Sergio Leone Web Board

Films of Sergio Leone => Other Films => Topic started by: archangel on July 26, 2007, 10:54:38 AM



Title: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: archangel on July 26, 2007, 10:54:38 AM
wa-da-ya think?

Only seen the  flash trailer.

Crowe, Baile, Fonda?

Direction? SL like? or AW like?

I like Crowe in the right part - is he right in this.

He's got some good lines.........

Archie.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on July 26, 2007, 11:06:59 AM
I have no doubts in my mind it's going to be great. James Mangold directing, Russell Crowe and Christian Bale starring?! It's a sure hit in my opinion. It looks great.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: moviesceleton on July 26, 2007, 11:19:07 AM
As I've said a dozen times before: Western is coming back.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on July 26, 2007, 11:28:00 AM
As I've said a dozen times before: Western is coming back.

It sure is, and I'm going to make sure I make one someday.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: The Peacemaker on July 27, 2007, 09:53:21 AM
This western will pave the way for a few more to be made soon.


I just hope the other new westerns use a lot of style and action. If they make another lame-ass Open Range the western will die off. Younger people now don't want to sit through some western soap opera with actors who are old. If you want the western to survive you have to get the younger audiences interested, and I mean teens.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on July 27, 2007, 10:18:55 AM
This western will pave the way for a few more to be made soon.


I just hope the other new westerns use a lot of style and action. If they make another lame-ass Open Range the western will die off. Younger people now don't want to sit through some western soap opera with actors who are old. If you want the western to survive you have to get the younger audiences interested, and I mean teens.

Hey Peacemaker. Open Range was in no way LAME. I think it's a great film. This younger generation may not understand it, but I sure as hell did. If they can't learn to appreciate a good film like that, then it's their loss, not mine.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: The Peacemaker on July 27, 2007, 10:23:43 AM
Hey Peacemaker. Open Range was in no way LAME.


Both me and my dad thought that movie sucked big time. Final gunfight was good though, but they messed that up (firing like 20 shots from a six-shooter without reloading? C'mon).


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: PowerRR on July 27, 2007, 10:57:27 AM
(http://www.cinemafusion.com/images/uploads/310toYumaPoster.JPG)


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on July 27, 2007, 10:58:34 AM

Both me and my dad thought that movie sucked big time. Final gunfight was good though, but they messed that up (firing like 20 shots from a six-shooter without reloading? C'mon).

Well, we all can't agree on everything I guess.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: noodles_leone on July 27, 2007, 10:58:38 AM
I like the poster.

The trailer has good points too, but the poster is really good looking.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on July 27, 2007, 10:59:04 AM
(http://www.cinemafusion.com/images/uploads/310toYumaPoster.JPG)

I'm trying to decide if I like that poster or not? mmmm ???


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: cigar joe on July 27, 2007, 05:05:08 PM
Open Range & Unforgiven are essentially the same lots of meoldramatic build up to a big conclusion.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: The Peacemaker on July 27, 2007, 05:16:41 PM
The poster looks good. Could've been better, but still good.




Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on July 27, 2007, 05:27:25 PM
Open Range & Unforgiven are essentially the same lots of meoldramatic build up to a big conclusion.

 >:(


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Silenzio on July 27, 2007, 05:34:35 PM
>:(

I agree with  >:( ing him for Unforgiven, but I haven't seen Open Range.

TB, who gave you permission to have more posts than me?  I might have to steal some of your stars.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on July 27, 2007, 05:36:45 PM
I agree with  >:( ing him for Unforgiven, but I haven't seen Open Range.

TB, who gave you permission to have more posts than me?  I might have to steal some of your stars.

HAHAHAHA! Take as many stars as you want my good buddy.  O0


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on August 19, 2007, 11:11:11 AM
Who's getting excited!!! This is coming. It's getting great early reviews.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: KevinJCBJK on August 19, 2007, 12:12:22 PM
I hope it's better than The Proposition. Just my opinion, but I was disapointed when I rented the Propostion.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on August 19, 2007, 12:16:20 PM
I hope it's better than The Proposition. Just my opinion, but I was disapointed when I rented the Propostion.

It's not for everybody. I personally rank it high myself.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: The Peacemaker on August 19, 2007, 01:26:58 PM
I thought The Proposition was lame.



I'm am soooo F*cking excited about 3:10 to Yuma!


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on August 19, 2007, 02:02:46 PM
I thought The Proposition was lame.



I'm am soooo F*cking excited about 3:10 to Yuma!

I think you're lame!  ;)That film is in no way lame. It's filmed and acted beautifully. Great poetic look into the west.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: KevinJCBJK on August 19, 2007, 02:07:30 PM
I shall respect both of your opinions.

I've only seen it once.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on August 19, 2007, 02:22:33 PM
I'm obviously joking with Peacemaker but I honestly think it's a beautiful film. Like I said before, it's not everyone's cup of tea. I like the way it was filmed in my humble opinion.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: KevinJCBJK on August 19, 2007, 02:27:28 PM
I thought Unforgiven was a better film than Open Range, but I still liked Open Range, it's still one of the best westerns in recent years.

Yeah that poster to 3:10 would have been better if that was a female.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Groggy on August 19, 2007, 04:35:45 PM
As I've said a dozen times before: Western is coming back.

Yeah, we've been hearing this claim for 20+ years. . .  ::) If the film's a hit, then we'll talk. I'll wait until then, though.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on August 19, 2007, 04:51:43 PM
Yeah, we've been hearing this claim for 20+ years. . .  ::) If the film's a hit, then we'll talk. I'll wait until then, though.

No, we'll talk now. Even if this isn't a huge hit, the western still will never die. There's always room for a western film.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Groggy on August 19, 2007, 04:57:09 PM
No, we'll talk now. Even if this isn't a huge hit, the western still will never die. There's always room for a western film.

Yeah, the Western will never "die", but whether it will be popular or not is something else entirely.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on August 19, 2007, 05:05:33 PM
Yeah, the Western will never "die", but whether it will be popular or not is something else entirely.

I see what you're saying. However, I think the main problem with the Western Genre today is that it's not being utilized properly. What I mean by that is they're not using the right actor's. With the upcoming 3:10 to Yuma remake, the casting was perfect! Russell Crowe and Christian Bale are men amongst men. They're not "pretty boys" persay. We're not seeing a Leonardo Dicarprio or a Paul Walker here, actors who look like they couldn't fight there way out of a wet paper bag. Russell Crowe and Christian Bale not only are amazing actors, but they have great charisma and are masculine.

With the right script, direction, and acting, I believe the western genre could do wonders in my humble opinion. I am curious to see how the public reacts to 3:10 to Yuma.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Groggy on August 19, 2007, 05:08:56 PM
Well, I'll say that I hope that the Western becomes popular again, but moreover I hope that there are at least some genuinely good Westerns that come out of it.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on August 19, 2007, 05:15:33 PM
Well, I'll say that I hope that the Western becomes popular again, but moreover I hope that there are at least some genuinely good Westerns that come out of it.

Oh yeah, I agree with you totally here. I'm praying this is a success. If it is I'm sure studio's will take more chances with a western film.

I'm still hoping for a Martin Scorsese, Michael Mann, Sam Mendes, or Quentin Tarantino Western. I think there's plenty of directors today who could make some great films in this genre.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: lovelyrita on August 19, 2007, 05:53:54 PM
Picked up an Entertainment Weekly today and there was a picture of Christian Bale and Russell Crowe from 3:10 to Yuma. Suppose to open on September 7th. I love those two actors they have rarely disappointed me, just from what I read looks like a good one. If this particular picture is successful u can bet that Hollywood will make more.
Lets just hope the quality is there..


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Kurug3n on August 19, 2007, 09:34:16 PM
obviously you haven't heard of
Russell Crowe and Christian Bale are men amongst men. They're not "pretty boys" persay. We're not seeing a Leonardo Dicarprio or a Paul Walker here, actors who look like they couldn't fight there way out of a wet paper bag. Russell Crowe and Christian Bale not only are amazing actors, but they have great charisma and are masculine.

Obviously you have neither seen or heard of Running Scared (Paul Walkers best film to date) and Tears of the Black Tiger (Thai Western released last year) and Russell Crowe using a phone as a weapon is pretty masculine ::)


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on August 19, 2007, 09:55:36 PM
obviously you haven't heard of
Obviously you have neither seen or heard of Running Scared (Paul Walkers best film to date) and Tears of the Black Tiger (Thai Western released last year) and Russell Crowe using a phone as a weapon is pretty masculine ::)

Oh come on now. Don't go claiming pretty boy Paul Walker is a great actor. Running Scared was a pretty good film but nothing to rave about. Just another Tarantino type ripoff. I liked it, but it's not a classic. Walker was pretty good though.

Don't even go there about Russell Crowe. I mean have you seen this man in Romper Stomper, L.A. Confidential, or a little film they call Gladiator? I mean talk about badass.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: KevinJCBJK on August 19, 2007, 10:45:38 PM
Oh come on now. Don't go claiming pretty boy Paul Walker is a great actor. Running Scared was a pretty good film but nothing to rave about. Just another Tarantino type ripoff. I liked it, but it's not a classic. Walker was pretty good though.

Don't even go there about Russell Crowe. I mean have you seen this man in Romper Stomper, L.A. Confidential, or a little film they call Gladiator? I mean talk about badass.

Didn't he punch out a few paparazzi in real life?


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on August 19, 2007, 11:20:20 PM
Didn't he punch out a few paparazzi in real life?

Yeah, among other things, most recently the phone throwing incident with the hotel clerk.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: KevinJCBJK on August 20, 2007, 07:24:04 AM
Yeah, among other things, most recently the phone throwing incident with the hotel clerk.

Well the paps deserve it, not sure about the hotel clerk, but one should know better to insult the guy who kicked the ass of every one in LA Confidential.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on August 20, 2007, 08:46:31 AM
Well the paps deserve it, not sure about the hotel clerk, but one should know better to insult the guy who kicked the ass of every one in LA Confidential.

 ;D yeah Russell has one hell of a temper it would seem.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Groggy on August 20, 2007, 04:18:10 PM
I finally got to see the trailer for this. It looks pretty good, and I hope that the film is half as good as the trailer.

Again, though, the film being successful is entirely seperate from quality. I don't think there's been a really successful Western since "Unforgiven" (even "Tombstone" wasn't that big of a hit), so even if us Western buffs like it, will that be enough to draw in the crowds.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: KevinJCBJK on August 20, 2007, 05:55:12 PM
I finally got to see the trailer for this. It looks pretty good, and I hope that the film is half as good as the trailer.

Again, though, the film being successful is entirely seperate from quality. I don't think there's been a really successful Western since "Unforgiven" (even "Tombstone" wasn't that big of a hit), so even if us Western buffs like it, will that be enough to draw in the crowds.

We are the backbone of the Western Box Office.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Kurug3n on August 20, 2007, 07:01:18 PM
Oh come on now. Don't go claiming pretty boy Paul Walker is a great actor. Running Scared was a pretty good film but nothing to rave about. Just another Tarantino type ripoff. I liked it, but it's not a classic. Walker was pretty good though.

Don't even go there about Russell Crowe. I mean have you seen this man in Romper Stomper, L.A. Confidential, or a little film they call Gladiator? I mean talk about badass.
Man FUCK tarintino! Just because its stylisitic to the max doesn't mean that its a "Tarantino" rip off. And seriously don't know how you can compare badass to the need to fight like what Russel Crowe does O0


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on August 20, 2007, 09:23:17 PM
Man FUCK tarintino! Just because its stylisitic to the max doesn't mean that its a "Tarantino" rip off. And seriously don't know how you can compare badass to the need to fight like what Russel Crowe does O0

I said it once and I'll say it again, "Running Scared" was nothing but a Tarantino Ripoff.

Russell Crowe is one of the best actors working today and arguably the best of his generation, period.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: KevinJCBJK on August 20, 2007, 10:18:42 PM
I said it once and I'll say it again, "Running Scared" was nothing but a Tarantino Ripoff.

Russell Crowe is one of the best actors working today and arguably the best of his generation, period.

I don't think anyone can rip off Tarantino, he's too weird with his scenes where they talk about nothing and countless close ups of bare feet.

And yes Russell Crowe is a great actor, I thought he was robbed of the oscar for A Beautiful Mind.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on August 21, 2007, 12:11:53 AM
I don't think anyone can rip off Tarantino, he's too weird with his scenes where they talk about nothing and countless close ups of bare feet.

And yes Russell Crowe is a great actor, I thought he was robbed of the oscar for A Beautiful Mind.

He most certainly was robbed for his work in A Beautiful Mind. I thought he deserved that award over Denzel Washington who won it for Training Day. Yes, Denzel was good in Training Day, but not as good as Russell's work here.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: KevinJCBJK on August 21, 2007, 12:32:05 AM
He most certainly was robbed for his work in A Beautiful Mind. I thought he deserved that award over Denzel Washington who won it for Training Day. Yes, Denzel was good in Training Day, but not as good as Russell's work here.

Oh well, they can't always agree with me (Peter should have won for Venus)

But I can't wait to see Russell play a bad guy.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: moviesceleton on August 26, 2007, 04:05:21 AM
I can't find Finnish release date for this... >:( Needless to say, I'm very pissed off. I hope it gets some Oscars so we might have a change to see it in theaters.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Groggy on August 26, 2007, 09:45:06 AM
Has anyone seen this yet? Please let us know.

And may I say, that while Peter O'Toole was great in "Venus", I think Forrest Whittaker definitely deserved the Oscar.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on August 26, 2007, 10:07:38 AM
Has anyone seen this yet? Please let us know.

And may I say, that while Peter O'Toole was great in "Venus", I think Forrest Whittaker definitely deserved the Oscar.

I'm going to the sneak peak Wedesday night. I will give my full report then.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: The Firecracker on August 26, 2007, 01:18:19 PM
An SWWB member didn't like it at all.
He found the final gunfight pointless(?).


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: KevinJCBJK on August 26, 2007, 02:56:47 PM
Has anyone seen this yet? Please let us know.

And may I say, that while Peter O'Toole was great in "Venus", I think Forrest Whittaker definitely deserved the Oscar.

When does it come out?

Yeah I hope Peter will pull a Henry Fonda and win for once.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Groggy on August 26, 2007, 03:03:10 PM
Didn't it come out on Friday?  ???


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: KevinJCBJK on August 26, 2007, 03:04:39 PM
Didn't it come out on Friday?  ???

September 7


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Groggy on August 26, 2007, 03:08:10 PM
Really?


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: KevinJCBJK on August 26, 2007, 03:14:06 PM
Really?

According to IMDB. There's a lot of advertising for it too, they seem hopeful it will be  a success.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: The Firecracker on August 26, 2007, 04:02:02 PM
According to IMDB. There's a lot of advertising for it too, they seem hopeful it will be  a success.


Hopefully it will bomb terribly.

But I doubt it will. It will be a moderate success.
They might get a decent percentage of the young generation (The only people who count when making $) into the theatres due to the stars but they won't get masses of kids.


It's up to the adults to make it a success.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Groggy on August 26, 2007, 04:04:32 PM
Why are you hoping it will fail Firecracker? You think it sucks?


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: The Firecracker on August 26, 2007, 04:16:58 PM
Why are you hoping it will fail Firecracker? You think it sucks?


 For selfish reasons.


Right now the western is in the anal of the world.
Nobody will make one for fear of it being a failure.

This is good.

Fear makes people cautious.
When somebody is cautious of what their doing, more often than not, they will triumph.


If this is a mega hit the studious will make more in a hurry. They'll churn as much crap (watered down, pg-13 tom foolery) as they can to make a quick buck.

Plus, the remakes score will suck. ;D


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Groggy on August 26, 2007, 04:20:24 PM

 For selfish reasons.


Right now the western is in the anal of the world.
Nobody will make one for fear of it being a failure.

This is good.

Fear makes people cautious.
When somebody is cautious of what their doing, more often than not, they will triumph.


If this is a mega hit the studious will make more in a hurry. They'll churn as much crap (watered down, pg-13 tom foolery) as they can to make a quick buck.


Awful cynical of you. And how many great Westerns have there been in the last ten+ years huh?


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: The Firecracker on August 26, 2007, 04:21:58 PM
Awful cynical of you. And how many great Westerns have there been in the last ten+ years huh?


It's all opinionated but I thought Open Range and The Proposition was great.

I'd rather have 1 great western every ten years than have ten shitty one's every two.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: The Firecracker on August 26, 2007, 04:23:02 PM
"Tears of the Black tiger" was another good one.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Groggy on August 26, 2007, 04:25:46 PM

It's all opinionated but I thought Open Range and The Proposition was great.

I'd rather have 1 great western every ten years than have ten shitty one's every two.

Strongly disagree. It's not like every single Western will be horrible, there would be some great ones, and some that are at least good as entertainment. There have been a lot of crap Westerns like "American Outlaws" made under the current "system" of minimal production anyway, so I'm sure what your point is?

I do think that there's no guarantee that this film will be a hit (but I've said this before), "American Outlaws" was heavily promoted when it first came out and it completely tanked. I also remember seeing a lot of ads for "Open Range".


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: The Firecracker on August 26, 2007, 04:31:36 PM
Strongly disagree. It's not like every single Western will be horrible, there would be some great ones, and some that are at least good as entertainment. There have been a lot of crap Westerns like "American Outlaws" made under the current "system" of minimal production anyway, so I'm sure what your point is?

I do think that there's no guarantee that this film will be a hit (but I've said this before), "American Outlaws" was heavily promoted when it first came out and it completely tanked. I also remember seeing a lot of ads for "Open Range".


American Outlaws was exactly what I was thinking when I said "pg-13 tom foolery" and you can expect more "American Outlaws" if "3:10 to Yuma" is a mega hit (which i doubt it will be).

And your memory doesn't serve you well:
I remember seeing a few trailers for "American Outlaws" but it wasn't heavily advertised.
"Open Range" less so.

Don't know about you but I'm perfectly happy with the amount of good westerns we've gotten over the past 10 years.



Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: The Firecracker on August 26, 2007, 04:41:23 PM
Strongly disagree. It's not like every single Western will be horrible

Do you know how many westerns were made between 1950 to 1970?
Plenty.
How many are considered classics (or what you would consider "good") today?
Not many.
Now fast forward to the present.
5 a year? From the current quality the studios piss out?
No thanks.



Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Silenzio on August 26, 2007, 04:42:59 PM
Do you know how many westerns were made between 1950 to 1970?
Plenty.
How many are considered classics (or what you would consider "good") today?
Not many.



WOW what is wrong with you?


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: The Firecracker on August 26, 2007, 04:43:52 PM
WOW what is wrong with you?

I said how many "they" consider classics or good movies.
Not what I would consider classic.

 By their standard the only westerns that were any good between those years were either American or Leone movies.

That narrows it down to like 25 titles.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Silenzio on August 26, 2007, 04:47:09 PM
THEY meaning critics?

There's a ton.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: The Firecracker on August 26, 2007, 04:49:53 PM
THEY

 Meaning the members of this board.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Silenzio on August 26, 2007, 04:55:54 PM
Oh i'm sure the members of this board consider...

The Wild Bunch
High Noon
Ride The High Country
The Searchers
The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
The Dollars Trilogy
Once Upon a Time in the West
Hombre

And many others to be classics.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Silenzio on August 26, 2007, 05:00:18 PM
Let's not forget Anthony Mann

Bend Of The River
The Naked Spur
The Far Country
The Man From Laramie


And also films like The Professionals, Butch Cassidy (questionable for a few members), Little Big Man, Bad Day at Black Rock, and Johnny Guitar.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: The Firecracker on August 26, 2007, 05:10:23 PM

So far that is a mere 19.

Kinda shabby for a 20 year span.
My list is much more generous, of course most would consider the titles "shit" without actually watching them.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Silenzio on August 26, 2007, 05:15:22 PM
19 films over a 20 year span.  That's almost a classic per year.

You said in a recent post you would "rather have 1 classic every ten years than ten shitty ones every two years."

That means you would be satisfied if there were only 2 classics in a twenty year span.


P.S. I win.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: The Firecracker on August 26, 2007, 05:15:41 PM
And you also have to take into consideration the quality of western the execs will be greenlighting today.

If you think we have some High Noons, Ride The High Countries and The Man Who Shot Liberty Valances on the way, you're in for a big surprise.


P.S. This is not a competition.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Silenzio on August 26, 2007, 05:17:42 PM
And you also have to take into consideration the quality of western the execs will be greenlighting today.

If you think we have some High Noons, Ride The High Countries and The Man Who Shot Liberty Valances on the way, you're in for a big surprise.


P.S. This is not a competition.

How would you know if the films never get made in the first place.

P.S. I still win.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: The Firecracker on August 26, 2007, 05:19:35 PM


That means you would be satisfied if there were only 2 classics in a twenty year span.


With the current crap we have to put up with, yes, that is all I can hope for.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: The Firecracker on August 26, 2007, 05:20:14 PM
How would you know if the films never get made in the first place.

you got me there but I'd bet money on it.


