphasized much better.

Quote
Another nod to Daves is the use of music in OATITW. Particular themes recur, sometimes under a scene (available to the audience, but not to the characters)and sometimes within the scene (the characters can hear or even create the music). Both films employ a character associated with a certain piece of music performing that very piece of music: OUATITW has The Man With the Harmonica, and 3:10 has The Man With the Puckered Lips (Ford whistles the theme while semi-reclining, his hat pulled down over his eyes).

Then there is the plan in OUATITW to ship a captive outlaw to Yuma as a safety measure, the exact situation of 3:10.

Finally, the biggest quote of 3:10 in OUATITW is Frank's dangerous walk down the streets of Flagstone. In 3:10 Van Heflin must also negotiate a street overwatched by ambushers, and there is even a moment when a spotter (Henry Jones) shouts out a warning that enables Heflin to down a gunman before he is shot (followed by the appropriate stunt work). There are differences, of course (the spotter is in the street and Heflin, at that point, is up on the second floor of a building), but you only need to watch this sequence once to know what inspired Leone's similar (but much superior) scene.

One more refrence to add is the arrival of the train, the sounds of the stean engine, the shots of the driving wheels, very similar

a great addition to a Western collection.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (1957)
Post by: Mystic_And_Severe on July 25, 2007, 12:21:20 AM
Delmer Daves efficiently directs this classic psychological B/W Western that writer Halsted Welles adapted from a short story by Elmore Leonard. It's rather talky but always remains lively and tense, and its intelligent script turns it into a plausible character study of the poor family-man rancher and the bold womanizing outlaw--each wanting what the other doesn't have. It's ruined only by the false ending, where an unconvincing reason is given for the sudden change in character exhibited by the captured gang leader.

Rancher Dan Evans and his two sons, Matthew and Mark, while rounding up their stray cattle witness the notorious 12-man gang of Ben Wade (Glenn Ford) rob the stage of its gold shipment outside of Bisbee and kill the stage driver Bill Moons, who tried to get heroic and overtake a gang member. The gang heads into Bisbee, where they alert the marshal of the stage holdup. The gang scatters but the lonely leader pines for sad-eyed barmaid Emmy (Felicia Farr), and gets taken prisoner when he's caught off-guard after romancing her. The problem is for the inadequate law enforcement personnel to transport the dangerous outlaw so he gets on the 3:10 to Yuma. The marshal figures the gang will jump them, so he comes up with a diversionary plan to have two volunteers take Ben to Contention City to wait for the train while the empty stage becomes the focus of the gang. When no one volunteers, the well-fed overweight stage owner, Mr. Butterfield, offers $200. The rancher, about to go under because of the drought, accepts for the money, which is the exact amount he needs to pay another rancher to draw water; while the town drunk, Alex Potter, accepts to redeem himself.

The volunteers have Ben holed up in a hotel as they tensely wait for the train, while the cool, smooth-talking Ben offers $10,000 to Dan if he lets him go. Ben also warns that the gang will be there and the townfolks will desert him, leaving him alone to face the gang. The offer is tempting, but Dan turns it down after watching the dead stage driver's funeral procession pass through town. 

The tension increases when a drunken Bob Moons finds out where the man who killed his brother is being held and tries to kill him, but is overtaken by Dan. But his shot alerts the gang's lookout, Charlie (Richard Jaeckel), who quickly brings the gang to town. They kill Alex and string him up in the hotel lobby, and threaten to kill Dan unless he frees the prisoner. Dan's worried wife Alice arrives to tell her hard-working hubby to forget about the money. But the failing rancher can't turn his back on his civic duty and attempts to get Ben on the train, even if he loses his life. He rationalizes that even the town drunk gave his life so that others could live in peace.

Van Heflin and Glenn Ford give top-notch performances, in a film that closely follows the example of the 1952 High Noon formula. 



Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (1957)
Post by: dave jenkins on July 25, 2007, 12:21:45 AM
Just saw a TV ad for the remake. Looks like they've kept the assassins-on-the-roof concept that Leone borrowed for OUATITW. It will be interesting to see if anything distinctively Leone gets added back into the new mix.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (1957)
Post by: Tucumcari Bound on July 25, 2007, 11:33:03 PM
Just saw a TV ad for the remake. Looks like they've kept the assassins-on-the-roof concept that Leone borrowed for OUATITW. It will be interesting to see if anything distinctively Leone gets added back into the new mix.

I'd love to see some Leonesque sequences in this film. I on the other hand, don't think that will happen. I think we're going to get more of a faced paced western that's heavy on the action, far more than the original.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (1957)
Post by: dave jenkins on July 26, 2007, 12:37:23 AM
trailer: http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1809781728/video/3053783;_ylt=AtZqteeZqn_0PmFmNH2RR6hfVXcA


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (1957)
Post by: Tucumcari Bound on July 26, 2007, 12:38:07 AM
trailer: http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1809781728/video/3053783;_ylt=AtZqteeZqn_0PmFmNH2RR6hfVXcA

Yeah. I've watched this trailer a million times the past few weeks. I love it!


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (1957)
Post by: dave jenkins on July 26, 2007, 01:04:41 AM
It  does do a very good job of selling the movie. Hmmm, I might actually have to go out and see this..........


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (1957)
Post by: mal247 on July 26, 2007, 05:12:13 AM
And they said the Western was dead.  Looks good with an impressive cast.

 :)


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (1957)
Post by: Tucumcari Bound on July 26, 2007, 11:23:29 AM
And they said the Western was dead.  Looks good with an impressive cast.

 :)

The western will never be dead in my mind.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (1957)
Post by: dave jenkins on August 20, 2007, 10:22:45 PM
http://www.dvdtalk.com/dvdsavant/s445yuma.html


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (1957)
Post by: Tucumcari Bound on August 21, 2007, 12:04:43 AM
http://www.dvdtalk.com/dvdsavant/s445yuma.html

This past year I picked up the DVD and now this is being released. I wonder if it's basically the same version?


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (1957)
Post by: The Peacemaker on August 21, 2007, 02:07:05 PM
The locomotive on the new cover is a modern Chinese design. 


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (1957)
Post by: Silenzio on August 21, 2007, 02:14:41 PM
I don't want anything to do with Communist China.

Communists know where they can stick it.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (1957)
Post by: The Peacemaker on August 21, 2007, 02:26:05 PM

Communists know where they can stick it.


What is this, the 60's?


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (1957)
Post by: dave jenkins on August 21, 2007, 03:06:01 PM
This past year I picked up the DVD and now this is being released. I wonder if it's basically the same version?
Yes. You lose the full screen version and pick up a couple of trailers. The widescreen images are, to my understanding, identical. No reason to get the new version if you have the old, and if you don't, no reason to get the new one if the old one is cheaper.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (1957)
Post by: cigar joe on August 21, 2007, 03:10:08 PM
We'll have to watch this on our Movie Night soon before Sept 7 O0


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (1957)
Post by: The Peacemaker on August 25, 2007, 08:59:35 PM
I went to the city to day with a bunch of friends and I kept seeing posters everywhere in the subway for the new 3:10 to Yuma movie. It's a white poster with the title in red and Ben Foster in the foreground aiming his guns.

With all the huge publicity, I have a good feeling it's going to do really well at the box office.    O0


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (1957)
Post by: titoli on August 25, 2007, 10:39:52 PM
The usual 100 scenes crammed into a second: enough for me to avoid this. Visually, it looks like any other sausage Hollywood is currently dishing. And I humbly doubt that Ford can be substiituted (and by whom? Russell Crowe? Come on...). 
Here is gonna be released in October, so ample time to read your reviews.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (1957)
Post by: Groggy on August 26, 2007, 03:05:36 PM
Haven't seen the original in ages. Remember liking it, except for the atrocious cop-out ending.

I hope the remake's good.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (1957)
Post by: dave jenkins on August 26, 2007, 06:21:06 PM
Yeah, the remake could improve on the original if it doesn't reproduce the cop-out ending. Given what I've seen in the trailer, it looks like this time the son of the Van Heflin/ Christian Bale character follows his dad to town. There's competition for the kid's loyalty between the dad and the bandit. Presumably, at the moment of crisis, the kid has to make a choice, and I imagine he chooses to save his dad (which may mean killing Russell Crowe). Remember, you heard it here first.....


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (1957)
Post by: Atlas2112 on August 26, 2007, 11:39:01 PM
Remember liking it, except for the atrocious cop-out ending.


can you explain please? do you mean the fact that evan's didn't maim wade's gang like he did in the story?
when i think back to it that was pretty disappionting. i remember reading the story imagining the shoot out in a total peckinpah style of editing


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (1957)
Post by: Groggy on August 27, 2007, 06:43:08 AM
No, that Wade agreed to voluntarily go along with Evans. If it weren't for "The Game", that would be the stupidest ending to a film ever. ::)


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (1957)
Post by: Tucumcari Bound on August 27, 2007, 12:20:38 PM
Haven't seen the original in ages. Remember liking it, except for the atrocious cop-out ending.

I hope the remake's good.

I agree that the ending was a bit of a downer. I think the remake will have a better ending.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (1957)
Post by: Tucumcari Bound on August 28, 2007, 02:38:46 PM
Anybody else love the soft, yet beautiful music that plays throughout the film? It plays great particularly in the scenes involving Glen Ford and Felicia Farr.

I wonder if similar music will be used in this remake? mmmm ???


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (1957)
Post by: Atlas2112 on August 28, 2007, 06:35:58 PM
Anybody else love the soft, yet beautiful music that plays throughout the film? It plays great particularly in the scenes involving Glen Ford and Felicia Farr.

I wonder if similar music will be used in this remake? mmmm ???
im not sure why but i doubt that they'll use similar music


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (1957)
Post by: dave jenkins on September 09, 2008, 09:00:00 AM
This piece was published almost a year ago but I only came across it today. Pretty funny: http://www.slate.com/id/2175455/


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (1957)
Post by: cigar joe on September 09, 2008, 11:12:11 AM
 O0


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (1957)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on August 31, 2011, 08:56:37 PM
just saw 3:10 to Yuma (1957) for the first time.

Of all the awful endings in  Westerns -- and there are many; remember Red River? -- this may be the worst. EVER. I mean the WORST. no exaggeration. I did not enjoy the movie anyway nearly as much as some of you guys have. But that ending made it awful. Even with Red River, I can separate an awful ending from an otherwise great movie. But 3:10 to Yuma is an overrated movie that the ending makes utterly disastrous. Absolutely disastrous. Yes, my two adjectives to describe this movie are "disastrous" and "awful."

Even aside from the ending, this is an overrated movie. I mean, the Heflin character did an awful job "guarding" the Ford character, allowing him to look out the window and talk with his gang etc. It felt more like Heflin and Ford were roommates in a resort, rather than a guard and a prisoner.


I completely regret wasting the 90 minutes watching this movie. Two thumbs down  >:( :( :o ??? ::) :'(


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (1957)
Post by: stanton on September 01, 2011, 01:44:27 AM
What's wrong with the ending? You should at least give us a clue.

I like the ending and the movie.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (1957)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on September 01, 2011, 01:58:50 AM
What's wrong with the ending? You should at least give us a clue.

I like the ending and the movie.