P.S. and so would you.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Silenzio on August 26, 2007, 05:28:00 PM
you got me there but I'll bet money on it.


P.S. and so would you.

You got me there.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: The Peacemaker on August 26, 2007, 06:16:16 PM
On the contrary Firecracker, I think 3:10 to Yuma will be a big success.

Like I said in another thread, it's getting a huge amount of publicity. I saw the poster for it in every subway station around the New York area. Plus, it's rated R so we won't get the usual "PG-13 tomfoolery" that you mentioned.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: KevinJCBJK on August 26, 2007, 08:37:17 PM
How is Deadwood doing on HBO? I hear it's good.

Maybe the Western is making a come back. Who knows whether or not if this is a good thing, because I agree with The Firecracker here, if we get a string of shitty westerns as a result of the success of 3:10 to Yuma.

But who knows, Unforgiven won Oscars and the Western genre wasn't as popular as ever, we've had some good ones and some shitty ones.

We'll just have to wait and see. We first have to see the movie in order to see if it's actually a good western. All this advertising to me means they want to make money on  a Western, but is it going to be good quality Western like Open Range and the Propsition? Or just shit like American Outlaws (IMO)?


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: The Peacemaker on August 26, 2007, 08:39:31 PM
Deadwood ended a year ago. They're going to make two TV movies and then finish.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on August 26, 2007, 11:07:36 PM
Deadwood ended a year ago. They're going to make two TV movies and then finish.

I just read recently that they're not doing the TV movies now because the actor's are busy doing other work. This was on darkhorizon's a few weeks ago. I'm extremely pissed about this!


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: The Peacemaker on August 26, 2007, 11:38:14 PM
I just read recently that they're not doing the TV movies now because the actor's are busy doing other work. This was on darkhorizon's a few weeks ago. I'm extremely pissed about this!

It has nothing to do with that. The show was canceled because it was way too expensive and HBO felt that the show wasn't pulling in enough viewers to justify the high cost.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: The Peacemaker on August 27, 2007, 12:11:40 AM
Back to the original topic, here's the poster that is posted in all the subway stations:

http://www.imdb.com/gallery/ss/0381849/Ss/0381849/YUMAOutdoorArt.JPG?path=gallery&path_key=0381849


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: KevinJCBJK on August 27, 2007, 12:49:57 PM
A critic calls 3:10 to Yuma "The best Western since Unforgiven"


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Groggy on August 28, 2007, 06:37:14 AM
A critic calls 3:10 to Yuma "The best Western since Unforgiven"

Erm. . . it doesn't really have much competition does it? :D


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: moviesceleton on August 28, 2007, 06:45:45 AM
Erm. . . it doesn't really have much competition does it? :D
Not really, excluding Open Range.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Groggy on August 28, 2007, 06:47:26 AM
Haven't seen that, so I can't comment.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: moviesceleton on August 28, 2007, 06:58:20 AM

 For selfish reasons.


Right now the western is in the anal of the world.
Nobody will make one for fear of it being a failure.

This is good.

Fear makes people cautious.
When somebody is cautious of what their doing, more often than not, they will triumph.


If this is a mega hit the studious will make more in a hurry. They'll churn as much crap (watered down, pg-13 tom foolery) as they can to make a quick buck.

Plus, the remakes score will suck. ;D

Quote
I'd rather have 1 great western every ten years than have ten shitty one's every two.
Your logic makes no sense. You don't have to go to see the crappy movies, do you? Some people make better movies when they're cautious, but I think more often they are more afraid to take risks. And I'd say it's a law of nature that if there are a lot of films produced most of them are bad or mediocre but there are always great ones among. 


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Groggy on August 28, 2007, 09:22:59 AM
Your logic makes no sense. You don't have to go to see the crappy movies, do you? Some people make better movies when they're cautious, but I think more often they are more afraid to take risks. And I'd say it's a law of nature that if there are a lot of films produced most of them are bad or mediocre but there are always great ones among. 

Agreed. Firecracker, you're not Satan, but this is an extraordinarily dumb and incomprehensible argument driven only by cynicism. I could eat a box of Alpha-Bits and crap a better argument.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: moviesceleton on August 28, 2007, 10:05:04 AM
Agreed. Firecracker, you're not Satan, but this is an extraordinarily dumb and incomprehensible argument driven only by cynicism. I could eat a box of Alpha-Bits and crap a better argument.
lol. Oh man!  ;D I just had the laugh of the day.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on August 29, 2007, 03:17:05 PM
I read in a review that this film has a great FILM SCORE. How come I can't find it for sale anywhere? If I watch the film tonight and I love the film's music, and I can't buy it, I will be pissed!!!!


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on August 29, 2007, 08:05:58 PM
I've just seen it!!!!!!!! ;)

I don't want to give anything away. Let's just say it's a pretty darn good western with great acting, outstanding cinematograhy, and great action. There's many nods to the original film, but it's a bit different in a lot of ways. This contains one of the best villain performances in recent years by the way of Ben Foster. He was something to watch. Of course, Russell Crowe and Christian Bale were stellar as usual.

Go see it ASAP, especially if you're a western film fan, as all of us are here. I rank it ahead of recent westerns "Tombstone", "The Proposition", and "Seraphem Falls". However, it's not better than the masterpiece "Unforgiven", and "Open Range" in my opinion. James Mangold has directed three great films already as is a director you should take notice.

3:10 to Yuma (2007) 8/10


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: KevinJCBJK on August 30, 2007, 12:10:04 AM
I've just seen it!!!!!!!! ;)

I don't want to give anything away. Let's just say it's a pretty darn good western with great acting, outstanding cinematograhy, and great action. There's many nods to the original film, but it's a bit different in a lot of ways. This contains one of the best villain performances in recent years by the way of Ben Foster. He was something to watch. Of course, Russell Crowe and Christian Bale were stellar as usual.

Go see it ASAP, especially if you're a western film fan, as all of us are here. I rank it ahead of recent westerns "Tombstone", "The Proposition", and "Seraphem Falls". However, it's not better than the masterpiece "Unforgiven", and "Open Range" in my opinion. James Mangold has directed three great films already as is a director you should take notice.

3:10 to Yuma (2007) 8/10

I saw your rating on the other post and I knew I had to come here. So we have another good western then? Great! I'll see if I find the time to see it. Doubtful though   :(


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on August 30, 2007, 09:16:39 AM
I saw your rating on the other post and I knew I had to come here. So we have another good western then? Great! I'll see if I find the time to see it. Doubtful though   :(

I think it was pretty damn good. I think I'll even like it better with repeated viewings. I love how it's not an exact remake of the original. It has it's similar scenes but like I said, it does some things quite different. Try to find time to see it!


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Kurug3n on September 01, 2007, 02:05:51 PM
I'm trying to decide wheather to watch this or Shoot Em Up :-\


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: The Peacemaker on September 01, 2007, 05:20:56 PM
I may go see this tomorrow.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on September 01, 2007, 11:23:42 PM
I'm trying to decide wheather to watch this or Shoot Em Up :-\

Watch this!


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Kurug3n on September 01, 2007, 11:41:40 PM
I dont know man.Its hard. I mean Christian Bale kicks ass but so does Clive Owen.Its going to be a tough decison. :-\


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: The Firecracker on September 02, 2007, 09:14:10 AM
I'm trying to decide wheather to watch this or Shoot Em Up :-\

Watch 3:10 then sneak into SHOOT EM UP.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on September 02, 2007, 09:36:59 AM
I dont know man.Its hard. I mean Christian Bale kicks ass but so does Clive Owen.Its going to be a tough decison. :-\

Clive Owen doesn't hold a candle to Chritian Bale. SEE THIS!!!


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Kurug3n on September 02, 2007, 11:37:05 AM
Watch 3:10 then sneak into SHOOT EM UP.

More than likely im going to go this route but Balls Of Fury takes all the revenue :'(


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: The Peacemaker on September 02, 2007, 12:38:08 PM
I'm going to see this tonight at 7:30!!!!!      :D     :D     :D


I'm SOOOO F*CKING EXCITED!!!!


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: The Firecracker on September 07, 2007, 10:14:55 PM
Saw it.

Pretty good up until the final 15 minutes.


SPOILER


I thought it stupid that Wade (Crowe) would sympathize with Batman and actually have Batman, willing, take him to the train with no fuss.


Also Batman should have psyched the henchmen out by claiming that he would have Crowe at gunpoint and if any trouble started he would kill him, this way we could have had a nice suspenseful journey to the station. Instead we get a mindless shootout with Crowe's own henchmen firing upon him.



SPOILER END.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: cigar joe on September 07, 2007, 10:28:02 PM
Might as well start an official thread on the remake.

<spoilers>



Dir. James Mangold

Starring:
 Russell Crowe ...  Ben Wade
 Christian Bale ...  Dan Evans
 Logan Lerman ...  William Evans
 Dallas Roberts ...  Grayson Butterfield
 Ben Foster ...  Charlie Prince
 Peter Fonda ...  Byron McElroy
 Vinessa Shaw ...  Emmy Nelson
 Alan Tudyk ...  Doc Potter
 Luce Rains ...  Marshal Weathers
 Gretchen Mol ...  Alice Evans

Just got back from the theater, audience was a mixed bag but I did notice a lot of gray haired folks, more than usual, the Western's demographic is definitely in evidence.

Over all first impression I'd say that this film was a 4/5, I liked it, it amped up the volume on the action from the original version emphasized different parts of the story while neglecting some others. Its definitely an improvement over the dialog driven TV Westerns of late.

But it did have a few faults which I'll enumerate later.

It starts out in the ranch house introducing the Evan's family, and this version has Evans with wooden leg which he lost in the Civil War.

The whole beginning stage coach hold up was very SW in feel and the action sequences during this were well done and exciting. Wade seeing the coach, despite the heavy attack upon it, beginning to pull away from his crew drives the Evans cattle herd into the road (like in the Original version) to stop it. Ben Foster as the creepy cold blooded gunslinger Charlie Prince dispatches the wounded.

The gang rides into Bisbee with their loot. Charlie Prince tells the sheriff about the hold up in the canyon and meets up in the with rest of the gang in the Saloon & their they splits their cash. Most then leave for the nearby Mexican Border. Ben Wade stays behind & seduces a willing Emmy Nelson the bargirl. They go upstairs, make & love.  The whole sequence of how Dan Evans & the town sheriff capture Wade in the saloon in this version is totally garbled, in the original it was crystal clear.

The Bisbee Sheriff, Butterfield, and Evans plan to take Wade to Contention City pulling a switcheroo (as in the original) at the Evans Ranch. A new twist for the story is having the oldest son of Evans join the party escourting Wade.

The new version spends a lot of time on the trail adding more action that is all pretty good also has an added sequence at the rail camp where a work crew is blasting tunnels for a new rail line.

At Contention the whole sequence of taking Wade from the Hotel to the Station was again amped up by the device of having Charlie Prince offer the town folk a bounty on the sheriffs posse (believeable?, no) but the result is a grand shootout as Evans & Wade make a run for the station.

The actual 3:10 coming into Contention was anticlimatic in this version.

Over all the town sets and costuming all looked fantastic

Flaws:

The biggest first, 40% of the movie was missing. I don't remember to much of a score and I sorely miss the hypnotizing spanish guitar from the original version. That was Wades leitmotif and this was a big mistake, it lent an extra dimension to all Wades dialogs & actions.

A bit PC, remember the original and the smoke filled bar, I don't think I saw anybody smoking, give me a break.

Initial Western Feel. The whole beginning Evans family sequence doesn't evoke "The West".  It needed an establishing landscape shot, then the Evans & just a bit more lingering on landscape shots it did have,  but the cutaways seemed to come to fast.

Chronologically it pushed the envelope a bit .  Evans looked what, 30 - 35 tops, he's supposed to have lost his leg during the Civil War, so he would have had to been young, 17, and the year 1864 at the time to make him 35 + by mid 1880's (when the Southern Pacific was running) its a minor quibble. They could just as easily have said he lost it in the Indian Wars.

The story line got garbled, it was crisp & clear and humorous (the bit with the town drunk) in the original version how Wade got captured this version fowled this up. I still think Ford & Farr did a better job with their sequence.

Both versions still suffer from the endings neither is all that satisfying or believeable but this new version has much more action. I would have thought though (from the prowess displayed by the marksman on Wades gang during the stagecoach holdup) that he would have easily snipered out Evans on his break for the station with Wade. It would have been better to do the break for the station the way it was done in "Last Train From Gun Hill" , ie. Evans holding a scatter gun under Wades chin.

It needed more train shots too, but thats me.




Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: cigar joe on September 07, 2007, 10:33:07 PM
agreed, it would have been better to do it like "Last Train From Gun Hill" with Evans holding a doublebarrel under his chin.

I made an official new entry on other films.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on September 07, 2007, 10:37:53 PM
Great in depth review cigar. I agree with a lot of what you said. I'm looking forward to seeing the film again to digest it better. I think I may like it better the second time. I gave the film an 8/10 though.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on September 07, 2007, 10:46:15 PM
I actually love the final 15 minutes, and I love the fact that it's not the same as the original.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: The Firecracker on September 07, 2007, 10:50:31 PM
As I stated elsewhere I didn't care for the final 15 minutes either.

No way Wade would allow Batman to take him to the train willingly.
And that whole chase through the roof top felt like something from an action adventure buddy movie.

The 200 dollars offered by Prince was stupid as well. Would the town's folk risk being hanged by firing at a marshall? Doubtful.
Also, why didn't the Marshall make a counter deal promising the town's folk DOUBLE the amount of cash Prince was offering to fire upon Wade's gang?

Batman should have told the gang that he would kill Wade if they fired upon him. We could have had a nice suspenseful march to the station (sweaty close-ups, tension) and THEN, possibly, had a shootout when Wade was already on the train.
Instead we get a mindless shootout all the way to the station.

I also agree with you CJ on the lack of cinematography. Their was only one good shot of landscapes and that was when Wade's gang is riding up a hill and a nice rock formation is in the background.


The thing to watch out for here is Ben Foster as Crowe's gay sidekick. That guy just eats up the scenery in every scene he's in.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on September 07, 2007, 10:56:05 PM
As I stated elsewhere I didn't care for the final 15 minutes either.

No way Wade would allow Batman to take him to the train willingly.
And that whole chase through the roof top felt like something from an action adventure buddy movie.

The 200 dollars offered by Prince was stupid as well. Would the town's folk risk being hanged by firing at a marshall? Doubtful.
Also, why didn't the Marshall make a counter deal promising the town's folk DOUBLE the amount of cash Prince was offering to fire upon Wade's gang?

Batman should have told the gang that he would kill Wade if they fired upon him. We could have had a nice suspenseful march to the station (sweaty close-ups, tension) and THEN, possibly, had a shootout when Wade was already on the train.
Instead we get a mindless shootout all the way to the station.

I also agree with you CJ on the lack of cinematography. Their was only one good shot of landscapes and that was when Wade's gang is riding up a hill and a nice rock formation is in the background.


The thing to watch out for here is Ben Foster as Crowe's gay sidekick. That guy just eats up the scenery in every scene he's in.

FC, the buddy, buddy situation was evident in the original though. They just took it to another level here. You had to change up things here to make the remake work. I have no problems with that. I do agree however with cigar about wanting more shots of the train. That would have been great.

I also don't find anything wrong with the cinematography. I found quite a few shots that were great to look at. Obviously Mangold went for the more action driven western, compared to the original. I liked how there were homages from the original film throughout the movie.

In short, Mangold made an above average remake. If it was to much like the original, it would have gotten horrible reviews. The change up of certain sequences, and Mangold's own take are why it's getting the positive reviews it's getting.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Kurug3n on September 07, 2007, 11:24:17 PM
My local newspaper gave it *1/2 stars ;D


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on September 07, 2007, 11:31:41 PM
My local newspaper gave it *1/2 stars ;D

wow, I'm surprised. Look at rottentomatoes.com. Mostly every major critic in the country is giving it positive reviews, not that I care anyway, but I like that it's getting some good press.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: The Firecracker on September 08, 2007, 12:01:12 AM
I didn't think it was bad, it just wasn't great.

I forgot to mention that awful CGI explosion during the stagecoach robbery. Yuck.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on September 08, 2007, 12:20:03 AM
I didn't think it was bad, it just wasn't great.

I forgot to mention that awful CGI explosion during the stagecoach robbery. Yuck.

Yeah, I understand what you're saying. Overall, it is not better than the original. We can agree with that. I think we all can so far.

You're right about that CGI explosion. Why does Hollywood continue to pass on realism. They should of had a real explosion!


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: cigar joe on September 08, 2007, 06:42:04 AM
Its also missing a memorable sound track, example when I first saw FFDM I was whistling the tune all the way back to the house. I can still remember the original's Spanish Guitar theme through out at this moment. Other than some quasi refrences to the sounds ofd SW's they minimized an important element IMOP.

All that said I still hope it makes a ton of mon.




Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on September 08, 2007, 09:14:59 AM
Its also missing a memorable sound track, example when I first saw FFDM I was whistling the tune all the way back to the house. I can still remember the original's Spanish Guitar theme through out at this moment. Other than some quasi refrences to the sounds ofd SW's they minimized an important element IMOP.

All that said I still hope it makes a ton of mon.




You just want everything spaghetti cigar, don't ya? ;)


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: The Peacemaker on September 08, 2007, 09:59:33 AM
I don't know, it sounds like nitpicking to me.

I felt that Wade going willingly to the station was very believable. He was about to kill Evans but he mentioned something about his kids not looking up to him. Remember Wade said that his parents left him as a child, that's why he went willingly with Dan.


Like I said, cinematography was far better in the original, but I think everything was well done in the remake. The CGI explosion had to be done because in that scene Peter Fonda shoots the dynamite on a horse with a guy riding it. Using real explosives for a scene like that is way too risky, especially with the animal cruelty laws.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on September 08, 2007, 10:07:04 AM
I don't know, it sounds like nitpicking to me.

I felt that Wade going willingly to the station was very believable. He was about to kill Evans but he mentioned something about his kids not looking up to him. Remember Wade said that his parents left him as a child, that's why he went willingly with Dan.


Like I said, cinematography was far better in the original, but I think everything was well done in the remake. The CGI explosion had to be done because in that scene Peter Fonda shoots the dynamite on a horse with a guy riding it. Using real explosives for a scene like that is way too risky, especially with the animal cruelty laws.

Overall, I agree with you Peacemaker. The problem with a lot of people here, is that they want a full blown spaghetti western. That's just not going to happen. Besides, the majority of spags are horrible anyway. There's only a handful of special one's. This film was an above average western film with more than one standout performances. The direction was also stellar. There is a little nitpicking going on here.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: cigar joe on September 08, 2007, 10:42:01 AM
Quote
The problem with a lot of people here, is that they want a full blown spaghetti western. That's just not going to happen

Who the F is talking about a full blown SW? If you are going to remake it why leave out 40% of what made the original great, hell you could have had that and the amped up action, no?

I'd be happy with a full blown Wild Bunch, lol.

I just originally in my post stated that Leone said that a film is 40% sountrack. Then I just mentioned FAFDM as an example, comparing it to the great spanish guitar tune that complemented the original 3:10 to Yuma from practically beginning to end. This new version has no memorable soundtrack.

This is not nitpicking, they did F up the the capture of Wade sequence, that was pretty straight forward & simple in the original.

Its a good worthy shot at a Western but its not a Classic.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on September 08, 2007, 10:46:32 AM
Who the F is talking about a full blown SW?

I just originally in my post stated that Leone said that a film is 40% sountrack. Then I just mentioned FAFDM as an example comparing it to the great spanish guitar tune that complemented the original 3:10 to Yuma. This new version has no memorable soundtrack.

This is not nitpicking, they did F up the the capture of Wade sequence, that was pretty straightdorward & simple in the original.

Its a good worthy shot at a Western but its not a Classic.

HAHAHA, you're hilarious cigar. "Who the F is talking about a full blown spag." I love your comebacks buddy. I'm just saying cigar, it looks like some people are heavily critical about westerns that are not of Leone's direction.

I don't think we know yet if this remake is a classic or not yet. I have to see it multiple times, or revisit it years from now to make that assumption. I enjoyed it quite a bit the first time so that's a good sign to me. It's not however, better than the original. The original had this hypnotic qaulity to it that was hard to surpass. It was a mixture of noir and western which I loved!


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: cigar joe on September 08, 2007, 10:54:21 AM
I'll be the first to say that they are both flawed.

The ending of the original wasn't that believeable that is the biggest flaw.

The remake amps up the action which is good (loved the sound of the gunshots) but makes the same mistake and some others and leaves out the guitar riff sound track.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on September 08, 2007, 10:57:58 AM
I'll be the first to say that they are both flawed.

The ending of the original wasn't that believeable that is the biggest flaw.

The remake amps up the action which is good (loved the sound of the gunshots) but makes the same mistake and some others and leaves out the guitar riff sound track.

I agree with you about the original's ending. It was rushed, and should have been thought out a bit better. The ending is surely flawed. I just love the camera work and photography of the original. That stands out the most. I think we can both agree there. Also, the soundtrack is memorable which helps it's case even more.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: dave jenkins on September 08, 2007, 12:58:24 PM

The 200 dollars offered by Prince was stupid as well. Would the town's folk risk being hanged by firing at a marshall? Doubtful.
Also, why didn't the Marshall make a counter deal promising the town's folk DOUBLE the amount of cash Prince was offering to fire upon Wade's gang?
It's even stupider than that. The gang rides into town and sets up under the hotel window from which five armed men are overwatching. The gang are murderers, wanted men, known to law enforcement officers. The men in the hotel room include three peace officers. They have every legal and moral right to open up on the gang as soon as they appear. They also have the advantage of higher ground. No additional advantage can be gained by delaying. It is the height of idiocy that the men in the hotel room don't immediately start firing on the gang below! Further, even if they were to delay, the moment the gang starts offering the 200 dollar bounty the lawmen would begin firing just to shut the men up and discourage takers. But the men in the hotel room are completely passive. Yet this is just one stupidity in a sequence of hundreds in this stupid movie.

Equally stupid things happen on the trail from the farm to Contention. The group leaves at night, under cover of darkness. Presumably, speed and concealment are the two things the party is most concerned with. In the very next scene, however, we see them lounging about by a campfire. Why have they stopped? They want to make time, and they should want to do it in the dark. Also, stopping means having to put a watch on Wade while the others sleep. For some reason, Wade is allowed freedom of movement throughout the night (his manacled hands aren't much inconvenienced). Then, only one man is left to watch the notorious killer (a union rule?). In the morning, the watchman is dead. Incredibly, the men just write him off and proceed with their journey! All psychological plausibility goes out of the movie at that point. If you are traveling with a murderer, and he murders one of your company, you just don't continue on with the status quo ante. You reassess the situation. In the present case, you realize that getting the guy to Yuma may not be do-able, that even with your full crew it was gonna be tough, but now with one man short it is likely impossible. The guy who decided Wade had to go to Yuma (and who is bankrolling the expedition) is along, and therefore should call an audible. Even if he doesn't, the rest of the crew should prevail upon him to change the terms of the expedition. They should realize that all their lives are likely forfeit if Wade continues to live. They should do the rational thing: kill Wade on the spot.

Instead, they go merrily on their way, allowing Wade to kill again. Even then the group doesn't learn.

Then there is the "shortcut" through the pass, which we are told is controlled by hostile Indians. This shortcut requires another night and another campfire. What the f***?

Then there's the stupid digression with the mining camp. What the f***?

Finally, reaching Contention, more stupidities abound, as cited above (but not exhaustively. It would take 2 pages of text to enumerate all the idiotic things that occur there).

The original film was not flawless. It had great style and a good set-up, but the story turned stupid at the end. One problem was with the basic concept: waiting for a train. If you are traveling with a prisoner, the only reason to take him to a hotel is to conceal him. The moment his whereabouts is known, the hotel is a liability. You have enormous blind spots in a hotel room, and your mobility is compromised. Also, getting the guy from the hotel to the depot is something of a problem (as we see). Better to forget the hotel and go straight to the depot. Who cares if there aren't enough chairs for everyone, at least you have clear fields of fire in all directions.

But why wait for the train at all? Such a tactic fixes you in place, and allows the gang to catch up. A more prudent course would be to ride up the line toward the oncoming train and hail it as it approaches. You keep ahead of the outlaws, and then gain an earlier speed advantage. Also, why not use the telegraph and call for reinforcements? Maybe Contention is a worthless town, but why wouldn't there be towns up and down the line where reliable helpers could be recruited? Why not contact the army? They too have an interest in seeing Wade and his gang brought to justice.

If you do a remake of a film, you should set out to improve on the original. In the case of 3:10, a serious revision in the plot was called for. The remakers not only didn't fix the old problems, they created hundreds more. I'm really disappointed that they didn't adopt the obvious solution: put the good guys on the train early, and then have Wade's gang try to stop it. A running train battle would have been cool. The most important thing, though, would have been to have characters acting like rational beings, not pawns in a stupid plot. This remake gets 1/5, as do all stupid films.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on September 08, 2007, 01:11:42 PM
My god, it's just a movie!!!


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Kurug3n on September 08, 2007, 01:13:36 PM
DJ, thats a great evaluation ;D ;D a 1/5 movie out a 5/5 evaluation O0


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: The Firecracker on September 08, 2007, 01:45:12 PM
This reviewer sites some more stupidity that I (and everybody else) has failed to mention yet...


"Probably the worst 1950s movie that gets mistaken for a great Western, "3:10 to Yuma" truly made such other self-important "meaningful" oaters as "High Noon" and "Shane" look hard-bitten and exciting.

James Mangold's "3:10" remake is in practically every way superior to Delmar Daves' stagey old snooze.

There's a whole lot more action in the new one, nicely mounted (if often incomprehensible).

The acting is much better, too, although we must concede that it's a break-even deal regarding the main bad guy, Ben Wade. Russell Crowe is his reliably fearsome, charming, deeply complex self in the new movie, but the insinuating, unpredictable outlaw was arguably mediocre movie star Glenn Ford's finest performance, and is surely the only thing about the first film that makes it worth viewing today.

And while they've kept the best parts of Elmore Leonard's source story and Halsted Welles' screenplay, this one's adapters - Michael Brandt and Derek Haas - have greatly improved dialogue; worked in engaging new characters, situations and themes; and have come up with a way of making the thing, well, move. The core psychological tussle between the captured Wade and his only dedicated guard, Dan Evans (Christian Bale), in an Arizona hotel room is still the key dramatic element of the piece. It's just not half the movie anymore.

For all of these things, Mangold ("Walk the Line") and his team are to be congratulated. Too bad that, for all its good intentions, the "Yuma" remake left its cowboy logic back at the station.

For those who don't know the plot: Failing rancher Evans helps capture Wade after the latter's gang robs a stagecoach outside of Bisbee. For reasons that actually make more sense in the first film, the town authorities defer lynching the storied badman and plot to escort him to the railhead in Contention, where they can then put him on the title train to the territorial prison and a proper trial.

In the original, Van Heflin's Evans and the town drunk ride the handcuffed Wade to Contention offscreen, and then we're stuck in that hotel forever. The idea here was to show the harrowing horseback journey from Bisbee across hostile Indian territory with Wade's gang (led by an enjoyably psycho lieutenant played by the increasingly impressive Ben Foster) in nerve-racking pursuit. Mangold also makes the posse transporting Wade much larger.

But that just gives the clever villain - whom everybody says time and again is as dangerously deceptive as he is ruthless - chances to kill most of them. Which he does because these ad hoc deputies don't tie him up well enough. Even though most of them make their livings being, well, cowboys - a profession you just don't last in if you're not really good with ropes.

It may seem like a minor flaw to harp on, but when you're dealing with a piece that, in both versions, depends on highly questionable behavioral 180s for its climactic effect, earlier lapses in believability just contribute to the head scratching. And the "tie this s.o.b. up better" complaint isn't the good guys' only judgment lapse (if Wade ate dinner at my place, for instance, you can bet I'd count the silverware afterward).

That said, the new version fleshes out Evans' motivating demons, employs his oldest son (Logan Lerman) much more extensively and interestingly and gives us a lot more back story - if not, ultimately, persuasive insight - on Wade. Mangold also makes the railroad a bigger, more symbolic element. Most fans will just be happy, though, that the new "3:10 to Yuma" fires about 5,000 more rounds than the dull earlier edition did".



Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on September 08, 2007, 02:11:27 PM
Hey FC or cigar. Which trailers were attached to 3:10 to Yuma?


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: cigar joe on September 08, 2007, 02:32:21 PM
American Gangster is all I remember for trailer

I think there were too many new characters in the New Version unlike the reviewer FC posted.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: The Firecracker on September 08, 2007, 02:38:46 PM
Hey FC or cigar. Which trailers were attached to 3:10 to Yuma?


Is this some sort of test to see if we saw the movie or not?


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on September 08, 2007, 02:40:49 PM

Is this some sort of test to see if we saw the movie or not?

No not at all. I know you seen the movie. I just was wondering what trailers were attached. I love trailers and was just curious. I'm going again tonight and was wondering if they previewed anything I'm interested in seeing.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: The Firecracker on September 08, 2007, 02:42:58 PM
No not at all. I know you seen the movie. I just was wondering what trailers were attached. I love trailers and was just curious. I'm going again tonight and was wondering if they previewed anything I'm interested in seeing.



The only thing I remember is a that Tommy Lee Jones movie about Iraq.
Looks like a snoozer.
"Valley of something or other".


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on September 08, 2007, 02:43:54 PM


The only thing I remember is a that Tommy Lee Jones movie about Iraq.
Looks like a snoozer.
"Valley of something or other".

Oh, ok. Thanks FC!


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: titoli on September 08, 2007, 04:13:59 PM
Quote
when I first saw FFDM I was whistling the tune all the way back to the house.

You just picked one from a bunch, uh? I think it's unfair to compare anybody to EM, maybe even the Maestro himself couldn't come up now with something on that level. I rememeber going outside of the theatre whistling the McGregor's march and Companeros. But how long since one did that?

Anyway I won't go to see this at the theatre, will wait for the dvd. And I haven't got much expectations anyway by reading this thread. And what about the match Crowe and that modest film-star, what's his name? Ah...John Ford?


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on September 08, 2007, 04:16:52 PM
You just picked one from a bunch, uh? I think it's unfair to compare anybody to EM, maybe even the Maestro himself couldn't come up now with something on that level. I rememeber going outside of the theatre whistling the McGregor's march and Companeros. But how long since one did that?

Anyway I won't go to see this at the theatre, will wait for the dvd. And I haven't got much expectations anyway by reading this thread. And what about the match Crowe and that modest film-star, what's his name? Ah...John Ford?

Go see the film titoli!


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: dave jenkins on September 08, 2007, 04:24:01 PM


The only thing I remember is a that Tommy Lee Jones movie about Iraq.
Looks like a snoozer.
"Valley of something or other".
Elah.

The only interesting trailer was for American Gangster, but I already saw that at The Bourne Thirdium.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: dave jenkins on September 08, 2007, 04:24:46 PM
My god, it's just a movie!!!
Step outside, TB. Them's fightin' words.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: The Peacemaker on September 08, 2007, 05:02:54 PM

Its a good worthy shot at a Western but its not a Classic.

I can definitely agree with that.


I think the ending to the remake is far more believable than the original.

The only thing I thought was stupid in the remake was the offer of 200 dollars to anyone in town who killed the marshall and his posse. It was obvious that the number of interested townspeople outnumbered the 7 man gang, so why not just kill them and take the money plus any reward that's offered for them?


Rather stupid, but the rest of the movie made up for it IMO. I really thought it was much better than the original.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: The Firecracker on September 08, 2007, 05:26:50 PM
I'm argueing with some nimrod (on another site) who claims that the soundtrack for this is just like Morricone.


WTF? ::)


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: The Peacemaker on September 08, 2007, 05:27:19 PM
WTF? ::)

WTF indeed.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: dave jenkins on September 08, 2007, 05:54:53 PM
Rather stupid, but the rest of the movie made up for it IMO. I really thought it was much better than the original.

The remake is completely lacking in any identifiable style, while the original oozes cinematic artistry. I detail some of the techniques in Daves' film that Leone later adopted and adapted over at the 30 Westerns in Once thread. The original uses very fluid camera movements, including some impressive crane shots. The new one uses standard staccato-like montage, making it difficult to follow the action. A paucity of master shots also makes it difficult to place the setting of some events. A really slap-dash effort.

A poster at IMDB does a good job singing the pictorial praises of the original:

Quote
I normally don't comment on movies others have already commented on, but this one's been really bother me because no one really noted just how outstanding the cinematic compositions are. They're eye-poppingly gorgeous and remind me of a western Citizen Kane. In some scenes the Deep Focus technique (lots of hot light so that the background is in sharp focus) is outstanding. The artistry is almost out of place in this exciting but preposterously noirish western. There doesn't seem to be anything else in Lawton's repertoire (maybe parts of Two Rode Together?) as good, but director Daves' respect for good pictorials is evident in most of his efforts.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: cigar joe on September 08, 2007, 08:22:26 PM
I still hope the remake makes a ton of cash and gets a Western trend jumpstarted, it would be interesting to see what follows.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on September 08, 2007, 08:31:09 PM
Step outside, TB. Them's fightin' words.

hahaha!

I just got back from viewing this a second time, and I have to say, I don't agree with some of you even more. This was even better the second time. What this film has going for it, just like the original, is that it has heart. There were some great scenes between Dan Evans (Christian Bale) and his wife Alice Evans (Gretchen Mol) and his two sons, especially William Evans (Logan Lerman). I thought some of these scenes were heartfelt and touching, and were a great offset to the action scenes which were done extremely well.

How can a film that has countless great performances just be OK? Well, it's not just ok, this is a damn good western, and the critics all over the country have got it right. Finally, I agree with them for the most part! Also, I liked the score even more the second time. Some of you have mentioned that it does not have a memorable score. Well, I have to disagree. It doesn't have to be LOUD, Thrilling, or overly touching to be memorable. Some of the soft, subtle music during some of the dramatic sequences was composed beautifully by Marco Beltrami.

The ending, come on, how can you not like the ending. I think some of the complaints here are just nitpicking and down right ridiculous in my humble opinion. I loved the change up compared to the original, and I loved the fact that it had some shocking moments. If you would just listen and pay attention to some of these exchanges between some of these characters during some crucial scenes between BALE AND CROWE you would understand why BEN WADE did what he did. It wasn't outrageous that he wanted to help Dan be a hero, and someone for his son's to look up to. If you heard what Ben Wade was telling Dan Evans about his parents, you would fully understand it. Deep down in this man their was a heart, and some good in him and I love what came of his character. Great ending, even better the second time!

This is a film that will get better with age, and it's definitely one of the best westerns to come around in a long time. If the film had the director's names LEONE, CORBUCCI, or SOLIMA stamped on it, many of you would think differently, I have no doubts about that!!!! :)


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: lovelyrita on September 08, 2007, 09:36:43 PM
I haven't been on this board in a while and thought I would check it out tonight. I too just got home from seeing 3:10 to Yuma. I am puzzled by a few responses. I have to agree with TB on this one. It was a good movie. I also saw the original and the original may not have been a "great" western in terms of Leone but it had heart and so does this one. The ending was implausible, yes, but so what!!!!!!! It made its point and it was done well. AND Wade did let some light in by realizing that Dan's boy needed his father to be a hero.
The acting was powerful. Yes Crowe and Bale are amazing in their own right but Ben Foster nearly upstages them. Truthfully there wasn't a bad performance, well except Luke Wilson, I think he may have shown up on the wrong movie set but other than that it was really good and I am glad I went to see it.  Marigold did a fine job. I think TB is correct when he states that if this film had CORBUCCI, or SOLIMA or yes LEONE you would have looked at it differently.

I was reading about the movie and found this and thought it sums up what I am trying to say..


Capsule
The Associated Press   

"3:10 to Yuma" — You hear that a movie like "3:10 to Yuma" is being remade and the immediate reaction is, "Why?" The original 1957 Western, about an intellectual outlaw and the indebted rancher who's volunteered to help deliver him to prison, was solid and still holds up well today. So it's a wonderful surprise to discover that this new version, starring Russell Crowe and Christian Bale and directed by James Mangold, not only remains true to its roots but expands on them in ways that are thrilling and thoroughly entertaining. Moviegoers aren't exactly clamoring for the Western these days, and a master work of the genre hasn't come along since "Unforgiven," but the acting is so powerful and the craftsmanship is so superb, it's bound to draw fans both old and new, and deservedly so."
 


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Silenzio on September 08, 2007, 10:44:07 PM
I thought this was basically taking the original script and tossing it into a blender of revisionism.

It's still very good, though.  Great action, good cinematography (obviously doesn't live up to the original) and great perfomances (obviously doesn't live up to the original).


I don't know what to think of the new ending.   :-\ It's a product of the revisionist blender.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: cigar joe on September 09, 2007, 07:31:21 AM
Its an exciting Western for those that aren't that familiar with the Genre, I'll give it that much.

Capsule
The Associated Press   

"3:10 to Yuma" — You hear that a movie like "3:10 to Yuma" is being remade and the immediate reaction is, "Why?" The original 1957 Western, about an intellectual outlaw and the indebted rancher who's volunteered to help deliver him to prison, was solid and still holds up well today. So it's a wonderful surprise to discover that this new version, starring Russell Crowe and Christian Bale and directed by James Mangold, not only remains true to its roots but expands on them in ways that are thrilling and thoroughly entertaining. Moviegoers aren't exactly clamoring for the Western these days, and a master work of the genre hasn't come along since "Unforgiven," but the acting is so powerful and the craftsmanship is so superb, it's bound to draw fans both old and new, and deservedly so."

It defies logic see below, but its definitely a hit in the midless entertainment catagory I'll agree to that  O0


Put you brain in gear TB and answer some of these postings of dave jenkins with some logical explanations:

It's even stupider than that. The gang rides into town and sets up under the hotel window from which five armed men are overwatching. The gang are murderers, wanted men, known to law enforcement officers. The men in the hotel room include three peace officers. They have every legal and moral right to open up on the gang as soon as they appear. They also have the advantage of higher ground. No additional advantage can be gained by delaying. It is the height of idiocy that the men in the hotel room don't immediately start firing on the gang below! Further, even if they were to delay, the moment the gang starts offering the 200 dollar bounty the lawmen would begin firing just to shut the men up and discourage takers. But the men in the hotel room are completely passive. Yet this is just one stupidity in a sequence of hundreds in this stupid movie.

Equally stupid things happen on the trail from the farm to Contention. The group leaves at night, under cover of darkness. Presumably, speed and concealment are the two things the party is most concerned with. In the very next scene, however, we see them lounging about by a campfire. Why have they stopped? They want to make time, and they should want to do it in the dark. Also, stopping means having to put a watch on Wade while the others sleep. For some reason, Wade is allowed freedom of movement throughout the night (his manacled hands aren't much inconvenienced). Then, only one man is left to watch the notorious killer (a union rule?). In the morning, the watchman is dead. Incredibly, the men just write him off and proceed with their journey! All psychological plausibility goes out of the movie at that point. If you are traveling with a murderer, and he murders one of your company, you just don't continue on with the status quo ante. You reassess the situation. In the present case, you realize that getting the guy to Yuma may not be do-able, that even with your full crew it was gonna be tough, but now with one man short it is likely impossible. The guy who decided Wade had to go to Yuma (and who is bankrolling the expedition) is along, and therefore should call an audible. Even if he doesn't, the rest of the crew should prevail upon him to change the terms of the expedition. They should realize that all their lives are likely forfeit if Wade continues to live. They should do the rational thing: kill Wade on the spot.

Instead, they go merrily on their way, allowing Wade to kill again. Even then the group doesn't learn.

Then there is the "shortcut" through the pass, which we are told is controlled by hostile Indians. This shortcut requires another night and another campfire. What the f***?

Then there's the stupid digression with the mining camp. What the f***?

Finally, reaching Contention, more stupidities abound, as cited above (but not exhaustively. It would take 2 pages of text to enumerate all the idiotic things that occur there).

The original film was not flawless. It had great style and a good set-up, but the story turned stupid at the end. One problem was with the basic concept: waiting for a train. If you are traveling with a prisoner, the only reason to take him to a hotel is to conceal him. The moment his whereabouts is known, the hotel is a liability. You have enormous blind spots in a hotel room, and your mobility is compromised. Also, getting the guy from the hotel to the depot is something of a problem (as we see). Better to forget the hotel and go straight to the depot. Who cares if there aren't enough chairs for everyone, at least you have clear fields of fire in all directions.

But why wait for the train at all? Such a tactic fixes you in place, and allows the gang to catch up. A more prudent course would be to ride up the line toward the oncoming train and hail it as it approaches. You keep ahead of the outlaws, and then gain an earlier speed advantage. Also, why not use the telegraph and call for reinforcements? Maybe Contention is a worthless town, but why wouldn't there be towns up and down the line where reliable helpers could be recruited? Why not contact the army? They too have an interest in seeing Wade and his gang brought to justice.

If you do a remake of a film, you should set out to improve on the original. In the case of 3:10, a serious revision in the plot was called for. The remakers not only didn't fix the old problems, they created hundreds more. I'm really disappointed that they didn't adopt the obvious solution: put the good guys on the train early, and then have Wade's gang try to stop it. A running train battle would have been cool. The most important thing, though, would have been to have characters acting like rational beings, not pawns in a stupid plot. This remake gets 1/5, as do all stupid films.


I just found a post describing the Elmore Leonard short story (its only 12 pages) interesting info.