I didn't wanna discuss the ending other than say how much I hated it, cuz i didn't wanna give anything away. But I'll discuss the  ending here with the usual SPOLIER ALERT

I don't understand how anyone can not hate the ending. I mean, all day long Ford'd gang has been after Heflin, who is guarding Ford, a murderer and a thief and someone who may come after Heflin's family if he escapes. His crew comes to break him free, and then he jumps onto the train with Heflin, rather than the easy path at freedom he can so easily take? Come on!!! (his explanation that Heflin once saved his life and he doesn't wanna owe anyone anything is absolute horseshit). The notion that the Ford character would jump with the Heflin character onto the train to Yuma, and away from his men who can easily save him, is absolutely ridiculous. As the word means, the notion  is worthy of ridicule



Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (1957)
Post by: stanton on September 01, 2011, 05:37:07 AM


I don't understand how anyone can not hate the ending. I mean, all day long Ford'd gang has been after Heflin, who is guarding Ford, a murderer and a thief and someone who may come after Heflin's family if he escapes. His crew comes to break him free, and then he jumps onto the train with Heflin, rather than the easy path at freedom he can so easily take? Come on!!! (his explanation that Heflin once saved his life and he doesn't wanna owe anyone anything is absolute horseshit). The notion that the Ford character would jump with the Heflin character onto the train to Yuma, and away from his men who can easily save him, is absolutely ridiculous. As the word means, the notion  is worthy of ridicule


In all the things I have read about about 3:10 to Yuma no one ever complained about the ending. It seems that at least a lot of people don't think it is ridiculous.

Ford is a bandit, but not an asshole. He does what he did out of sympathy for Heflin. For me it works very well.
I also like the ending of Red River which is for me more interesting as just the usual "bad guy gets killed ending".

And even if I would think the ending is bad, it would not destroy the whole film for me, cause it has a lot of other qualities.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (1957)
Post by: cigar joe on September 01, 2011, 06:19:45 AM
In all the things I have read about about 3:10 to Yuma no one ever complained about the ending. It seems that at least a lot of people don't think it is ridiculous.

Ford is a bandit, but not an asshole. He does what he did out of sympathy for Heflin. For me it works very well.
I also like the ending of Red River which is for me more interesting as just the usual "bad guy gets killed ending".

And even if I would think the ending is bad, it would not destroy the whole film for me, cause it has a lot of other qualities.

My problem is that the turn in Wade "I don't want to owe you anything" is not quite hammered home enough in the original. If you don't catch it you say WTF? when he jumps on the train.

We are talking about a trend in 40's-50's 60's Westerns where it was emphasized that a man's character was judged by his WORD, we were hit over the head with this in countless Westerns, (never mind that in the mean time we were historically  F'n the Natives over and over again in countless treaty violations, lol, but is was always the "other" guy) in John Wayne Westerns and culminating in Peckinpah's "Ride The High Country" and "The Wild Bunch". This was again emphasized here by that "I don't want to OWE you anything" line and the subsequent actions by Wade to prove it, that he was a man of his WORD, in nowadays culture it's quaint and almost seems naive.  

The whole trek to the station would have been more believable if it had been handled like it was in "Last Train From Gun Hill" in that film Kirk Douglas has a sawed off shotgun under the chin of Earl Holliman the whole way to the train. No one dared shoot at Douglas for fear of blowing Holliman's head off. Its done poorly in 3:10.

Whats great about 3:10 is its stark cinematography, the stage robbery sequence, and the saloon sequence with eye opening sexual encounter between Ford & Felicia Farr, we ALL know what they were doing in the back room and it was refreshing to NOT have an obligatory tacked on love story, Wades loves her and leaves her, that was REFRESHING, after all the romantic crappola Hollywood usually fed us.  It seemed quite realistic. I look at this film as a sort of bridge Western from the conventions of the 40's & 50's to the grittier films of the 60's and 70's.