The names of the Ford and Heflin characters are different in the 1953 story, but some of the minor character's names (Bob Moons and Charlie Prince) are the same. The women of the film are absent in the short story.

Heflin's character in the story is a marshall, though. Ford's character is age 21. Much of the story's dialouge remains in the movie (which was also written by Elmore Leonard). The ending is similar to the movie, but not quite the same.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: cigar joe on September 09, 2007, 07:47:26 AM
lovelyrita a question, since you've seen both, one of the outstanding scenes in the original was the seduction sequence between Ford & Felicia Farr, it gave us power of the Wade character's charm & charisma and was enchanced by the spanish guitar riff, and it resurfaced later at the Evans ranch. Do you honsetly think that this (2007 film) did that better?




Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on September 09, 2007, 09:17:24 AM
Put my brain in gear and answer some of these postings of dave jenkins with some logical explanations???

Cigar, that does not make any sense whatsoever. It's a damn movie for god sakes, and a damn good western at that. I don't need to read what jenkins broke down and think it's fact. It's his opinion and yours. There are so many western films, great one's that defy logic, so many. Some of you act like this is just a shoot 'em up action western with no brain or heart. I just feel you're wrong and way off base.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: cigar joe on September 09, 2007, 09:36:53 AM
I'm sorry but for me to fully enjoy a Western it has to be plausably believeable, I'm not asking for too much, I'm not talking in absolutes I'm just saying basic no brainer logical actions were not though out.

Its only good for mindless entertainment.

Its like you are saying hey look at the shinny things over here, and forget if it actually makes sence. We are talking about an action western not a Wild Wild West, or a High Plains Drifter,


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on September 09, 2007, 09:41:47 AM
I'm sorry but for me to fully enjoy a Western it has to be plausably believeable, I'm not asking for too much, I'm not talking in absolutes I'm just saying basic no brainer logical actions were not though out.

Its only good for mindless entertainment.

Its like you are saying hey look at the shinny things over here, and forget if it actually makes sence. We are talking about an action western not a Wild Wild West, or a High Plains Drifter,

You don't need to apologize my friend. I'm not taking it personal at what you're saying, I'm just saying in my opinion, the film was more than a basic no brainer actionier western. The film had a lot of drama filled sequences throughout. The action just stood out because it was amped up compared to the original. Westerns like Tombstone and Young Guns for that matter, had way more mindless action than this. I'm just using those two films as an example.

Also, you know I'm not sitting here claiming it's a masterpiece. I'm just saying I liked it a lot, and I think it's above average.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: The Peacemaker on September 09, 2007, 09:44:02 AM
and great perfomances (obviously doesn't live up to the original).


You must be joking. You're going to tell me that Van Heflin did a better performance than Christian Bale? C'mon.




Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Silenzio on September 09, 2007, 09:46:24 AM

You must be joking. You're going to tell me that Van Heflin did a better performance than Christian Bale? C'mon.




You're going to sit there and tell me that Russel Crowe did a better job than Glenn Ford?  No way.




And Christian Bale wasn't that great in my opinion.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on September 09, 2007, 09:46:53 AM

You must be joking. You're going to tell me that Van Heflin did a better performance than Christian Bale? C'mon.




Thank you!!! This is exactly my point. Another step up from the original. Heflin although a good actor, was not better than Bale's portrayal.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: dave jenkins on September 09, 2007, 09:53:18 AM
hahaha!

I just got back from viewing this a second time, and I have to say, I don't agree with some of you even more. This was even better the second time. What this film has going for it, just like the original, is that it has heart.

This is a film that will get better with age, and it's definitely one of the best westerns to come around in a long time. If the film had the director's names LEONE, CORBUCCI, or SOLIMA stamped on it, many of you would think differently, I have no doubts about that!!!! :)
Yeah, we'd be thinking "Fraud!"

A film can have all the heart in the world, but if it doesn't have "head" as well, it' a complete waste of my time.

Hey, CJ, tell me more about the original story.....


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: The Peacemaker on September 09, 2007, 09:53:45 AM
You're going to sit there and tell me that Russel Crowe did a better job than Glenn Ford? 


They both did very well. I can't decide on that one because both Ford and Crowe did an excellent job.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: The Peacemaker on September 09, 2007, 10:00:26 AM
There are a lot of old movies that defy logic too but nobody points that out and criticizes that film just because it's "classic" and has to be good.

Then there are some people who can't accept the fact that deep down inside they really think the remake might be better than an original just because "all new movies are stupid and must be bad."


I wish some people could be a bit more open-minded.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Silenzio on September 09, 2007, 10:02:21 AM
There are a lot of old movies that defy logic too but nobody points that out and criticizes that film just because it's "classic" and has to be good.

Then there are some people who can't accept the fact that deep down inside they really think the remake might be better than an original just because "all new movies are stupid and must be bad."


I wish some people could be a bit more open-minded.

The only people here who have criticised the logic also are very open about criticising the classics.  Especially Dave Jenkins.


And I personally did not find any logical problems distracting.  The movie was very entertaining.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: The Peacemaker on September 09, 2007, 10:05:07 AM
The only people here who have criticised the logic also are very open about criticising the classics.  Especially Dave Jenkins.


I wasn't talking about anyone particular here. I actually had many of the people at imdb in mind.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Silenzio on September 09, 2007, 10:08:36 AM

I wasn't talking about anyone particular here. I actually had many of the people at imdb in mind.


Oh, I gotcha.

IMDb is the hell of the internet.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: The Peacemaker on September 09, 2007, 10:09:45 AM
Oh, I gotcha.

IMDb is the hell of the internet.

If you go to the original 3:10 to Yuma board, all you see is "I'm not going to even bother to watch the remake because it HAS to suck."


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Silenzio on September 09, 2007, 10:13:19 AM
Psssssssssssht.












But no way in hell am I going to watch the remake of: Seven Samurai, Ikiru, or The Wild Bunch.

Maybe Rififi, because it has Al Pacino.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: cigar joe on September 09, 2007, 10:15:19 AM
Quote
Hey, CJ, tell me more about the original story.....

I've never read it, I just found that posted by somebody who did read it, what I posted.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Cusser on September 09, 2007, 10:29:08 AM
OK, saw this last night, was OK, glad I went. 

(1) However, Dan sure did well with his artificial leg, could ride, could run, too bad today';s doctors can't do as well.  And speaking of that, what wonder drugs did they give Peter Fonda, what an amazingly quick recovery.  Factual record is that oftentimes those shot in arms or legs lost them (like Al Mulock in GBU) and if shot in trunk they usually died (Cheyenne).  But Fonda seemed fully recovered in a few hours (that vet must've made Dan's leg, a worker of miracles).

(2) And did that guy in the wagon really think that telling the gang where Wade was would save him?  What a doofus !

(3) I never would've given Wade any dining utensils, no matter how strict the wife was for "protocol". And I never would've let Wade NOT have his hands schackled behind his back.  He's a killer, let him piss and crap in his pants, not their problem.  And after he forked the guy, I would've killed him right there.

(4) Yes, as someone else posted, I would've met the train up-track, that was dumb.

(5) And sitting by the campfires - sure, lets the gang or the Indians get better aim, of course.

(6) And the doctor being a veterinarian (reminded me of the engineer being for toy planes in Flight of the Phoenix original) no big surprise.  And the old "pat yourself on your back and you die" was used with him.

But entertaining, hope more westerns are made.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on September 09, 2007, 10:52:54 AM
There are a lot of old movies that defy logic too but nobody points that out and criticizes that film just because it's "classic" and has to be good.

Then there are some people who can't accept the fact that deep down inside they really think the remake might be better than an original just because "all new movies are stupid and must be bad."


I wish some people could be a bit more open-minded.

You make some great points Peace. It seems in this day and age, many people automatically put down western films before they're even released. I'm not saying that's the case with people here, I just mean overall. Everyone automatically assumes they'll be terrible when that's just not the case.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Silenzio on September 09, 2007, 11:13:04 AM
NUMBER ONE AT THE BOX OFFICE! (http://www.imdb.com/chart/)


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on September 09, 2007, 11:14:21 AM
NUMBER ONE AT THE BOX OFFICE! (http://lhttp://www.imdb.com/chart/)

That's great news!!! Look forward to more westerns! :)


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: cigar joe on September 09, 2007, 11:39:01 AM
I agree, maybe we'll get a few originals out of what may come. O0

I bet there was a cut scene that ties in at the very end. When Wade is about to be transported and he's about to get on his horse the......












spoilers












forked guy says to him no, "that's my horse now". I could almost bet there was a scene where Wade whistles and his horse throws the guy. That would set up the the end whistle he gives to his horse.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: The Peacemaker on September 09, 2007, 01:01:43 PM
NUMBER ONE AT THE BOX OFFICE! (http://www.imdb.com/chart/)

YES!


Maybe we'll get some more westerns! God willing, maybe this will start a trend.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Groggy on September 09, 2007, 01:20:04 PM
Just read Ebert's review, he gave it four stars and said that it was better than the original. I might want to go see it, but I probably won't be able to for a couple of weeks.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: The Firecracker on September 09, 2007, 01:37:39 PM
NUMBER ONE AT THE BOX OFFICE! (http://www.imdb.com/chart/)



Don't cheer yet. It still has to make back the 50 million it cost.

 And being in competition with another mindless action movie (SHOOT EM UP), that hardly anybody saw because they didn't know what to think of it (fun film by the way, I urge everybody to go see it) I wouldn't say this was much of a victory...
but victory all the same though.


My final say on the remake is... Pretty good. Nothing to write home about.
No classic, no masterpiece and I don't plan to buy it when it hits dvd shelves because I can't really see replay value in it (maybe one more time in the theatre for me and that's it).
For those on the board who haven't seen it, go watch it. You'll have a good time.


EDIT: Forgot what I thought about the acting.


Crowe was good.

Foster was the best performance

And I thought very little of Batman. This movie sealed it for me. He's a bore.



Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Kurug3n on September 09, 2007, 01:57:06 PM
$14.1 Million isn't that great :-\


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: The Firecracker on September 09, 2007, 02:02:01 PM
$14.1 Million isn't that great :-\


Well anything with a "million" at the end of it I'll take, but for a movie that cost 50 million to make? No it isn't the best news for the studios. At least I would think.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Kurug3n on September 09, 2007, 02:16:46 PM
So basically if this movie doesn't make what it earns then the western genre is going to flatline unless The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford makes money which i doubt since its limited release.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: lovelyrita on September 09, 2007, 02:27:22 PM
lovelyrita a question, since you've seen both, one of the outstanding scenes in the original was the seduction sequence between Ford & Felicia Farr, it gave us power of the Wade character's charm & charisma and was enchanced by the spanish guitar riff, and it resurfaced later at the Evans ranch. Do you honsetly think that this (2007 film) did that better?



Joe, I agree the original seduction scene was outstanding. The way Glenn Ford as Ben leaned into Felicia Farr as Emmy was almost erotic.  Listening to the Spanish Guitar Riff it did indeed give us the magnitude of Ben's charm. The whole scene gave me goosbumps. What I loved about this scene in the original was the mystery. Unfortunately it is 50 years later and not much is left to the imagination. So to answer your question yes the original did it better.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: The Firecracker on September 09, 2007, 02:28:55 PM
So basically if this movie doesn't make what it earns then the western genre is going to flatline

Well I don't know. I just know that if a film doesn't make back the money it costs then it's a failure.

It won't be much of a blow. How much more beatings can the genre take already?
It's been flatlined for years.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: The Peacemaker on September 09, 2007, 02:29:00 PM
So basically if this movie doesn't make what it earns then the western genre is going to flatline unless The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford makes money which i doubt since its limited release.

I can tell already that the Assassination of Jesse James is not going to make any money. The title is a big turn-off, there's no advertisement, and the trailer makes it look like a talkie.


Anyway, it's just the first weekend. Give 3:10 to Yuma a little time. I'm sure it will make 50 million in the end.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: The Firecracker on September 09, 2007, 02:30:48 PM
Any flop makes it's money back on dvd anyway.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on September 09, 2007, 03:50:08 PM
I don't agree with you about your assumption FC about this not being a classic. How can you assume that right now? It's a damn good western, and I'm definitely adding this baby to my collection! It deserves it. It has a lot of elements that are better than the original. Who's to say it's not going to be a classic years from now?!

If any of you have not seen this yet. Treat yourself and GO! Great film.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: dave jenkins on September 09, 2007, 05:49:36 PM

(1) However, Dan sure did well with his artificial leg, could ride, could run, too bad today';s doctors can't do as well.  And speaking of that, what wonder drugs did they give Peter Fonda, what an amazingly quick recovery.  Factual record is that oftentimes those shot in arms or legs lost them (like Al Mulock in GBU) and if shot in trunk they usually died (Cheyenne).  But Fonda seemed fully recovered in a few hours (that vet must've made Dan's leg, a worker of miracles).

(2) And did that guy in the wagon really think that telling the gang where Wade was would save him?  What a doofus !

(3) I never would've given Wade any dining utensils, no matter how strict the wife was for "protocol". And I never would've let Wade NOT have his hands schackled behind his back.  He's a killer, let him piss and crap in his pants, not their problem.  And after he forked the guy, I would've killed him right there.

(4) Yes, as someone else posted, I would've met the train up-track, that was dumb.

(5) And sitting by the campfires - sure, lets the gang or the Indians get better aim, of course.

Right on! When we're choosing fire teams, Cusser's on mine! O0


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: cigar joe on September 09, 2007, 05:54:50 PM
Lets give it 30-40 years before we judge it one way or the other, as for Ebert's review he was off the mark with OUTITW & GBU you can't trust him on his intitial reviews he tends to sort of go with the flow.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: The Firecracker on September 09, 2007, 05:56:14 PM
Would flagging down a train actually work though?

You can't just claim to have a wanted outlaw. You need papers and a badge.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: cigar joe on September 09, 2007, 06:00:41 PM
Flagging down a train would work, anybody can do it,  the engineer would stop regardless, (its part of the general rules of the road) he wouldn't know the reason for him getting flagged down, for all he knows there could be a wash out or a bridge out or some other danger ahead so he'd have to stop to find out.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: The Firecracker on September 09, 2007, 06:02:26 PM
Flagging down a train would work, anybody can do it,  the engineer would stop regardless, (its part of the general rules of the road) he wouldn't know the reason for him getting flagged down, for all he knows there could be a wash out or a bridge out or some other danger ahead so he'd have to stop to find out.

You would still need papers proving Wade should be on the 3:10 to Yuma.
They can't just let anybody on.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: The Peacemaker on September 09, 2007, 06:10:15 PM
You would still need papers proving Wade should be on the 3:10 to Yuma.
They can't just let anybody on.

That's true.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Atlas2112 on September 09, 2007, 06:25:51 PM
Foster was the best performance
totally agree  O0


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: cigar joe on September 09, 2007, 06:30:55 PM
1. I'd think they know who Ben Wade was. There are probably Wanted
    posters all over the place.
2. The fact that there are Wanted posters would mean any bouty hunter could
    put him on the train, no papers needed.
3. I don't think they'd make him buy a ticket.

By the way a whistle stop is an unschedueled stop they did it all the time in the 19th century, nothing unusual.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: The Firecracker on September 09, 2007, 06:33:11 PM
1. I'd think they know who Ben Wade was. There are probably Wanted
    posters all over the place.



Half the town had a hard time recognizing him in the saloon in the beginning.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Atlas2112 on September 09, 2007, 06:38:47 PM
Half the town had a hard time recognizing him in the saloon in the beginning.
yes but in the dialoge in later parts i remember everyone saying things on the lines of "Zomg its ben wade!" or "ben wades in contention?!?!" things in that general nature.

i dont think wade had direct contact (either through verbal communication, or anyone seeing him) with anyone in in bisby other then emmy. but my memories not too fresh.

then again it could just be a continuity error


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: cigar joe on September 09, 2007, 06:41:47 PM
Quote
Half the town had a hard time recognizing him in the saloon in the beginning.

I was talking about the RR personel, the Conductor, the Railway Express Agent on the train.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: The Firecracker on September 09, 2007, 06:44:09 PM
Prince was also seen by all the authority figures in town.

Wouldn't they know what he looked like too?


Even the Pinkerton dude knows who he is.


Perhaps they know him by his clothes?

Remember he stole that duster and wrapped it around his coat when he went to talk to the Marshall.
That coat might be his trademark.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: cigar joe on September 09, 2007, 06:44:42 PM
Did you notice nobody smoked?, It was noticeable comparable to the original.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Silenzio on September 09, 2007, 06:45:43 PM
Did you notice nobody smoked?, It was noticeable comparable to the original.

I did notice.

In the bar scene i was waiting for everybody to light up their smokes.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: cigar joe on September 09, 2007, 06:47:03 PM
Quote
That coat might be his trademark.

more probably the twin holsters.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: The Firecracker on September 09, 2007, 06:47:20 PM
Did you notice nobody smoked?, It was noticeable comparable to the original.

No I didn't realize until I read your review.
You're right, far too PC.
Very dumb decision.
Maybe it has to do with the increasing complaints about smoking in this country?
Not sure about the rest of the states but it is illegal to smoke indoors (minus bars) anywhere in Florida.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: cigar joe on September 09, 2007, 06:50:35 PM
The original has every body lighting up as soon as they hit the bar, lol.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on September 09, 2007, 06:59:34 PM
more nitpicking. this thread is turning into comedy central.

3:10 to Yuma (2007) a memorable western, indeed.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Kurug3n on September 09, 2007, 07:01:16 PM
more nitpicking. this thread is turning into comedy central.

Crappy?


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: PowerRR on September 09, 2007, 07:01:46 PM
3:10 to Yuma (2007) - 9/10
Best western since Leone's days and disbelievers should be shot. It's better than Josey Wales. Unforgiven. The Proposition. Whatever. Amazing.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Atlas2112 on September 09, 2007, 07:02:13 PM
he means we need more talking piles of poo


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Silenzio on September 09, 2007, 07:02:45 PM
The original bar scene was the most memorable of the original movie.

I loved every minute.




Rrpower declares his homosexuality over MSN messenger, calling this the best western since the days of Leone.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: The Firecracker on September 09, 2007, 07:03:42 PM
Rrpower declares his homosexuality over MSN messenger, calling this the best western since the days of Leone.



Old news, he admitted this to me months ago.

Plus he just made it public on the "rate the last movie you saw" thread.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Sonny on September 09, 2007, 07:07:17 PM


Old news, he admitted this to me months ago.

Plus he just made it public on the "rate the last movie you saw" thread.

Months ago?? How can that be? It came out this weekend?

You must mean the original...?


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on September 09, 2007, 07:07:35 PM
Nothing wrong with rr seeing some brilliance out of this film.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Atlas2112 on September 09, 2007, 07:08:31 PM
Months ago?? How can that be? It came out this weekend?

You must mean the original...?
i think he means the sexual oreintation part of the post....


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: The Firecracker on September 09, 2007, 07:08:39 PM
Months ago?? How can that be? It came out this weekend?

You must mean the original...?


RRpower told me of his homosexuality months ago...


rrpower: Let the guy on this poster be a shining example to you and your contemporaries...

(http://photos-c.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sctm/v115/191/80/635870240/n635870240_1071742_6356.jpg)


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Sonny on September 09, 2007, 08:03:44 PM

RRpower told me of his homosexuality months ago...


rrpower: Let the guy on this poster be a shining example to you and your contemporaries...

(http://photos-c.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sctm/v115/191/80/635870240/n635870240_1071742_6356.jpg)

hahahaha.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: The Peacemaker on September 09, 2007, 08:26:00 PM
3:10 to Yuma (2007) - 9/10
Best western since Leone's days and disbelievers should be shot. It's better than Josey Wales. Unforgiven. The Proposition. Whatever. Amazing.

I prefer Unforgiven to this movie, but it sure as hell beats The Proposition and Josey Wales.


I must agree with you rrpower.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on September 09, 2007, 08:27:24 PM
I prefer Unforgiven to this movie, but it sure as hell beats The Proposition and Josey Wales.


I must agree with you rrpower.

It's definitely not better than Unforgiven, a film that's brilliant on many levels in my mind. I'll admit it is better than The Proposition, but I dunno about Josey Wales just yet.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: The Firecracker on September 09, 2007, 08:27:58 PM
I know most don't agree but I still like "Open Range" the best, as far as modern westerns go.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Silenzio on September 09, 2007, 08:31:11 PM
I think Josey Wales, The Proposition, High Plains Drifter, Pat Garrett and Billy The Kid, etc. are all better.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: The Firecracker on September 09, 2007, 08:32:36 PM
I think Josey Wales, The Proposition, High Plains Drifter, Pat Garrett and Billy The Kid, etc. are all better.


Agreed, but I was talking about westerns made between 1991 and now.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: The Peacemaker on September 09, 2007, 08:37:23 PM
I know most don't agree but I still like "Open Range" the best, as far as modern westerns go.


 :P


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on September 09, 2007, 08:56:59 PM
I know most don't agree but I still like "Open Range" the best, as far as modern westerns go.

After Unforgiven, Open Range is the still the best, in my opinion.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Kurug3n on September 09, 2007, 10:26:07 PM
I prefer Unforgiven to this movie

Now i have to rent it :-\


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Poggle on September 10, 2007, 02:20:03 PM
That's funny, Firecracker mentioned his homosexuality to me yesterday!


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on September 10, 2007, 03:05:42 PM
That's funny, Firecracker mentioned his homosexuality to me yesterday!

haha what's going on here? he's not gay.  ???


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Poggle on September 10, 2007, 03:13:34 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k78LIcUodYc


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on September 10, 2007, 09:33:08 PM
Great review by Roger Ebert. He could not be more right.

3:10 to Yuma * * * *

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070906/REVIEWS/709060305

By Roger Ebert

James Mangold's "3:10 to Yuma" restores the wounded heart of the Western and rescues it from the morass of pointless violence. The Western in its glory days was often a morality play, a story about humanist values penetrating the lawless anarchy of the frontier. It still follows that tradition in films like Eastwood's "The Unforgiven," but the audience's appetite for morality plays and Westerns seems to be fading. Here the quality of the acting, and the thought behind the film, make it seem like a vanguard of something new, even though it's a remake of a good movie 50 years old.

The plot is so easily told that Elmore Leonard originally wrote it as a short story. A man named Dan Evans (Christian Bale), who lost a leg in the Civil War, has come to the Arizona territory to try his luck at ranching. It's going badly, made worse by a neighboring bully who wants to force him off his land. The territory still fears Indian raids, and just as much the lawless gang led by Ben Wade (Russell Crowe), which sticks up stagecoaches, robs banks, casually murders people and outguns any opposition. Through a series of developments that seem almost dictated by fate, Dan Evans finds himself as part of a posse sworn in to escort Wade, captured and handcuffed, to the nearby town of Contention, where the 3:10 p.m. train has a cell in its mail car that will transport Wade to the prison in Yuma and a certain death sentence.

Both Dan and Ben have elements in their characters that come under test in this adventure. Dan fears he has lost the confidence of wife Alice (Gretchen Mol) and teenage son Will (Logan Lerman), who doubt he can make the ranch work. Still less does Alice see why her transplanted Eastern husband should risk his life as a volunteer. The son Will, who has practically memorized dime novels about Ben Wade, idealizes the outlaw, and when Dan realizes the boy has followed the posse, he orders him to return home. "He ain't following you," Wade says. "He's following me."

That's an insight into Wade. He plays his persona like a performance. He draws, reads, philosophizes, is incomparably smarter than the scum in his gang. Having spent untold time living on the run with them, he may actually find it refreshing to spend time with Dan, even as his captive. Eventually the two men end up in a room in the Contention hotel, overlooking the street, in earshot of the train whistle, surrounded outside by armed men who want to rescue Ben or kill him.

These general outlines also describe the 1957 version of "3:10 to Yuma," directed by Delmer Daves, starring Glenn Ford and Van Heflin in the roles of the rancher and the outlaw. The movie, with its railroad timetable, followed the slowly advancing clock in "High Noon" (1952) and was compared to it; when I saw it in 35mm at Telluride in the 1980s, I thought it was better than "High Noon," not least because of the personality shifts it involves.

Mangold's version is better still than the 1957 original, because it has better actors with more thought behind their dialogue. Christian Bale plays not simply a noble hero, but a man who has avoided such risks as he now takes and is almost at a loss to explain why he is bringing a killer to justice, except that having been mistreated and feeling unable to provide for his family, he is fed up and here he takes his stand. Crowe, however, plays not merely a merciless killer, although he is that, too, but a man also capable of surprising himself. He is too intelligent to have only one standard behavior which must fit all situations, and is perhaps bored of having that expected of him.

Westerns used to be the showcases of great character actors, of whom I was lucky enough to meet Dub Taylor, Jack Elam, Chill Wills, Ben Johnson and, when she wasn't doing a million other things, Shelley Winters. "3:10 to Yuma" has two roles that need a special character flavor and fills them perfectly. Peter Fonda plays McElroy, a professional bounty hunter who would rather claim the price on Ben Wade's head than let the government execute him for free. And Ben Foster plays Charlie Prince, the second-in-command of Wade's gang, who seems half in love with Wade, or maybe Charlie's half-aware that's he's all in love. Wade would know which, and wouldn't care, except as material for his study of human nature.

Locked in the hotel room, surrounded by death for one or the other, the two men begin to talk. Without revealing anything of the plot, let me speculate that each has found the first man he has met in years who is his equal in conversation. Crowe and Bale play this dialogue so precisely that it never reveals itself for what it really is, a process of mutual insight. One test of a great actor is the ability to let dialogue do its work invisibly, something you can also see in next week's "In the Valley of Elah" with Tommy Lee Jones and Charlize Theron. Too many actors are like the guy who laughs at his own joke and then tells it to you again.

James Mangold first came into view with an extraordinary movie named "Heavy" (1995). His "Walk the Line" (2005) won an Oscar for Reese Witherspoon. To remake "3:10 to Yuma" seems an odd choice after such other modern films as "Girl, Interrupted," but the movie itself proves he had a good reason for choosing it. In hard times, Americans have often turned to the Western to reset their compasses. In very hard times, it takes a very good Western. Attend well to Ben Wade's last words in this movie, and who he says them to, and why.



Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Ringo on September 10, 2007, 11:04:05 PM
Rejoice! I'm back!

Thought the movie was decent, nothing special, but it was nice to see a new Western on the big screen. I couldn't buy the bond between Ben and Evans at all, and thought there were a lot of stupid holes in the plot (like they should have broken Ben's hands - actually, I don't think they even tied him up). Parts of the score kind of reminded me of Europe's "The Final Countdown" - specifically listen to the music that plays at the start of the end credits. Also, the casting distinctly shows the lack of macho American actors in today's cinema.

I am SO PSYCHED for "There Will Be Blood" its not even funny. Jesus, that looks badass.





Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on September 10, 2007, 11:11:27 PM
Rejoice! I'm back!

Thought the movie was decent, nothing special, but it was nice to see a new Western on the big screen. I couldn't buy the bond between Ben and Evans at all, and thought there were a lot of stupid holes in the plot (like they should have broken Ben's hands - actually, I don't think they even tied him up). Parts of the score kind of reminded me of Europe's "The Final Countdown" - specifically listen to the music that plays at the start of the end credits. Also, the casting distinctly shows the lack of macho American actors in today's cinema.

I am SO PSYCHED for "There Will Be Blood" its not even funny. Jesus, that looks badass.


I hate when people keep saying this was nothing speacial. This was a damn good movie. It was more than just average. There's a lot of great things going for it. People today are just to damn affraid to admit when a remake may have some better elements or sequences that of the original.

Like I said before, there was some aspects of the original that I liked better than the remake, and vice versa. They're both stellar films. I think the remake has a much better ending though. The original flutters a bit toward the end. I liked it, but I always felt it was lacking just a tad.

I dunno what you're talking about Ringo when you say American's lack macho actor's. Peter Fonda was outstanding in his supporting role, and Dallas Roberts played the part perfectly of Butterfield. And you wanna talk macho, Ben Foster was one of the best villains to come a long in some time. I'm sick of the homosexual references that his character is being accused of. People always assume homosexuality on someone just because they admire a person they're close to. He was in no way gay in my opinion. You can love someone, look up to someone, or wanna be like someone without being gay.

This film had stellar performances all around. The only miscast was Luke Wilson. I dunno what the heck he was doing in this film. Mangold must of owed him a favor.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Ringo on September 10, 2007, 11:20:20 PM
I hate when people keep saying this was nothing speacial. This was a damn good movie. It was more than just average. There's a lot of great things going for it. People today are just to damn affraid to admit when a remake may have some better elements or sequences that of the original.

Like I said before, there was some aspects of the original that I liked better than the remake, and vice versa. They're both stellar films. I think the remake has a much better ending though. The original flutters a bit toward the end. I liked it, but I always felt it was lacking just a tad.

I dunno what you're talking about Ringo when you say American's lack macho actor's. Peter Fonda was outstanding in his supporting role, and Dallas Roberts played the part perfectly of Butterfield. And you wanna talk macho, Ben Foster was one of the best villains to come a long in some time. I'm sick of the homosexual references that his character is being accused of. People always assume homosexuality on someone just because they admire a person they're close to. He was in no way gay in my opinion. You can love someone, look up to someone, or wanna be like someone without being gay.

This film had stellar performances all around. The only miscast was Luke Wilson. I dunno what the heck he was doing in this film. Mangold must of owed him a favor.

I uh... haven't seen the original... don't hurt me.  :(

It was above average while I was watching it, I'm certainly not saying it wasn't good or enjoyable (should've made that more clear), but just not something that, for me, will stick in the memory.

The performances were quite good. I didn't have a problem with Luke Wilson, since he had about three lines of dialogue. The film has macho, definetely, but I'm talking more about young, currently popular American stars who could look convicing in a rugged environment. Peter Fonda was great and stole the movie in the first half.

Ben Foster - probably not gay. He certainly didn't hesitate in his last moments. Definetely a good villain, though I thought it would've been amusing if he had just died being trampled by cows.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Kurug3n on September 10, 2007, 11:30:03 PM
Rejoice! I'm back!

Welcome Back, Ringo O0


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on September 10, 2007, 11:55:56 PM
I uh... haven't seen the original... don't hurt me.  :(

It was above average while I was watching it, I'm certainly not saying it wasn't good or enjoyable (should've made that more clear), but just not something that, for me, will stick in the memory.

The performances were quite good. I didn't have a problem with Luke Wilson, since he had about three lines of dialogue. The film has macho, definetely, but I'm talking more about young, currently popular American stars who could look convicing in a rugged environment. Peter Fonda was great and stole the movie in the first half.

Ben Foster - probably not gay. He certainly didn't hesitate in his last moments. Definetely a good villain, though I thought it would've been amusing if he had just died being trampled by cows.

That's understandable, and I get some of what you're saying. You're entitled to your opinion and I respect that buddy. I was just saying, overall, some people are not giving this film some of the credit it deserves. I think it was well made.

Ben Foster, as Charlie Prince getting trampled by cows and dying may have been funny, but I don't think it would have been satisfying. The way he died was pretty damn shocking. I loved it!

Ringo. When you do get the chance, see the original! I think you'll like it.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: The Firecracker on September 10, 2007, 11:57:54 PM
I'm sick of the homosexual references that his character is being accused of. People always assume homosexuality on someone just because they admire a person they're close to. He was in no way gay in my opinion. You can love someone, look up to someone, or wanna be like someone without being gay.



His sexual orientation is made pretty clear long before I ever realized he loved Russel Crowe. His posture, his hand gestures. The man even wears an earring on his left ear (you get a clear shot of it just before he dies actually).
All these things made it pretty clear.
Even Fonda's character hints at it when he mocks Charlie's name (Charlie "Princess").
Yes sir, he's a bum bandit and I wouldn't have it any other way. It was a great performance.



Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on September 11, 2007, 12:06:51 AM
His sexual orientation is made pretty clear long before I ever realized he loved Russel Crowe. His posture, his hand gestures. The man even wears an earring on his left ear (you get a clear shot of it just before he dies actually).
All these things made it pretty clear.
Even Fonda's character hints at it when he mocks Charlie's name (Charlie "Princess").
Yes sir, he's a bum bandit and I wouldn't have it any other way. It was a great performance.



hahaha, well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree my friend. He just looked up to Ben Wade, that's what was made clear to me. Charlie Prince was kind of Ben Wade's prodigy. Just because he appeared to be very fond of Ben Wade, doesn't mean he was gay necessarily. I really believe that. I just don't think that was James Mangold's intention with this character.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: The Firecracker on September 11, 2007, 12:11:39 AM
Just because he appeared to be very fond of Ben Wade, doesn't mean he was gay necessarily.


I never used that example. In fact I said that before I knew he loved Wade I knew he was already gay. The hand gestures, Fonda's comment. This doesn't make you budge even a bit from your perception of the character?



I googled "Ben Foster Charlie Prince" and, lo and behold, a "is he gay?" article came up.
The article sites the same examples (evidence) I gave you and even has some others I failed to mention...

http://www.afterelton.com/movies/2007/9/310toyuma?page=0%2C0


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on September 11, 2007, 12:20:11 AM

I never used that example. In fact I said that before I knew he loved Wade I knew he was already gay. The hand gestures, Fonda's comment. This doesn't make you budge even a bit from your perception of the character?



I googled "Ben Foster Charlie Prince" and, lo and behold, a "is he gay?" article came up.
The article sites the same examples (evidence) I gave you and even has some others I failed to mention...

http://www.afterelton.com/movies/2007/9/310toyuma?page=0%2C0

I just read that and it's a good read. Thanks for posting that. I'm still not convinced though.  ;) The way Ben Foster was playing his role, I just think he was having some fun with it. How many gay men do you know that are as badass as Charlie Prince? haha. All kidding aside though, just because he was referred to as 'CHARLIE PRINCESS' really doesn't mean much. His last name is Prince, so of course they'd poke fun at him and say Princess.

When one of Ben Wade's crew members suggests to Charlie Prince that he's not going to help go after Ben Wade, we see what Charlie Prince does. Pushes him down and points his gun at him and talks about how they're going after him just because of what Ben Wade has done for all of them.

He clearly is grateful for Ben Wade by these comments and feels he owes him. I just don't think you will ever get me to believe he's gay. Just because he makes feminine hand gestures doesn't mean a thing. Hey, it's just an opinion. You can believe he's gay, and I'll believe he's not.  :)


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: The Firecracker on September 11, 2007, 12:30:07 AM
His last name is Prince, so of course they'd poke fun at him and say Princess.




What of the "missy" comment? His middle name isn't "missy".

Another bit of speculation from my part would be that the character is a homage to homosexual villains from spaghetti westerns.
Most of the more memorable villains from Italian western were homosexual usually dressed in white or other light colors (Charlie Prince wears light colors throughout). These types of villains usually were more brutal/sadistic than any of the other baddies (again, Prince).



"You guys pussies?"

BANG BANG BANG

"I hate pussies"


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on September 11, 2007, 12:32:41 AM

What of the "missy" comment? His middle name isn't "missy".

Another bit of speculation from my part would be that the character is a homage to homosexual villains from spaghetti westerns.
Most of the more memorable villains from Italian western were homosexual usually dressed in white or other light colors (Charlie Prince wears light colors throughout). These types of villains usually were more brutal/sadistic than any of the other villains (again, Prince).



"You guys pussies?"

BANG BANG BANG

"I hate pussies"

hahaha, that's a pretty funny quote. Well if he is gay as you think he is, that's one homosexual I would not want to mess with. He's more cold blooded than the young, liquored up William Munny.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Arizona Colt on September 11, 2007, 12:33:15 AM
How many gay men do you know that are as badass as Charlie Prince? haha.


You should see FULL CONTACT (1992) starring Chow Yun Fat and super villain Simon Yam if you wanna see a badass gay bad guy!  :)


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on September 11, 2007, 12:35:43 AM

You should see FULL CONTACT (1992) starring Chow Yun Fat and super villain Simon Yam if you wanna see a badass gay bad guy!  :)

I actually think I seen this years ago. I'm pretty sure of it. I don't remember much of it though. I'll have to check it out again. I'm pretty sure it's the film I'm thinking of. Thanks for the recommendation AC!


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: The Peacemaker on September 11, 2007, 02:12:04 PM
I never thought that Charlie Prince was gay. I saw him as a child who thought all of the bloodshed was just playing cowboys and indians. I think he just looked at Wade the way an 8 year old boy who's obsessed with violent movies looks up to his action hero.

If you see the way he talks, he looks he seems like he might be a bit slow in the brain.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on September 11, 2007, 02:17:55 PM
I never thought that Charlie Prince was gay. I saw him as a child who thought all of the bloodshed was just playing cowboys and indians. I think he just looked at Wade the way an 8 year old boy who's obsessed with violent movies looks up to his action hero.

If you see the way he talks, he looks he seems like he might be a bit slow in the brain.

That makes perfect sense Peace! Ultimately when it comes down to it, he was just intrigued by Ben Wade. As you pointed out as well, I think he is a bit slow in the brain. Just his facial gestures and the downright cold blooded ways he kills his victims, something's clearly not right.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: cigar joe on September 14, 2007, 03:24:16 PM
Yeah, we'd be thinking "Fraud!"

A film can have all the heart in the world, but if it doesn't have "head" as well, it' a complete waste of my time.

Hey, CJ, tell me more about the original story.....

Leonards ending of 3:10 to Yuma:

The lawman (Scallen in the story) and the outlaw (Jim Kidd in the story) approached the train at the station. Charlie Prince and the rest of the outlaw gang were waiting in cover.

Scallen pointed a scattergun to Kidd's back and orders Kidd to tell them to come out in the open. The train whistled as it was ready to leave for Yuma. As they hurried to the train, Prince tells them to stand where they are and to throw the gun away. All 6 of the outlaws were standing near them.Scallen knew he was afraid like never before but kept his cool. He kept his eye steadily on Prince and when Prince yelled "Get down" to Kidd, Scallen squeezed both triggers as Kidd hit the ground. Prince clutched his chest as he went down. Scallen immediately dropped the shotgun and pulled out his Colt, shooting another outlaw. The other outlaws took cover while Kidd was crawling frantically on the ground. Scallen grabbed Kidd and they ran toward the slowly moving train as the outlaws shot at them. Scallen and Kidd leapt up on the train.

Kidd stretched out on the floor while Scallen stood next to the door. Kidd said "You know, you really earn your hundred and a half. Scallen smiled at Kidd. He was thinking the same thing.



Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: dave jenkins on September 14, 2007, 04:16:49 PM
Thanks, CJ. So some of the problems with the movies are inherent in the source material.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on September 14, 2007, 05:11:47 PM
Thanks, CJ. So some of the problems with the movies are inherent in the source material.

There's nothing wrong with the film though, so what's your point? ;)


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: cigar joe on September 14, 2007, 05:31:55 PM
Quote
There's nothing wrong with the film though, so what's your point?

What part of flawed don't you comprende?

Both films are flawed and so is the scorce story.  It defyies all logic the way both films are written & portrayed, its not nit picking, its plaim ass dumb.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on September 14, 2007, 05:41:28 PM
What part of flawed don't you comprende?

Both films are flawed and so is the scorce story.  It defyies all logic the way both films are written & portrayed, its not nit picking, its plaim ass dumb.

oh boy, blah, blah, blah. Every film is flawed. This defying logic talk will never get me to change my mind. I actually LOVE films that defy logic. That's the fun of them!


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: dave jenkins on September 14, 2007, 06:22:23 PM
Uh, can you give me some directions to your house? The guys in the white jackets are here, and they want to try out their new net.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on September 14, 2007, 09:37:41 PM
Uh, can you give me some directions to your house? The guys in the white jackets are here, and they want to try out their new net.

You're the one who needs to be put away jenkins. You're making such a big deal out of this film, it's not even funny.

The funny thing about this whole thing is that the film is not even that unrealistic!!! It's absolutely unbelievable how you're making such a stand against this film. Ok, you don't like it, that's fine, it's your opinion, but just because some of us do like it, doesn't make us crazy.

Now, you said something interesting back a few pages that didn't make much sense to me and here it is...

It's even stupider than that. The gang rides into town and sets up under the hotel window from which five armed men are overwatching. The gang are murderers, wanted men, known to law enforcement officers. The men in the hotel room include three peace officers. They have every legal and moral right to open up on the gang as soon as they appear. They also have the advantage of higher ground. No additional advantage can be gained by delaying. It is the height of idiocy that the men in the hotel room don't immediately start firing on the gang below! Further, even if they were to delay, the moment the gang starts offering the 200 dollar bounty the lawmen would begin firing just to shut the men up and discourage takers. But the men in the hotel room are completely passive. Yet this is just one stupidity in a sequence of hundreds in this stupid movie.

I'm so happy you pointed this out. You say that when the gang members ride into town, that the lawman should open fire right away. Um no, not necessarily. The reason why they don't is because they have good in them, they're moral men. They're not evil like these men. That was obvious. They're trying to do things the right way, by law, and not go down to their level. They're not assasins. You can see that they in the film that they were scared of being outnumbered. That was evident. This is not unrealistic by no means. Also, there were many innocent people out in the street walking around, in broad daylight no less.

Here's a quote I picked up years ago that pertains to this argument.

"The tragedy for human kind is that the good never stop the wicked in time."

Think about that for a second.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Kurug3n on September 14, 2007, 09:53:52 PM
"The tragedy for human kind is that the good never stop the wicked in time."
(Preview Trailer voice guy)

Until one day a cop by the name of Murphy was killed and turned into ROBOCOP!(http://www.mikeantonucci.com/uploaded_images/robocop-792844.bmp) ;D ;D ;D


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on September 14, 2007, 09:57:41 PM
(Preview Trailer voice guy)

Until one day a cop by the name of Murphy was killed and turned into ROBOCOP!(http://www.mikeantonucci.com/uploaded_images/robocop-792844.bmp) ;D ;D ;D

LOL, that quote would go good in a trailer like that. haha good stuff kurug3n.  ;)


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: cigar joe on September 15, 2007, 07:42:14 AM
Quote
They're trying to do things the right way, by law, and not go down to their level. They're not assasins.