Remember this was a short 11 page story by Elmore Leonard that took place entirely in the hotel room between a sheriff and Wade, everything else, Evans, his wife his kids, etc., etc., good and bad was added by the screenwriters

Like I think DJ mentioned once, Evans should have just held Wade in the station to wait for the train, eliminating the march from the hotel altogether.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (1957)
Post by: Groggy on September 01, 2011, 06:50:24 AM
I've always had a problem with the ending in this film, too. After all the build-up it's a complete cop-out. That said, I do like the rest of the film a lot.

Just my opinion but I thought the ending in the 2007 version was much worse than the 1957 original.

Yes.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (1957)
Post by: T.H. on September 01, 2011, 12:51:46 PM
I'm long past the point of disliking movies for having bad endings or bits that don't make much sense. 3:10 is a beautifully made movie with great chemistry between the leads. I don't mind the ending, and to repeat what stanton said, it is more interesting than the bad guy killing good guy scenario. Great movies cheat or cop out - The Searchers, The Conversation and Red River, to name a few. With that said, I don't even know if the films would be better with a more logical conclusion. I'll take an interesting, complex, albeit flawed film over something safe and by-the-numbers every time.

As far as saying Heflin should have held Ford in the train station, I still don't see how that eliminates an impending violent conflict. The characters are also human, I don't understand how a potential oversight by a character should be held against the film - unless we're assuming that characters in films can not fall victim to human error - or have any conflicting emotions in general.



Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (1957)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on September 01, 2011, 01:24:55 PM
T.H. : of course characters can be complex. But it is very important to me that a movie is realistic, ie. it is plausible that it could have happened. I know cinema is a fantasy, and there are almost always elements of fantasy in every movie. But still -- at least in a cinematic, fantastic sense, it has to be somewhat plausible. Now there ain't no way in hell that a criminal would spend all day devising a way to escape, only to be given a clear shot at freedom and squander his chance. No way in hell. That is so nonsensical, it makes a mockery of the audience. I fully believe it may be on the worst endings to any movie ever. Sure, it is possible that over the time they spend locked in that room together, they grow more sympathetic toward each other; that is certainly possible. But for Ford to jump onto the train in order to voluntarily head to prison? It makes a mockery of and shows utter contempt for the audience (I borrowed that last phrase from Roger Ebert's review of one of the scenes in the butchered version of OUATIA  ;) )

cigar joe: I totally agree with you about the walk to the station. Last Train From Gun Hill, which I was of course comparing to this movie, did a great job with that final walk: no way anyone could have shot at Douglas with that shotgun cocked and pressed against the chin of the villain. But in the final walk here, half the time Heflin isn 't even pointing the gun at Ford; it's like the barrel is resting on Ford's chest. I could have easily ripped that thing out of Helflin's hand, even with handcuffs on. Again, I don't say this lightly, but it makes a mockery of the audience. It is basically the director telling us: "You're gonna accept what we are saying is happening, rather than believing your own eyes." Like a little kids' play, where one shoots the other, who falls down slowly and lies on  the stage with his eyes blinking and laughing quietly to himself, but we're supposed to believe he is dead just because that is what we're supposed to do.

Sorry, but I don't do that. I have to feel it and it has to be plausible for me to believe. In Last Train From Gun Hill, you totally felt the tension and seriousness of the walk to the station. In 3:10 to Yuma,  I was laughing at what fools they were making the audience out to be



Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (1957)
Post by: dave jenkins on September 01, 2011, 01:59:36 PM
Like I think DJ mentioned once, Evans should have just held Wade in the station to wait for the train, eliminating the march from the hotel altogether.
An even better solution is to march uptrack toward the 3:10 and flag it down at, say, 2:45. This would keep Wade busy, make it more difficult for his gang to plan mischief, AND get Evans to safety earlier. A hotel room is a terrible place to defend--it limits your field of fire, makes maneuver difficult, and provides next to no cover (bullets go right through wood). And it cedes the initiative to your enemy. And then you aren't anywhere near the rail line, so on top of everything, you have to move. Very dumb.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (1957)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on September 01, 2011, 02:26:34 PM
An even better solution is to march uptrack toward the 3:10 and flag it down at, say, 2:45. This would keep Wade busy, make it more difficult for his gang to plan mischief, AND get Evans to safety earlier. A hotel room is a terrible place to defend--it limits your field of fire, makes maneuver difficult, and provides next to no cover (bullets go right through wood). And it cedes the initiative to your enemy. And then you aren't anywhere near the rail line, so on top of everything, you have to move. Very dumb.