This is the Wild West, you can't put a 21st century spin on it.

WANTED DEAD OR ALIVE ..........sort of gives the law leeway, shoot on sight so to speak.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: moviesceleton on September 15, 2007, 07:48:33 AM
Coming here January 11th!! F*** yeah!!


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on September 15, 2007, 08:18:37 AM
This is the Wild West, you can't put a 21st century spin on it.

WANTED DEAD OR ALIVE ..........sort of gives the law leeway, shoot on sight so to speak.

You're living in the movies cigar. Not everyone was wild back then. The law did exist whether you believe it or not.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: dave jenkins on September 15, 2007, 09:16:30 AM
The law had the right to take the lives of wanted men, particularly if those wanted men were putting others at risk. Even today lawmen will kill a suspect rather than allow him to hurt others (the fact that this is known has led to that weird modern phenomenon Suicide By Police). Clearly, the right thing to do when the outlaw gang shows up in Contention was to kill them as soon as possible. Yes, the lawmen had to avoid shooting innocent bystanders, but they're professionals. They should be able to spare the citizens of the town and still get the job done (the alternative, as we see, doesn't work out so well). Doing nothing is not serving the interests of the townspeople, it places them in greater danger. Passivity in the face of lawless aggression leads to greater aggression.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on September 15, 2007, 09:47:48 AM
The law had the right to take the lives of wanted men, particularly if those wanted men were putting others at risk. Even today lawmen will kill a suspect rather than allow him to hurt others (the fact that this is known has led to that weird modern phenomenon Suicide By Police). Clearly, the right thing to do when the outlaw gang shows up in Contention was to kill them as soon as possible. Yes, the lawmen had to avoid shooting innocent bystanders, but they're professionals. They should be able to spare the citizens of the town and still get the job done (the alternative, as we see, doesn't work out so well). Doing nothing is not serving the interests of the townspeople, it places them in greater danger. Passivity in the face of lawless aggression leads to greater aggression.

I understand what you're saying jenkins, but I my argument makes sense as well. I just think you're going way over board here with this film in my humble opinion. But as always, you can think what you want and I'll do the same. It's just an example of how we all look at things differently I guess.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: cigar joe on September 15, 2007, 11:15:25 AM
Quote
I just think you're going way over board here with this film in my humble opinion. But as always, you can think what you want and I'll do the same.

Well we can say the exact same thing, I think its an Ok film, hope it does start a trend of more Westerns, but hopefully smarter Westerns, that use plausible plot points that make sense.

In my opinion its you who are going way overboard on the praise for this. We don't need Westerns that totally disregard the reality of the Old West.

If you accept too outrageous plot points what are we going to get next.

Next to Unforgiven the storyline convolutions of 3:10 seem ridiculous, its not at that level. But up against some of the ridiculous action flicks with flying cars etc. it fits right in.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on September 15, 2007, 12:04:18 PM
Well we can say the exact same thing, I think its an Ok film, hope it does start a trend of more Westerns, but hopefully smarter Westerns, that use plausible plot points that make sense.

In my opinion its you who are going way overboard on the praise for this. We don't need Westerns that totally disregard the reality of the Old West.

If you accept too outrageous plot points what are we going to get next.

Next to Unforgiven the storyline convolutions of 3:10 seem ridiculous, its not at that level. But up against some of the ridiculous action flicks with flying cars etc. it fits right in.


Again, I'm not the one making a big deal out of this. I'm being talked down on because I'm praising this film.

cigar, you say, "We don't need Westerns that totally disregard the reality of the Old West."

What's your definition of the real west? Many of John Wayne's films, films that are considered classics, were in no way realistic when it comes to the wild west for the most part. Realism is good, yes, but when it comes to dramatics, sometimes it's not, especially for a film.

This defying logic, avoiding reality talk is downright laughable. You two are quite the comedic tandem. Keep it coming.  ;D


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: cigar joe on September 15, 2007, 04:29:06 PM
I'm talking basic concrete Western ditctums, ie, if is six shooter, that's all it should fire before you have to reload. That kind of stuff. You start getting away from those basic dictums it ceases to be a Western.



Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on September 15, 2007, 04:43:07 PM
I'm talking basic concrete Western ditctums, ie, if is six shooter, that's all it should fire before you have to reload. That kind of stuff. You start getting away from those basic dictums it ceases to be a Western.



I see what you're saying, but that kind of stuff doesn't bother me all that much. If I'm not mistaken, they did reload quite a bit in 3:10 to Yuma. I don't think it was after 6 shots everytime, but they did reload. Again, that's all for dramatic and thrilling purposes. That's Hollywood for you.

This is what is magical about movies, is that you can bend the rules a bit. You can escape from realism for a couple hours. I love seeing this in westerns when it's not way over board. 3:10 to Yuma was in no way overboard.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Groggy on September 15, 2007, 07:32:42 PM
Well, I'm going to go see this tonight if I don't get lost. I'll be sure to add my two cents went I get back.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Groggy on September 15, 2007, 10:17:17 PM
Well, I'm going to go see this tonight if I don't get lost. I'll be sure to add my two cents went I get back.

Nevermind. I'll see it tomorrow.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: The Firecracker on September 15, 2007, 10:18:26 PM
Nevermind. I'll see it tomorrow.


got lost?


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Groggy on September 15, 2007, 10:30:45 PM

got lost?

IM me, or ask Kurugen if you really want to know.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: The Firecracker on September 15, 2007, 10:40:54 PM
IM me, or ask Kurugen if you really want to know.

PM okay?


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Groggy on September 15, 2007, 10:50:40 PM
Yeah. Check your in-box.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Jill on September 16, 2007, 03:07:50 AM
I want to see it... but when 'll is come to Hungary?  ???

And I can't read this thread. I don't want to know anything from the plot.  :-X Oh... may it will come quickly...


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: lovelyrita on September 16, 2007, 12:03:03 PM
"This is what is magical about movies, is that you can bend the rules a bit. You can escape from realism for a couple hours. I love seeing this in westerns when it's not way over board. 3:10 to Yuma was in no way overboard. "

I have been trying to follow the discussion concerning this movie. I have included 2 posts prior to this one. I have to agree with much of what TB has said regarding this movie. Joe and Dave I really enjoy reading your posts as you have so much knowledge of this particular genre, I am nowhere as versed in this genre as you. But the fact of the matter is I love movies. I have since I was a girl and my passion has only grown. Don't get me wrong Leone was a MASTER and his films would hold up today. He was brilliant and than there was Morricone, that is another post. I get the feeling that you will always judge westerns against his. It is your benchmark.

I do agree with you about opening up the genre to this generation and increasing interest.

What seems to be your bone of contention are the inaccuracies in this movie. So what. The original very much reflected the time it was made. So the changes from the original made sense. It is 50 years later. BUT the crux of the story was the relationship between these two very different men. It was said that the lawmen of the time would have taken the offense.  Wade's gang was well known and ruthless to boot. Fear was the operative word here and that is a real, human emotion. I don't believe that all law enforcement in the old west would have had guns drawn immediately. Joe you talk about "basic concrete Western ditctums" and "this is the Wild West, you can't put a 21st century spin on it." Joe I heartily believe that movies reflect the times they are made in. I also believe and you can string me up but Leone would have never been able to make those same kinds of films in 40's and even in the 50's. The 60's hit and the rest is history. 

I am not going to tell you that I don't  appreciate authenticity but I am not a purist as I truly believe that a good movie takes you somewhere else for that 2 or 3 hours and leaves you thinking long after you walk out of the theatre into your own reality.

Ok I could go on but it would prove pointless as I am not trying to change your opinion or mess with your passion but maybe another way of looking at something and remembering that loving a movie is based on personal preference.  Yes the "facts" part can't be so way off that it becomes ridiculous and makes no sense.  I have seen a few of those. But what I look for in a good movie is heart and this movie had plenty of it. TB it appears was affected by the same feeling the movie left me with.

So I am guessing we are agreeing to disagree. Plus I need to move out of my "chicken thief" status on this board. LOL  :) so I should get posting and posting..

See you at the movies!




Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: cigar joe on September 16, 2007, 03:16:36 PM
I agree lovelyrita that good movies "take you somewhere else for that 2 or 3 hours and leaves you thinking long after you walk out of the theatre into your own reality."

This is easy for me also with sifi, and fantasy films, or with subjects I know nothing about.

The problem I have is that when you really embrace the complete Western Genre, as I unfortunately have, not just only movies but also Western History, images, and fiction, you learn more and more about how things were, and it become a curse, because the more you know the more lack of attention to details, or say the in-correct Native American dress or their mode of lodging for a particular tribe used in a film, or blatantly anachronistic weapons, demonstrates either the lack of knowledge of the director or the screenwriters or a certain disregard of the filmmaker for the intelligence of a sector of the audience.

I can see your point that if you are an average movie goer that facts may not matter for the average movie. Entertainment and escape are the goals.

For me though Westerns are a wondorous, wierd, magical sort of sacred American Mythology that the joe average Hollywood director better treat with respect.  8)


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on September 16, 2007, 04:16:34 PM
I agree lovelyrita that good movies "take you somewhere else for that 2 or 3 hours and leaves you thinking long after you walk out of the theatre into your own reality."

This is easy for me also with sifi, and fantasy films, or with subjects I know nothing about.

The problem I have is that when you really embrace the complete Western Genre, as I unfortunately have, not just only movies but also Western History, images, and fiction, you learn more and more about how things were, and it become a curse, because the more you know the more lack of attention to details, or say the in-correct Native American dress or their mode of lodging for a particular tribe used in a film, or blatantly anachronistic weapons, demonstrates either the lack of knowledge of the director or the screenwriters or a certain disregard of the filmmaker for the intelligence of a sector of the audience.

I can see your point that if you are an average movie goer that facts may not matter for the average movie. Entertainment and escape are the goals.

For me though Westerns are a wondorous, wierd, magical sort of sacred American Mythology that the joe average Hollywood director better treat with respect.  8)

lovetlyrita is not an average movie goer though cigar. She's a full blown film lover and she understands the western genre even more than she's giving herself credit for.

3:10 to Yuma was James Mangold's dream job, and he's a big fan of the western genre. I've read that it's his favorite genre. I've said before on another thread that he initially wanted Cop Land to be a western, but he didn't feel that he had the experience yet as a director take on the western genre behind the camera so he waited it out.

Now that I've seen 3:10 to Yuma, I'm so happy he waited. His skills have gotten a lot better behind the camera in recent years and he tackled this genre very well. He's made a darn good western, and I only hope this spaws many more, and that he directs another one.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Groggy on September 16, 2007, 05:18:26 PM
Nevermind. I'll see it tomorrow.

Nevermind. I'll go see it whenever there isn't a half-crazed derelict demanding money from me. ;D


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: lovelyrita on September 16, 2007, 05:59:34 PM
Thank you TB. I would never consider myself an average movie goer. I have embraced so many films. I don't look to escape and I rarely think of myself as being entertained. The movement on that screen in most instances is real to me. Yes there are those far fetched moments but I admit I have on occasion enjoyed those also.

In response to Joe, I do understand your response, it can be a curse to embrace the whole Western genre as you referred to it. Knowledge can do that.  I respect that.

I still am not sure where you think Mangold was not respectful to the genre. But that debate has come full circle.

The way you describe your feelings about the western genre as being wondrous and magical is exactly how I feel about movies in general. Yes some make me sad, some make me angry, some make me laugh etc. but the ones I love most possess a magic quality that amazes me everytime I watch them..



Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: cigar joe on September 16, 2007, 08:37:55 PM
Quote
lovetlyrita is not an average movie goer though cigar. She's a full blown film lover and she understands the western genre even more than she's giving herself credit for.


She is an above average movie goer I stand corrected, and lovelyrita I meant no disrespect, but I stand firm on my opinion of the  ridiculous convoluted baloney that was portrayed. And I fell this way about serious Westerns AW & SW from any decade that ask me to accept outrageous plot points.

Quote
3:10 to Yuma was James Mangold's dream job, and he's a big fan of the western genre. I've read that it's his favorite genre. I've said before on another thread that he initially wanted Cop Land to be a western, but he didn't feel that he had the experience yet as a director take on the western genre behind the camera so he waited it out.

He still don't, he amped up the action in the original ok, but he complicated a simple story, and didn't fix the ending and actually made it worse.

He f-ed it up in my opinion sorry, and now you got the nut balls on imdb posting all about the percieved Charlie Prince-Ben Wade homosexual undertones, wonderful, did he get this take on the Western Genre from BBM, WTF is up with that.

If I ever see him, I will cut out his heart and eat it.  >:D


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on September 16, 2007, 09:06:50 PM
He still don't.

And He f-ed it up in my opinion sorry, and now you got the nut balls on imdb posting all about the percieved Charlie Prince-Ben Wade homosexual undertones, wonferful, did he get this take on the Western Genre from BBM.

If I ever see him, I will cut out his heart and eat it.  >:D

hahahaha! Hey, with or without the character of Charlie Prince, you will always have those BBM jokes. The gay cowboy talk has been going on for years, even before BBM. You know that cigar.

Charlie Prince was a great character. How can you not like him? He was badass, period.

Now, you wanting to cut out Mangold's heart and eat it; Don't you think that's a bit to extreme?  ;D

Mangold is a damn good director.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: cigar joe on September 16, 2007, 09:12:20 PM
hahahaha! No its not!

hahahaha! Mangold is not a damn good director. O0


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: dave jenkins on September 16, 2007, 09:13:13 PM

The problem I have is that when you really embrace the complete Western Genre, as I unfortunately have, not just only movies but also Western History, images, and fiction, you learn more and more about how things were, and it become a curse, because the more you know the more lack of attention to details, or say the in-correct Native American dress or their mode of lodging for a particular tribe used in a film, or blatantly anachronistic weapons, demonstrates either the lack of knowledge of the director or the screenwriters or a certain disregard of the filmmaker for the intelligence of a sector of the audience.
This is a perfectly valid approach and one I respect. I do want to make it clear to TB and lovelyrita that this is not, however, where I'm coming from. I am no respecter of genres. I hold all films to pretty much the same standard, no matter if they be Westerns, SF stories, war films, crime dramas, or what have you. That standard is this: the story must not include anything that flagrantly violates what we know of human psychology and/or the laws of physics. This is necessary to preserve the illusion that what we are seeing on film has some kind of connection to the real world. Without such a connection, I am unable to suspend my disbelief and enjoy the action. The whole thing just becomes a meat cartoon, and I've already seen all the cartoons I'm ever going to need. (One other requirement I have for films with historical settings: they must make some concession to the culture and practices of the period being used. Otherwise, the whole thing comes off as a modern drama in fancy dress, which is just ridiculous).

I can appreciate that the central point of interest in a film like 3:10 may not be the action so much as the relationship between Dan and Ben. But that interest is seriously compromised when the characters are not presented as thinking human beings, but rather as mindless puppets under the control of mercurial filmmakers. Human relationships in films are of interest to me only if they come off as convincing representations of the real thing, and for that you have to have convincing representations of human beings to begin with. In 3:10 the Dan and Ben characters do so many things (or fail to do so many things) that real people in those situations wouldn't/would do that I lose all respect for the characters. And if I can't respect the characters, I can't respect the relationship between the characters.

There are, apparently, people who like films regardless of how well or how poorly they are made. For such people, there are no bad films, the experience of viewing is enough for them. But I've always been acutely sensitive to shoddiness in literature, drama, and cinema. I love well-made narratives, but experience has taught me that such things occur rarely. Most films are badly made, but good films do exist and it is worth seeking them out. I cannot pretend that a bad film is entertaining when I know that better experiences await me. There are just too many films in the world, more than can be viewed in a lifetime, and it's silly to settle for anything but the very best.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on September 16, 2007, 09:20:07 PM
hahahaha! No its not!

hahahaha! Mangold is not a damn good director. O0

Cop Land (1997) The Director's Cut
Outstanding film. A fantastic character study that plays out just like a western. Think Rio Bravo in an urban setting. Stallone, De Niro, Keitel, and Liotta were all riveting in there roles here. I just love this film. I can't say a bad thing about it. The direction here by a young Mangold was extremely good.

Walk the Line (2005)
For years I've been a big fan of Johnny Cash. I grew up listening to his music, so you know how stoked I was when I found out this was being made. Mangold not only directed this fine film, but he wrote it as well. Joaquin Phoenix and Reese Witherspoon were amazing, which spawed two Oscar Nominations and a win for Reese. This is just damn good film

3:10 to Yuma (2007)
You know how I feel about this. Ballsy remake which succeeds on all levels. You should recognize good buddy! O0



Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: cigar joe on September 16, 2007, 09:22:03 PM
Sorry buddy, hahahaha! Mangold is not a damn good director of a Western.
 O0


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: cigar joe on September 16, 2007, 09:30:10 PM
Quote
That standard is this: the story must not include anything that flagrantly violates what we know of human psychology and/or the laws of physics. This is necessary to preserve the illusion that what we are seeing on film has some kind of connection to the real world. Without such a connection, I am unable to suspend my disbelief and enjoy the action. The whole thing just becomes a meat cartoon, and I've already seen all the cartoons I'm ever going to need. (One other requirement I have for films with historical settings: they must make some concession to the culture and practices of the period being used. Otherwise, the whole thing comes off as a modern drama in fancy dress, which is just ridiculous).

And a fine Standard that is.  O0

Quote
I can appreciate that the central point of interest in a film like 3:10 may not be the action so much as the relationship between Dan and Ben. But that interest is seriously compromised when the characters are not presented as thinking human beings, but rather as mindless puppets under the control of mercurial filmmakers. Human relationships in films are of interest to me only if they come off as convincing representations of the real thing, and for that you have to have convincing representations of human beings to begin with. In 3:10 the Dan and Ben characters do so many things (or fail to do so many things) that real people in those situations wouldn't/would do that I lose all respect for the characters. And if I can't respect the characters, I can't respect the relationship between the characters.


If you want a hoot you should read the passionate & convoluted explanations of the Ben-Dan relationship on imdb.

Quote
There are just too many films in the world, more than can be viewed in a lifetime, and it's silly to settle for anything but the very best.

Agreed!



Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Kurug3n on September 16, 2007, 10:08:58 PM
Think Rio Bravo in an urban settingake which succeeds on all levels.
Like what Carpenter did?

http://imdb.com/title/tt0074156/ (http://imdb.com/title/tt0074156/)



Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on September 16, 2007, 10:10:58 PM
Like what Carpenter did?

http://imdb.com/title/tt0074156/ (http://imdb.com/title/tt0074156/)



Yeah basically, but different films.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Whalestoe on September 17, 2007, 02:14:42 PM
I was hoping to click on the IMDB link and it be a link to Carpenter's Thing. That would of made me laugh really hard.

On a serious note, 3:10 to Yuma was a good flick. The ending sucked hard, but I'd see it again.

Oh, and even my mom thought Charlie Prince was a big ol' homosexual.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on September 17, 2007, 03:13:08 PM
I was hoping to click on the IMDB link and it be a link to Carpenter's Thing. That would of made me laugh really hard.

On a serious note, 3:10 to Yuma was a good flick. The ending sucked hard, but I'd see it again.

Oh, and even my mom thought Charlie Prince was a big ol' homosexual.

The ending did not suck hard as you said Whalestoe. I dunno what film you were watching and we've already covered that Charlie Prince isn't a homosexual.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Whalestoe on September 17, 2007, 05:00:22 PM
The ending did not suck hard as you said Whalestoe. I dunno what film you were watching and we've already covered that Charlie Prince isn't a homosexual.

I dunno what move you were watching but Crowe whistling at the end of the film for his horse came off as nothing but cheasy to me. Also, if I remember, you and Peacemaker said he wasn't gay - other posters thought he was as well (along with my mom), but of course I skimmed over posts so maybe they changed their minds.

Don't get so mad I stated my opinion TB ^-^


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on September 17, 2007, 05:08:35 PM
I dunno what move you were watching but Crowe whistling at the end of the film for his horse came off as nothing but cheasy to me. Also, if I remember, you and Peacemaker said he wasn't gay - other posters thought he was as well (along with my mom), but of course I skimmed over posts so maybe they changed their minds.

Don't get so mad I stated my opinion TB ^-^

hahaha, you misunderstood me Whalestoe. I never get mad buddy. It was just may way of saying I liked the ending, that's all.  ;)


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Whalestoe on September 17, 2007, 05:33:34 PM
hahaha, you misunderstood me Whalestoe. I never get mad buddy. It was just may way of saying I liked the ending, that's all.  ;)

 :D


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Groggy on September 17, 2007, 08:14:20 PM
I was going to see this film tomorrow, but I don't think I'm up for more vagrants harassing me.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: cigar joe on September 17, 2007, 08:24:23 PM
Quote
I was going to see this film tomorrow, but I don't think I'm up for more vagrants harassing me.