could you just flag a train down anywhere? you don't have to get it at the station?

also, his gang would have seen them leaving the hotel room and walking out of town uptrack. They were watching the room the whole time. So I don't see how being out in the open and walking for that long would help him...


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (1957)
Post by: stanton on September 01, 2011, 04:15:04 PM
T.H. : of course characters can be complex. But it is very important to me that a movie is realistic, ie. it is plausible that it could have happened. I know cinema is a fantasy, and there are almost always elements of fantasy in every movie. But still -- at least in a cinematic, fantastic sense, it has to be somewhat plausible. Now there ain't no way in hell that a criminal would spend all day devising a way to escape, only to be given a clear shot at freedom and squander his chance. No way in hell. That is so nonsensical, it makes a mockery of the audience. I fully believe it may be on the worst endings to any movie ever. Sure, it is possible that over the time they spend locked in that room together, they grow more sympathetic toward each other; that is certainly possible. But for Ford to jump onto the train in order to voluntarily head to prison? It makes a mockery of and shows utter contempt for the audience (I borrowed that last phrase from Roger Ebert's review of one of the scenes in the butchered version of OUATIA  ;) )

cigar joe: I totally agree with you about the walk to the station. Last Train From Gun Hill, which I was of course comparing to this movie, did a great job with that final walk: no way anyone could have shot at Douglas with that shotgun cocked and pressed against the chin of the villain. But in the final walk here, half the time Heflin isn 't even pointing the gun at Ford; it's like the barrel is resting on Ford's chest. I could have easily ripped that thing out of Helflin's hand, even with handcuffs on. Again, I don't say this lightly, but it makes a mockery of the audience. It is basically the director telling us: "You're gonna accept what we are saying is happening, rather than believing your own eyes." Like a little kids' play, where one shoots the other, who falls down slowly and lies on  the stage with his eyes blinking and laughing quietly to himself, but we're supposed to believe he is dead just because that is what we're supposed to do.

Sorry, but I don't do that. I have to feel it and it has to be plausible for me to believe. In last Train From Gun Hill, you totally felt the tension and seriousness of the walk to the station. In 3:10 to Yuma,  I was laughing at what fools they were making the audience out to be



Realism?
How can you like Leone when you are looking mainly for realism?

I only can say that after all what goes on between Ford and Heflin the ending always seemed fitting for me. And still how comes that most people don't feel mocked?

I don't think that movies have to be realistic, but they have to be honest to themselves, and they should have an inner logic (which then can be very different for every movie). And on that level it works for me very well.

In the end 3:10 to Yuma is imo also the better film compared to Last Train from Gun Hill. For both directing and characters.

Drinkanddestroy, you have very strong feelings towards individual films. Not a bad thing.





Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (1957)
Post by: Groggy on September 05, 2011, 10:25:02 AM
Realism?
How can you like Leone when you are looking mainly for realism?

Good point.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (1957)
Post by: dave jenkins on February 15, 2013, 02:35:26 PM
Criterion Blu-ray set for May release.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (1957)
Post by: T.H. on February 15, 2013, 07:48:45 PM
I knew about this for a while but Jubal's announcement really blew me away (my thoughts are in the Jubal thread). I guess I can't say anything negative about criterion for at least a year.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (1957)
Post by: dave jenkins on April 24, 2013, 08:12:16 AM
http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/3:10-to-Yuma-Blu-ray/66270/#Screenshots


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (1957)
Post by: dave jenkins on April 26, 2013, 09:50:47 AM
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDReviews32/310_to_yuma.htm


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (1957)
Post by: Moorman on January 04, 2017, 10:38:49 AM
Saw this for the very first time last night. What a movie. I went to sleep trying to figure out whether this movie is better than High Noon, my current favorite black and white movie and in the running for my favorite Western.  Everything was on point. The cinematography, the music score, the script, the cast, everything. Its a masterpiece in my book...