WTF kind of movie theater are you trying to go to, sounds like a sleazy neighborhood.  :o

You keeping us on pins & needles Grogs. 8)



Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Groggy on September 17, 2007, 08:32:07 PM
Well. . . let's not go there unless you want a really long post. ;) The most recent hobo accosted me on campus, about a hundred yards from my residence. So. . . :P

And I seriously hope you have better things to do than wonder my opinion about a movie I haven't seen.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: cigar joe on September 17, 2007, 09:10:36 PM
sounds like a great campus.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Silenzio on September 17, 2007, 09:17:06 PM
I want to go there and party with the vagabonds!


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Groggy on September 17, 2007, 09:30:18 PM
I want to go there and party with the vagabonds!

They'll probably rape you.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Silenzio on September 17, 2007, 09:37:17 PM
They'll probably rape you.

DO I LOOK AFRAID.


That's why I tote my blade.



If one of them wants a pants fiesta they'll get a steamy load of castration.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Groggy on September 17, 2007, 09:39:37 PM
DO I LOOK AFRAID.

That's why I tote my blade.

If one of them wants a pants fiesta they'll get a steamy load of castration.

I carry a Tek-9 with me every time I get up from bed. That shows 'em. 8)

In all seriousness. . . I think the person yesterday was armed, and she was definitely disturbed. I don't want to push my luck.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Silenzio on September 17, 2007, 09:42:44 PM

In all seriousness. . . I think the person yesterday was armed, and she was definitely disturbed. I don't want to push my luck.

If worst came to worst, you could've used your potent man power to help overcome her.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Groggy on September 17, 2007, 09:45:25 PM
If worst came to worst, you could've used your potent man power to help overcome her.

Are you insulting me now? ???


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Silenzio on September 17, 2007, 09:46:15 PM
Are you insulting me now? ???

Hahaha, no.  I'm just funnin'.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on September 17, 2007, 10:26:56 PM
Looks like Silenzio is cleaning his guns Blondie style and ready to storm Grogg's campus.  ;D


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: noodles_leone on September 19, 2007, 04:32:55 AM
sounds like a great campus.

;D ;D ;D ;D


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: mal247 on September 22, 2007, 08:06:12 AM
I so wanted this to be a good film.

It wasn't helped by members of the audience laughing and me thinking this is not supposed to be a comedy!

The logic is flawed and Ben Wade would have been killed earlier. However there would have then been not much of a film.  Perhaps if the story was rewritten with Ben Wade as a bank robber rather than a murderer.  He knew Evans's wife previously, and Evans's son was actually Ben Wade's son.  Perhaps not.

 :-\

 


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on September 22, 2007, 08:27:15 AM
I so wanted this to be a good film.

It wasn't helped by members of the audience laughing and me thinking this is not supposed to be a comedy!

The logic is flawed and Ben Wade would have been killed earlier. However there would have then been not much of a film.  Perhaps if the story was rewritten with Ben Wade as a bank robber rather than a murderer.  He knew Evans's wife previously, and Evan's son was actually Ben Wade's son.  Perhaps not.

 :-\

 

 Ben didn't know Dan Evan's wife previously shades, and what is with this logic talk again? So many classic western's ignore logic! The funny thing is, this version is not that unrealistic. Some of these claims and opinion's are a bit overhyped here in my view. ::)


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: mal247 on September 22, 2007, 08:55:15 AM
Ben didn't know Dan Evan's wife previously shades ...


I know TB - it's a tongue in cheek solution to some of the flaws which others have commented on.  I expected and hoped for a lot with this film and was a bit disappointed.

 :(


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on September 22, 2007, 09:02:26 AM


I know TB - it's a tongue in cheek solution to some of the flaws which others have commented on.  I expected and hoped for a lot with this film and was a bit disappointed.

 :(

Oh, it's ok shades, I'm just messin' with ya. haha I'm just sad you didn't like it as much as I did.  :(


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: mal247 on September 22, 2007, 09:16:02 AM
Hopefully there's Rambo 4, Jesse James and Gerard Butler in The Untouchables: Capone Rising to come.

 :)


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Atlas2112 on September 22, 2007, 06:05:36 PM
Perhaps if the story was rewritten with Ben Wade as a bank robber rather than a murderer.  He
in elmore leonards short story, 3:10 starts when they get to the hotel, and evans was not a rancher but a lawman. Evans was also alone. All the extra plot is probably why leonard can't stand the original 3:10. im not sure what he would think of the new one.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: mal247 on September 23, 2007, 03:07:07 AM
in elmore leonards short story, 3:10 starts when they get to the hotel, and evans was not a rancher but a lawman. Evans was also alone. All the extra plot is probably why leonard can't stand the original 3:10. im not sure what he would think of the new one.

I'm not sure either.

3:10 to Yuma - it is at least a catchy title!


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: The Peacemaker on September 23, 2007, 05:23:46 PM
3:10 to Yuma kicked ass.


I actually saw it a second time.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on September 23, 2007, 06:01:31 PM
3:10 to Yuma kicked ass.


I actually saw it a second time.

Yup. It's even better the second time. Damn good film!


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: cigar joe on September 23, 2007, 06:35:32 PM
I wanted it to be intelligent.  :'(


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: dave jenkins on September 23, 2007, 08:41:11 PM
Sorry, CJ, they were going for a different demographic. ;D


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: cigar joe on September 24, 2007, 06:59:55 AM
 ;D


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: lovelyrita on September 24, 2007, 06:32:57 PM
3:10 to Yuma kicked ass.


I actually saw it a second time.


Yes indeed it "kicked ass" and I am planning on seeing it again.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on September 24, 2007, 07:05:18 PM
CJ and jenkins, why do you keep putting down the intelligence of the people here who enjoyed this film? It doesn't make sense to me and I'm finding the both of you incredibly rude.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: cigar joe on September 24, 2007, 08:47:15 PM

Hey, I never said you weren't intelligent.  :o

I'm just stating the facts, its a dumb script, it could easily have been well thought out and done in a plausible intelligent  manner, but obviously the screenwriters didn't do their WESTERN homework.

I will not heap praise upon or reward mindless plot points, I DON'T want Hollywood the get the idea that this good enough, I DEMAND better product. I rather see the Genre dead and burried than have this praised like its a work of art.

I will search out every post that inflates this way beyond its actual level, and state the flaws.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on September 24, 2007, 08:53:04 PM
Hey, I never said you weren't intelligent.  :o

I'm just stating the facts, its a dumb script, it could easily have been well thought out and done in a plausible intelligent  manner, but obviously the screenwriters didn't do their WESTERN homework.

I will not heap praise upon or reward mindless plot points, I DON'T want Hollywood the get the idea that this good enough, I DEMAND better product. I rather see the Genre dead and burried than have this praised like its a work of art.

I will search out every post that inflates this way beyond its actual level, and state the flaws.

Ok, maybe I misunderstood you cigar. I just don't understand why you would want to search out every post that inflates this way beyond it's actual level. I mean it seems like it be a waste of time trying to change our minds because we like it, just like we're not going to change your mind for disliking it.

I understand that you don't like it my friend, and that's cool. I just don't see trying go convince the people who love the film to think otherwise. I for one think it was a damn well made remake, far better than every other remake that comes out of Hollywood. Plus, I think the ending here was a vast improvement from the original.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: cigar joe on September 24, 2007, 08:59:22 PM
Its not good enough, thats what I'm trying to convey. Just as you went and posted all around the boards as to how good you thought it was (were you not equally trying to convince people?), am I not entitled to my opinion too.

I for one think its a damn poor remake with the same type of flawed ending and a garble of the original story.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: dave jenkins on September 24, 2007, 09:03:09 PM
Hey, TB, this isn't really about convincing you. People who never post read these boards, and they are entitled to both sides of the argument, wherever the debate is waged.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on September 24, 2007, 09:06:06 PM
Its not good enough, thats what I'm trying to convey. Just as you went and posted all around the boards as to how good you thought it was (were you not equally trying to convince people?), am I not entitled to my opinion too.

I for one think its a damn poor remake with the same type of flawed ending and a garble of the original story.

Of course you're entitled to your opinion buddy. I just think you have a vendetta against this poor film which I don't think it's even close as bad as you think. But hey, that's the magic of different opinion's colliding and forming a debate.

I honestly don't mean to go around and convince people to like this. If someone says they don't like it then I just give my opinion to them and that's that. I'm not going to beg them to change their minds.  If I'm not mistaken, I've only talked about this film for the most part right here in this thread.

Now about 3:10's new ending. I've said it before and I feel like I'm repeating myself but if they copied the original ending, people would have hated this film overall! I think the changing up of the story a little bit is what helped this film tremendously. I would be anything if this ending was exactly like the original, it would not have received the acclaim it has got.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on September 24, 2007, 09:08:13 PM
Hey, TB, this isn't really about convincing you. People who never post read these boards, and they are entitled to both sides of the argument, wherever the debate is waged.

I understand that jenkins. I just thought you were maybe going overboard a bit stating that this film is not intelligent, and poking fun at the people who liked it. I'm just having fun answering your posts back.   O0


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: dave jenkins on September 24, 2007, 09:58:11 PM
 O0


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: dave jenkins on September 25, 2007, 10:42:21 PM
An exceedingly well-considered (and well-written) review posted by "Richard W" over at criterionforum.org  The writer does a marvelous job comparing the original with the re-make (Cigar Joe, take note):

Quote
The original 3:10 TO YUMA (Columbia, 1957) is a plaintive outlaw ballad that unfolds like a chamber play. I like its simplicity, the time it takes to layer a story and flesh out characters. The motivations are personal. It's about real things that can make or break a man -- like saving your livestock from dying in a drought, being a good role model to your kids, living up to your wife's expectations, putting food on the table, paying the bills, persevering through adversity, taking a risk, and doing the right thing in the face of all the temptations to do wrong. If the rancher Dan Evans stumbles just once, if he takes the easier path, he'll be no different than the killer Ben Wade he's escorting to prison. Evans is really tempted, too, because Wade knows how to tempt him. These two men are opposite sides of the same coin, and they recognize each other as such. The moral dilemma and temptation to sell out is carefully sustained right up to the closing moments giving the film a depth and emotional resonance few westerns can match.

There are many understated moments that draw us into the film and involve us in the characters. When Alice Evans looks at her husband, her expression is an accusation and a disappointment, even though her words deny it. When the sheriff organizes a posse, one woman refuses to wake up her husband, who is sleeping off a drunk, knowing that he's foolish enough to join the posse and get himself killed. Watch how Ben Wade seduces the achingly lonely saloon girl, stuck in a dusty old town for the rest of her life if someone doesn't take her away from there. She'd follow Ben Wade anywhere, even though he gets the color of her eyes wrong. Instead, she opens the coach door that will take him to the train, her head nodding in agreement to his hollow promises while her expression is one of profound resignation.

3:10 TO YUMA represents the best that the American western can achieve in the hands of film makers who know how. It is Delmar Daves best film, and one of the great westerns of the 1950s (that's saying a lot). No silly premise, no slap-happy gunfights, no trick shooting, no contrivance or artifice, just down-to-earth grit. The two leads -- Van Heflin and Glen Ford -- play off each other's similarities, sounding out weaknesses and strengths in quiet competition. Heflin seems to inhabit his worried rancher like a tailored suit of clothes, a simple man who works hard, hopes for the best, and has a lot to prove to his family. Glen Ford's ingratiating performance as the killer outlaw is as much a revelation as Henry Fonda's villain in Once Upon A Time In the West.

A remake has to find new avenues within the story so it won't be a carbon copy. I understand that, and I welcome a fresh approach, but I had hoped for a more disciplined and insightful script. The new version throws in a kitchen sink's worth of political correctness masquerading as subtext. The scenes it has in common with the original shrivel in comparison, especially in the interaction with women characters who are marginalized before dropping out of the film completely. Unfortunately, the new material is no improvement. While the journey from Contention to Bisbee is prolonged, with two camping scenes and altercations first with bloodthirsty Indians and then with bloodthirsty miners, seems like one irrelevant distraction after another has been substituted for the main conflict between the posses and the outlaws. There's is no logical reason for every supporting and background character to be a vicious opportunist eager to kill the posse for money. They are well-matched to Ben Wade gang of outlaws, who are extreme sadists more in the tradition of spaghetti westerns than the American western. Worse, the twists and turns in the last few minutes violate the story's own logic and are not believable.

Whoever is responsible for deconstructing Dan Evans did not think through all the neurotic changes made to the character. Instead of being a stoic rancher, Evans is a chronic whiner who lost a leg in the Civil War, shifting the emphasis from a morality dilemma to a plea for sympathy. He thinks of himself as a failure because the war never gave him the chance to be a hero. How believable is it for a man who is missing one leg to jump off buildings, run, fall, roll and get up as easily as if he had two legs? At first we are asked to sympathize and excuse his failings because of his handicap, and then he performs like an acrobat. In his last moments, Dan Evans is pathetic, a beggar, and a failure whom the outlaw feels sorry for. In making the male lead politically correct to appease the skirts in Hollywood and the men who wear them, the remake dumbs down the story and diminishes its poignancy. This is my strongest objection, and it's a big one.

The original film provides romance that can be eroticized, suspense that can be intensified, action that can be prolonged, and internal tensions that can be probed by ensemble acting. But the remake is badly misdirected by James Mangold who blows every opportunity to improve and elaborate. His errors in judgment begin with the tone and attitude of the piece. There are no highs and lows here. Every moment is played at full throttle, proclaiming its self-importance. There are no gentle or amiable people: even the smallest part is played for aggression. There are no quiet interludes: when the action lets up, there is still plenty of noise. The original doesn't seem dated because of its dramatic minimalism. The audience is allowed to participate in those pregnant silences. In the remake, Mangold makes certain there are no pregnant silences.

One of the great pleasures of the western genre is its attention to portraiture and landscape. But don't look for horsemen riding across pictorial vistas to establish a sense of how men relate to the landscape. There are no wide angles in this western. The Bonanza Creek Ranch is one of the prettiest locations in New Mexico, but Mangold relegates scenery to a blurry backdrop for talking heads -- or cussing, threatening heads. How can the western landscape be a presence in a film assembled almost entirely in mediums and tights? With the camera that close, there is no reason to be racking focus in the middle of a shot all the time. I've never seen a feature film with so many shallow depth and rack-focus shots. There's a way to group people so that the eye is led into the frame toward what's important, but Mangold's crowd shots are just chaotic, and sometimes, so are his groupings of twos and threes. Although the cutting is faster and the angles are closer, there is considerably less going on in the remake than in the original.

I expected costumes, props, and accoutrements to be accurate to the period and sensible to the circumstances. Forget it. Ben Wade and his sidekick wear outfits on the silly side of historical inaccuracy. There are many similar offenses. After the high standard for accuracy established by TOMBSTONE (1993) and subsequent westerns, the remake of 3:10 TO YUMA is a regression.

The American west was full of immigrants, so I welcome foreign actors with foreign accents playing westerners. But I do wish these new versions of the characters were not so one-dimensional and neurotic. Female characters are dismissed as quickly as possible. Russell Crowe was a good choice for Ben Wade. He has the sneaky charm that the character requires. Christian Bale is one of the most talented actors working today, but his Dan Evans shrivels up compared to Van Heflin's. It is partly the writing and partly the actor that undermines the emotional center of this remake. Bale gives his all, but he is miscast. The part demands an American actor whose stoic presence reflects a feel for the period and the life, the time and the place, someone like Tommy Lee Jones or Kevin Costner or Sam Elliott or Powers Boothe or Chris Cooper or even the excellent Thomas Haden Church (star of the recent BROKEN TRAIL). With a different actor, this remake would be a much better film, and its flaws would be easier to overlook.

Perhaps 3:10 TO YUMA was the wrong classic to remake for today's audience. The original is a character driven suspense drama that achieves eloquence through dramatic minimalism. The remake cuts to another angle every 3 seconds, stepping on its own beats and never allowing the audience to feel the moment. Nevertheless, Mangold was wise to keep the story, such as it is, up close, fast, and bombastic. The audience had a good time with the over-the-top spaghetti western violence and non-stop action. Audiences are not critical if they are exposed to a lot of action, and this remake has action.

If the box-office success of this slovenly mess helps to get more westerns financed and distributed in cinemas, it will serve a good purpose. Personally, I could not be more disappointed. Let's hope the next western gets a better script and a director who comprehends the genre he's working in.

Richard W
(who lived 18 years in southern Arizona situated between Contention and Yuma)


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: mal247 on September 26, 2007, 06:59:37 AM
It sounds as though Richard W liked the original version.  I was going to watch it but recent reviews put me off. Now I'm undecided.  :-\

Many thanks DJ for sharing the review with us.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on September 26, 2007, 07:22:05 AM
It sounds as though Richard W liked the original version.  I was going to watch it but recent reviews put me off. Now I'm undecided.  :-\

Why are you undecided? Just watch the film, form an opinion yourself shades.  :)


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: cigar joe on September 26, 2007, 07:28:51 AM
Thanks Dave, sort of explains the way I felt about it with a bit more detail.  O0


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on September 26, 2007, 08:37:31 AM
Thanks Dave, sort of explains the way I felt about it with a bit more detail.  O0

That actually doesn't explain anything to me. It just explains that the reviewer missed the point of the film as you do cigar.  ;)


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: mal247 on September 26, 2007, 09:51:02 AM
... Just watch the film, form an opinion yourself shades.  :)

It's now been orderd TB.  I have to try to be a bit selective  O0


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on September 26, 2007, 09:52:51 AM
It's now been orderd TB.  I have to try to be a bit selective  O0

You'll love it my friend! ;)


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: cigar joe on September 26, 2007, 02:55:38 PM
 
Quote
It just explains that the reviewer missed the point of the film as you do cigar

I guess the point was they were making an action flick dressed as a Western.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on September 26, 2007, 03:32:00 PM

I guess the point was they were making an action flick dressed as a Western.

 ;D well, it wasn't all action. If you want to rip a western based on action, I'd rip on "Tombstone.". That was the main premise of that film. I quite enjoyed the action sequences in "3:10 to Yuma" more so compared to "Tombstone." But, there definitely was drama apparent in multiple scenes which I enjoyed.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: cigar joe on September 26, 2007, 05:02:43 PM
Quote
But, there definitely was drama apparent in multiple scenes which I enjoyed.


yea, yea ..we know. 8)


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on September 26, 2007, 05:26:50 PM


yea, yea ..we know. 8)

 ;)


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: PowerRR on September 30, 2007, 07:44:12 AM
I just watched this again at the drive-in. Come on guys, this has everything you'd want in a western movie! A great score, great action, cool characters, a great plot, wonderfully built tension, and even a few pretty decent one-liners from Crowe. Not to mention the above-average camera work and cinematography.

I still say it's the best western that I've personally seen since the days of Leone. Then again, I know you guys have seen so many more than me.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: cigar joe on September 30, 2007, 02:56:12 PM
"a great plot"

NOT!


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: The Peacemaker on September 30, 2007, 03:09:10 PM
I just watched this again at the drive-in. Come on guys, this has everything you'd want in a western movie! A great score, great action, cool characters, a great plot, wonderfully built tension, and even a few pretty decent one-liners from Crowe. Not to mention the above-average camera work and cinematography.

I still say it's the best western that I've personally seen since the days of Leone. Then again, I know you guys have seen so many more than me.


I totally agree! This movie kicked so much ass.


I think Unforgiven was better, but this one is certainly much more fun to watch!

Charlie Prince was my favorite character in this one. He was evil, had a cool outfit, two awesome pistols, and a badass attitude.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on September 30, 2007, 03:17:31 PM

I totally agree! This movie kicked so much ass.


I think Unforgiven was better, but this one is certainly much more fun to watch!

Charlie Prince was my favorite character in this one. He was evil, had a cool outfit, two awesome pistols, and a badass attitude.

I agree totally! Great film all around. I can't wait for the DVD.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Silenzio on September 30, 2007, 03:25:16 PM
"a great plot"

NOT!

Owned!


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Kurug3n on September 30, 2007, 04:57:44 PM
"a great plot"

NOT!

nice Borat impression O0


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on October 03, 2007, 12:42:29 PM
nice Borat impression O0

High Five!


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: moviesceleton on November 05, 2007, 01:59:18 PM
Marmota, if you are interested, this is opening there in Czech on February 14th. Quite a long wait, though :-X


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: mr. mouse on November 20, 2007, 02:21:22 PM
I saw this movie a few weeks ago and quite liked it.
The performances and the music was top notch. 
Oddly, it was the first western I ever saw at the cinema. There is another western in theaters now called 'The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford' that I'm going to see as soon as possible.

But back to 3:10 to Yuma. Did anyone notice just how incredibly GAY Charlie Prince (the character played by Ben Foster) was?!