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (1957)
Post by: Novecento on January 04, 2017, 11:50:14 AM
I went to sleep trying to figure out whether this movie is better than High Noon, my current favorite black and white movie and in the running for my favorite Western.

I'd take High Noon. In a certain way, it reminds me of a Fistful of Dollars. A short, low-budget flick that came out of nowhere and was staggeringly good and stylish.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (1957)
Post by: Moorman on January 04, 2017, 12:20:29 PM
I'd take High Noon. In a certain way, it reminds me of a Fistful of Dollars. A short, low-budget flick that came out of nowhere and was staggeringly good and stylish.
I think i lean more toward High Noon also because of the script. Simple, to the point and everything that was said was very  important...


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (1957)
Post by: stanton on January 04, 2017, 02:08:05 PM
Hmm, I think 3:10 to Yuma has the better screenplay and the more complex characters. HN suffers from some pretentious dialogues in which everybody explains himself, instead of that what they mean is that what they not say. And HN is build around constructed ideas, while 3:10 is the more organic film. But both are very stylishly made, and the b/w photography is excellent, both are very atmospheric.

But it is Zinnemann who saves HN, with a less inspired director HN could have become a mess like Firecreek, or at least one which is burdened too much by its pretensions despite some great stuff, like Warlock.



Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (1957)
Post by: Moorman on January 04, 2017, 02:29:02 PM
Hmm, I think 3:10 to Yuma has the better screenplay and the more complex characters. HN suffers from some pretentious dialogues in which everybody explains himself, instead of that what they mean is that what they not say. And HN is build around constructed ideas, while 3:10 is the more organic film. But both are very stylishly made, and the b/w photography is excellent, both are very atmospheric.

But it is Zinnemann who saves HN, with a less inspired director HN could have become a mess like Firecreek, or at least one which is burdened too much by its pretensions despite some great stuff, like Warlock.


 

BOTH are great films.  My personal preference for High Noon's script is because i thought it was more believable from beginning to end, save the one scene where his wife saves him.  When i saw 3:10 to Yuma,  parts of the script looked like it was a remake of High Noon.  The townsfolk getting scared and leaving Van Heflin to fight by himself.  Van Heflin's wife, though she didn't save him, she is inserted right into the middle of a gunfight like the wife in High Noon.  The count down to a train coming. Again, High Noon.

I have mixed feelings about the ending of 3:10 to Yuma also. I've never seen a ending that was both great, and questionable at the same time until i saw this movie.  Now, don't get me wrong,  3:10 has become one of my favorites after i saw it last night. I'm just comparing to another masterpiece in High Noon because of the similarities.  Its a great movie and i'm gonna add it to my Blu Ray or DVD collection...


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (1957)
Post by: Moorman on January 04, 2017, 02:40:26 PM
An even better solution is to march uptrack toward the 3:10 and flag it down at, say, 2:45. This would keep Wade busy, make it more difficult for his gang to plan mischief, AND get Evans to safety earlier. A hotel room is a terrible place to defend--it limits your field of fire, makes maneuver difficult, and provides next to no cover (bullets go right through wood). And it cedes the initiative to your enemy. And then you aren't anywhere near the rail line, so on top of everything, you have to move. Very dumb.

This comment reminded me of the one other "flaw" about 3:10 that i didn't get.  When Van Heflin is holed up with Ford in the Hotel, and his help abandoned him, didn't ANY of Ford's gang see them walking out of the hotel?  Especially the nosey one, the one that originally was waiting at the hotel and knew every move that Van Heflin made from that point on out.  Seems that if they saw Van Heflin being abandoned, then they could've stormed the hotel. Instead, they all take position and nobody saw anybody leaving the hotel...

LATE EDIT: After thinking about it more, i think the reason they wouldn't have stormed the hotel even if they saw Van Heflin being abandoned, is the fact that he said he would shoot Ford's character if they kept shooting at the hotel...


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (1957)
Post by: cigar joe on January 04, 2017, 03:36:12 PM
Saw this for the very first time last night. What a movie. I went to sleep trying to figure out whether this movie is better than High Noon, my current favorite black and white movie and in the running for my favorite Western.  Everything was on point. The cinematography, the music score, the script, the cast, everything. Its a masterpiece in my book...

I'd take 3:10 visually it's slightly heavier on Western Landscapes while High Noon is more town set bound.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (1957)
Post by: Moorman on January 04, 2017, 04:14:17 PM
I'd take 3:10 visually it's slightly heavier on Western Landscapes while High Noon is more town set bound.

The cinematography in 3:10 is beyond beautiful. I agree...


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (1957)
Post by: Spikeopath on February 08, 2017, 08:22:31 PM
Room 207 and the 3:10 to Yuma.

Van Heflin plays rancher Dan Evans whose family and livelihood is at breaking point due to a devastating drought. Needing money fast, Evans gets thrown a financial lifeline when a reward is offered to escort a recently captured outlaw, Ben Wade (Glenn Ford), on to the 3:10 train to Yuma prison. But as Wade's gang closes in to free the shackled outlaw, and the clock starts to tick down, Evans finds himself torn between a sense of social duty and an easy option courtesy of Wade's mind game offer.

Based on a story by Elmore Leonard, this is a tight and tense Western that harks to the wonderful High Noon five years earlier. Directed by Delmer Daves, 3:10 to Yuma sees two of the Western genre's most undervalued performers come together in perfect contrast. Heflin's Evans is honest, almost saintly; but ultimately filling out his life with dullness and too much of a safe approach. Ford's Wade is the other side of the coin, ruthless (the opening sequence sets it up), handsome and very self-confident. This coupling makes for an interesting story-one that thankfully delivers royally on its set-up. As Wade's gang closes in, led by a sleek and mean Richard Jaeckel, Wade toys with Evans, offering him financial gain and gnawing away at him about his abilities as a husband, the tension is palpable in the extreme. Nothing is ever certain until the credits role, and that is something that is never to be sniffed at in the Western genre.

The comparison with High Noon is a fair one because 3:10 to Yuma also deals with the man alone scenario. A man left alone to deal with his adversaries and his own conscience; money or pride indeed. Daves' direction is gritty and suitably claustrophobic, with close ups either being erotically charged {watch out for Felicia Farr's scenes with Ford in the saloon} or tightly wound in room 207 of the hotel; where Heflin & Ford positively excel. His outdoor work, aided by Charles Lawton Jr's photography, also hits the spot, particularly the barren land desperate for water to invigorate it. While the piece also has a tremendous George Duning theme song warbled (and whistled by Ford in the film) by Frankie Laine. Great acting, great direction and a great involving story; essential for fans of character driven Westerns. 8.5/10

Footnote: The film was very well remade in 2007 with two of the modern era's finest leading men, Russell Crowe & Christian Bale, in the dual roles of Ben & Dan respectively. One hopes, and likes to think, that they remade it purely because it was such a great premise to work from. Because Daves' film didn't need improving, it was, and still is, a great film showcasing how great this often maligned genre can sometimes be.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (1957)
Post by: greenbudgie on May 12, 2017, 03:11:57 AM
I finally got to see this classic yesterday. It's a very tense movie. The closing scenes are terrific. Good twist to this story. I always like to hear Frankie Laine's dramatic singing of western theme tunes. This is one of his lesser known ones.