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: dave jenkins on November 20, 2007, 04:18:49 PM
But back to 3:10 to Yuma. Did anyone notice just how incredibly GAY Charlie Prince (the character played by Ben Foster) was?!
This was noted above. I think the discussion of it begins around here: http://www.fistful-of-leone.com/forums/index.php?topic=6074.195


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Ben Tyreen on November 21, 2007, 12:09:12 AM
  Like dave said, the Charlie Prince gay/not gay topic was covered, but I'll add my two cents.  He wasn't gay IMO, just a loyal, freakishly loyal, gunhand to Crowe's Ben Wade. 

  And speaking of 3:10 to Yuma, the DVD is going to be released January 8 so save some Christmas money folks!  I saw it in theaters twice so it'll be a first day pick-up for me.  I'm hoping there's some good special features, maybe some deleted scenes or interviews with Crowe and Bale.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: cigar joe on November 21, 2007, 08:50:32 AM
I won't be buying this, a bit too illogical for me, but I may rent it, to give it a better going over.

I've got a question for you since this topic has been revived. During the trek to Contention City the guy that Wade forks to death was riding Wades horse, that was the only reference to his horse that I remember until that very end shot of his whistling for his horse and the horse running along side the train.

After they get to the hotel & they are holed up there where is Wades horse? And how did it get to the station? Anybody know?


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Ben Tyreen on November 21, 2007, 01:03:31 PM
 
Quote
I've got a question for you since this topic has been revived. During the trek to Contention City the guy that Wade forks to death was riding Wades horse, that was the only reference to his horse that I remember until that very end shot of his whistling for his horse and the horse running along side the train.

After they get to the hotel & they are holed up there where is Wades horse? And how did it get to the station? Anybody know?

  I haven't seen the movie in awhile, but doesn't Evans' son take their horses to the station before he goes out on lookout duty for Wade's crew?  I could be wrong but that was my first thought.  I'm not sure though, maybe the horses were left in the alley and for the ending, they just made a stretch to make it work?


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: cigar joe on November 22, 2007, 06:54:23 PM
Looks like they brought one horse two many.  ;)


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Jill on December 04, 2007, 11:36:51 AM
Finally seen it. Quite good. It had good characters. My favourite is the sadist blonde boy from Wade's gang. He's an individual!  ;D

The ending was very unfair.  :( If a hero thinks he would die, usually he doesn't die...

Shooting scenes are excellent.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on December 04, 2007, 04:38:59 PM
Finally seen it. Quite good. It had good characters. My favourite is the sadist blonde boy from Wade's gang. He's an individual!  ;D

The ending was very unfair.  :( If a hero thinks he would die, usually he doesn't die...

Shooting scenes are excellent.


I'm happy you enjoyed it Jill. I know the ending may have been "unfair" like you said, but I think it's one reason why the remake worked.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Ben Tyreen on December 04, 2007, 11:21:36 PM
Quote
I know the ending may have been "unfair" like you said, but I think it's one reason why the remake worked.

  I liked the ending, it worked for me, but it is MILES ahead of the original's ending.  The original movie is good, but the ending just comes apart. >:(


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: cigar joe on December 05, 2007, 07:45:16 AM
Here is a guy that disagrees with you:

from imdb

I just saw the original 3:10 To Yuma again and let me tell you folks out there that the difference between the two is quite fascinating. I truly feel that I could write a thesis paper on how the original compared with this year's remake contrasts the Golden Age of Hollywood with today's dumbed down, marketing processed film culture that has all but destroyed Hollywood. Today you have to go looking for an independant film, a foreign film, or get lucky with those all too rare events when a major studio actually makes something worthwhile. It's so rare today for a studio picture to play forward without a barrage of cliches, repetitive ideas, generic emotional moments, and dummie-card pillars for structuring the story for the mental ease of the lowest denomination(make it easy for idiots to grasp).

The remake offers a couple of top class actors, great production value and all the modern Hollywood tools and capabilities that were lacked when the black and white version had it's day.

But at the same time we see changes all over and what fascinates me is how specific the changes are in representing precisely why a great movie of intelligence, substance and emotional depth and truth can be reconceived into a modern film with the necessary pussification that Hollywood feels obligated to inject it with.


Here would be a brief few points, a short summary of where I am going with this.

1.) Ruseel Crowe is constantly killing others with wicked skill and ferocity. Glenn Ford simply acted out his formidable essence and it comes across fine, but today's Hollywood has to show everyone an example of Ben Wade's deadly threatening abilities. Furthermor Christian Bale's crippling injury is constantly being reminded of to the audience so that they can be properly aware of his limitation. Old Hollywood doesn't insult and disrespect their audience by resorting to such simplistic and direct methods of exposition. Instead it is sound, picture, acting and shot selection that sets the scene and the audience is directed to build the danger within their own imagination in part with a splendid chain of scenes and events.

2.) The husband isn't trying to impress his kids and wife to the point of protecting his pride and admiration within their eyes. That is a small part of what's going on, but this film creates the decision to go through with taking Ben to the train as a combination of things which peaks to a point of no return when it becomes a question of honor. This is so 21st Century vs. 19th Century, Bale being concerned with pride and image primarily, Van Hefflin in the old version factoring in that behind the much more important aspect of honor. Of course they can't hardly continue with the realistic older version because today's society of metro-sexual gimps couldn't identify with the concept of being a man and choosing death before dishonor. Why we wouldn't get to drink our beer in front of the T.V. tomorrow if that happened.

3.) The death scene in the new version is in my mind either an attempt for surprise and confusion by going against the expectation rather than forming something unexpected and grand, or else it's the modern Hollywood point to always try and hit the emotion button extra hard rather than trying to create a truth that connects with our mind's understanding.

4.) As for Ben's sudden turn towards respect and friendship, it's out of real emotions in the original and totally believable. The moment you see Glenn Ford's eyes you can read into him the change of heart and see it coming. In today's film Crowe has to warm up slowly to preface the change, then they have to create a moment of danger that is interrupted when Christian Bale spits out his sad story. That's what I do in a knife fight, I immediately try and persuade him while I struggle for the knife, and of course anyone would be like Crowe and suddenly become a quiet, still listerner. Jesus what *beep* And of course the new film has to punish the wicked so if we won't hurt Ben Wade, we'll hurt his gang and who is more capable then Ben Wade. While most didn't buy that scene, I find it interesting that they did it that way. Wade's deadly betrayal of his gang is almost foreshadowing of the later part of our society and it's backstabbing, honorless ways. Soon we'll see betrayal as an everyday human consistancy. In the original there are no such betrayals, merely a leap to freedom of the dangerous gunfight that was about to occur. And just to note, the trains create a fog of steam that beautifully creates the pause for escape, rather than the dramatic pause before Russel Crowe goes kill crazy on the guys who spent the whole movie rushing like wildfire to his aid.

5.) The father/son relationships are especially revealing of our cultural decline. In the old version there is merely a few slight indications of Van Hefflin's kids believing in him and him being determined to make them proud by his action, and not out of any worry or concern about their viewing him as a coward. The new version conveys the modern disrespect a son might often today feel and even show openly their improper attitude towards their father that simply was not acceptable in the old west, a more honorable period of family existance. Bale needs to show his son how he really does have courage while Van Hefflin alternately is in the position where he simply cannot let those killed by Wade while helping out die with deaths coming in vain, without result or victory. He must respect their sacrifice and folloow it through.


Is the new film good? For today's movies it's fair. Compared with the old one? If you think so then you are officially a part of the problem.



Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Ben Tyreen on December 05, 2007, 11:17:55 AM
  No offense meant to you at all, cigar, but posters like this are almost as bad as the ones who just say "This movie SUCKS!" with no explanation.  And it's another reason why IMDB is so hit or miss.  The poster is obviously intelligent and expresses his ideas well, but then at the end he insults everyone who liked the movie like he's a god among moviegoers, this being the line that pissed me off.

Quote
Is the new film good? For today's movies it's fair. Compared with the old one? If you think so then you are officially a part of the problem.

  Because someone liked a movie, they're "part of the problem"?  Go blow, it's a movie, and I liked it.  Sorry for the rant. :)


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: cigar joe on December 05, 2007, 04:22:09 PM
I thought the movie was very sloppy, and not to point out the obvious implausabilities and illogical plot points means that its ok for film makers to be sloppy.

I applaud the effort at making a Western but its not more than a 6.5-7.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Ben Tyreen on December 05, 2007, 05:42:36 PM
Quote
I thought the movie was very sloppy, and not to point out the obvious implausabilities and illogical plot points means that its ok for film makers to be sloppy.

I applaud the effort at making a Western but its not more than a 6.5-7.

  And that's fine, joe, I respect that.  I doubt there's a movie out there that everyone likes.  But when you're dealing with other people, you respect other opinions.  You automatically didn't call everyone part of the problem just cause they don't agree with you. ;D


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: The Firecracker on December 05, 2007, 06:59:12 PM
I only had a problem with the final 15 minutes.

I'm surprised it's getting an oscar nod :o


I read the short story just recently and it is much better than the original and it's remake.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on December 06, 2007, 12:08:36 AM
Give it up cigar, really. You just keep going on and on and on about a movie you didn't like. Then, you have the balls to put people down because they like it. It's a film, it's art, people are going to like it. Just because you don't approve of it, doesn't mean someone is dumb because they do. I've never seen so much whining about a film someone didn't like.

I honestly think you've lost your mind in your old age.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Ben Tyreen on December 06, 2007, 12:10:10 AM
Quote
I'm surprised it's getting an oscar nod

  Did I miss something?  I didn't think the nominations were even out yet for the Academy Awards.
 


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on December 06, 2007, 12:11:32 AM
  Did I miss something?  I didn't think the nominations were even out yet for the Academy Awards.
 

Nope, you didn't miss anything. Some friends of ours here are just being silly.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Ben Tyreen on December 06, 2007, 12:18:54 AM
  Haha good.  I thought I was losing it there for a second. ;D


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: cigar joe on December 06, 2007, 04:31:04 AM
 
Quote
Just because you don't approve of it, doesn't mean someone is dumb because they do. I've never seen so much whining about a film someone didn't like.


Chill bud, You are the dumb ass TB, since you didn't go and make sure It wasn't me that typed that. That was a copy of a post on imdb.
bty I've also never seen so much ass kissing of a mediocre film by someone who supposedly likes Leone's films.

If you think it deserves to be anyplace near the rating or the artisty of Delmer Daves, Glen Ford, Van Heflin, or a Leone film you still are seriously deluded.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: dave jenkins on December 06, 2007, 06:27:35 AM
I honestly think you've lost your mind in your old age.
At least he had one to lose. :P


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on December 06, 2007, 08:56:11 AM
 

Chill bud, You are the dumb ass TB, since you didn't go and make sure It wasn't me that typed that. That was a copy of a post on imdb.
bty I've also never seen so much ass kissing of a mediocre film by someone who supposedly likes Leone's films.

If you think it deserves to be anyplace near the rating or the artisty of Delmer Daves, Glen Ford, Van Heflin, or a Leone film you still are seriously deluded.

So because I like Sergio Leone films, I can't like the "3:10 to Yuma" remake? Again, you make no sense whatsoever. You think you're above everyone and proud you don't like this film. If you weren't so blinded by your stupidity, you would acknowledge that the remake has aspects better than the original.

Again, I'm not trying to have a war with you, I just think it's disrespectful to put people down who have a different opinion than you. You just keep going on and on. You've turned into a broken record.


At least he had one to lose. :P

Ignorance, plain and simple.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Atlas2112 on December 06, 2007, 10:06:38 AM
II read the short story just recently and it is much better than the original and it's remake.
yeah it doesn't have the plot holes and improbibilities of the films, as well as it has a satisfying ending.
Elmore leonard has gone to say they really screw up the story (which they did)
but id like to hear what he would have thought of the remake


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Jill on December 06, 2007, 10:23:52 AM
I expected the bandit will die. I'm romantic.  ;D

When the little boy said he couldn't be pure evil I expected some "Vader-like" finale.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: The Firecracker on December 06, 2007, 10:45:18 AM
Nope, you didn't miss anything. Some friends of ours here are just being silly.


I didn't think I was being silly nor was I trying to pull anybodies leg.
I thought for sure it was getting an oscar nod since I read it would in a few online articles.
I thought the noms were in already. My mistake.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Ben Tyreen on December 06, 2007, 11:11:29 AM
Quote
I didn't think I was being silly nor was I trying to pull anybodies leg.
I thought for sure it was getting an oscar nod since I read it would in a few online articles.
I thought the noms were in already. My mistake.

  Eh, don't worry about it.  It is about that time of the year.  I've read 3:10 will get some nominations too, some more of a stretch than others.  Maybe Bale, although Rescue Dawn might get him a nod, and Crowe, but I'm not sure about either one of those.  Both fine performances, but Oscar worthy?  I guess we'll see.  The other one that made me chuckle was Best Picture.  A pretty good movie, but somehow, I just don't see that happening. ;D


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: The Firecracker on December 06, 2007, 11:20:21 AM
A pretty good movie, but somehow, I just don't see that happening. ;D

I feel the same way.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: cigar joe on December 07, 2007, 04:36:58 AM
its entertaining but its not 8-9-10 material.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: dave jenkins on January 03, 2008, 06:42:26 PM
Apparently, a reference quality transfer: http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDReviews34/310_to_yuma.htm

A shame the film isn't better.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: moviesceleton on January 06, 2008, 08:42:11 AM
Finally read through this thread (which took probably more time than what the running time of the film is ;D) and guess what? This tread reminded me more of a sandbox conversation of 5-year-olds rather than an intelligent discussion on a internet webboard...
"There are no flaws in this movie! It's perfect!"
"I hated it! This movie is one big plothole!"
"You have the right to your opinion but still you're wrong. This movie is perfect!"
"You are wrong and I'm right and that's all that matters...eh...I mean, great we can have intelligent discussion buddy (idiot)"
"hahaha You're wrong! It's perfect!"
"I hate..."

You all know the story of the guy who after seeing OUATIA said he felt like after having a good meal, right? I've always liked that comparasion, even though I don't know anything about food and stuff. And that kind of feeling I want to get when I watch a film, in most cases. But we all know that once in a while you want to eat candy even though you know there are no nutrients or anything in it. It just tastes good! This movie is a bag of candy. Fun to watch, full of action, cool characters, some good one-liners, and of course cowboys and indians! Plus it's not as simple as shall we say Die Hard movies or the like. I give it 8/10.

Then may I criticize it. There are some plot holes in it, most of them didn't distract my experience at the cinema and I noticed them only afterwards or somebody pointed them out for me. But the few I couldn't swallow were: Why the fuck didn't the tie him up? And the ending was just too farfetched, I don't know, it maybe could have worked but IMO they failed with it. And Prince' resurrection was like from some bad horror movie. But I have to admit, I was surprised and shocked when Dan was shot.

The relationship between Dan and his son reflects much more today's life and social problems than 1800's, IMO. I think it's stupid to add things like that in a western. Though, they have always done that.

I don't know whether Prince was gay or not. There are gay elements in his character, but it's hard to tell whether I had payed attention to them if I hadn't read the gay comments in this thread before going to see the film.

Probably not going to buy the DVD, at least not immediately. Maybe when I can get it cheap... I have a feeling it will come down a great deal on my little telly. This was a fun film to watch not a future classic. It's not the best western since Leone's. It's not the best western since Unforgiven. It's not even the best film of it's year.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: The Firecracker on January 06, 2008, 11:26:25 AM
It's not even the best film of it's year.

Or it's week. Shoot em up was much better.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on January 06, 2008, 04:24:54 PM
DVD out Tuesday!!!! O0


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: PowerRR on January 06, 2008, 04:30:40 PM
I know! I just pre-ordered it on Columbia House for DVD (got it for free) along with Letters From Iwo Jima on HD-DVD. It's a shame I don't have a Blu-Ray player so I can re watch the fantastic film in superb quality, as if it isn't beautiful enough already.

Right, cigar joe?


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: cigar joe on January 06, 2008, 07:12:35 PM
right, and watch it more closely, so you "get" it.  8)


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: PowerRR on January 06, 2008, 07:57:00 PM
Watch it more closely?

What are you even talking about?


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on January 06, 2008, 08:36:19 PM
rr, there's no need to watch it again to "get it" as cigar says. I think you got it the first time. It's not that hard to understand. Cigar makes it sound like you're watching a David Lynch film or something.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Ben Tyreen on January 08, 2008, 11:16:50 AM
Quote
rr, there's no need to watch it again to "get it" as cigar says. I think you got it the first time. It's not that hard to understand. Cigar makes it sound like you're watching a David Lynch film or something.

  This kinda goes along with one of the funniest assumptions I've ever read over at IMDB.  The poster was absolutely convinced that Wade was one of Evans' soldiers in the Civil War and that he was the one who shot Evans' foot helping to defend Washington DC.  There's no evidence to suggest this of course which makes it all that much funnier to me. ;D


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Whalestoe on January 08, 2008, 03:10:00 PM
  This kinda goes along with one of the funniest assumptions I've ever read over at IMDB.  The poster was absolutely convinced that Wade was one of Evans' soldiers in the Civil War and that he was the one who shot Evans' foot helping to defend Washington DC.  There's no evidence to suggest this of course which makes it all that much funnier to me. ;D

If this was an M. Night Shyamalan-a-ding-dong movie, I might be able to consider the possibility! :D


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on January 08, 2008, 10:55:24 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YH0bell3jCE


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: The Firecracker on January 08, 2008, 10:58:41 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YH0bell3jCE



They needed to keep the sound effects and audio (isolated from the original trailer music of course) in order to make that fan trailer work, otherwise it's just a lazy piece of nothing.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Whalestoe on January 08, 2008, 11:02:02 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YH0bell3jCE



They needed to keep the sound effects and audio (isolated from the original trailer music of course) in order to make that fan trailer work, otherwise it's just a lazy piece of nothing.

I was just about to complain about that. Anyways, I don't think Morricone's score for any of Leone's westerns would have worked with 3:10 to Yuma (had it been written for 3:10 to Yuma--does anyone get what I'm trying to say?). Maybe it's just me.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on January 08, 2008, 11:02:55 PM
Guy's relax. I just found it on youtube when I was fooling around. haha


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Whalestoe on January 08, 2008, 11:05:13 PM
Guy's relax. I just found it on youtube when I was fooling around. haha

I'll swallow your soul TB. >:D


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on January 08, 2008, 11:12:05 PM
I'll swallow your soul TB. >:D

If you swallow my soul, I warn you, you'll have a fight on your hands. That's probably not the best path to lead.  ;)


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Whalestoe on January 08, 2008, 11:15:42 PM
If you swallow my soul, I warn you, you'll have a fight on your hands. That's probably not the best path to lead.  ;)

DERE WUZ A FYREFIIIGHT!

How is it possible to reference both Army of Darkness and Boondock Saints in a 3:10 to Yuma thread. It's been a very strange day.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on January 17, 2008, 10:43:05 PM
I watched it tonight. It just gets better with each viewing.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Ben Tyreen on January 19, 2008, 01:32:15 PM
  This was one of the few DVDs where the deleted scenes could have been left in the movie.  Most deleted scenes are pretty obvious why they were cut, but the 3:10 ones were pretty strong overall, especially when it came to fleshing out Wade's gang some.  Glad to have this one in my collection.  O0


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on January 20, 2008, 07:20:56 PM
  This was one of the few DVDs where the deleted scenes could have been left in the movie.  Most deleted scenes are pretty obvious why they were cut, but the 3:10 ones were pretty strong overall, especially when it came to fleshing out Wade's gang some.  Glad to have this one in my collection.  O0

You're the man Ben. You sure know your westerns brother!


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Ben Tyreen on January 21, 2008, 12:10:22 AM
Quote
You're the man Ben. You sure know your westerns brother!

  I might not know much, but on westerns I'm okay. ;D


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on January 23, 2008, 01:35:34 PM
This is how fake, ignorant, self-centered, conceited, and immature cigar joe is. He's the ultimate know it all. Reading his posts, you would be certain this man is a teenager at most. The sad thing is, he's a 50+ year old man.

Here's what he really thinks about people who like "3:10 to Yuma." He basically thinks he's above anybody who disagree's with him.

After someone states how much they like the film:

"You don't know diddley." -cigar joe

"I would say it was an idiot film throughout. The ending was the capper." -cigar joe

"This is the FRIGGING problem trying to explain something to neophites, that when WESTERNS where in vogue it was common knowledge to every male that enjoys the genre, people out West were not irrational idiots running around doing stupid things, they were SURVIVORS, don't put modern societies lables and PC behavior upon them." -cigar joe

The idiot doesn't realize that I'm not new to the genre. I've loved westerns ever since I was a little boy. My father who's a huge fan of the genre, watched counless westerns. I was fasinated with the genre from the get go. Again, cigar is so damn ignorant just because people, including myself LIKE the 3:10 to Yuma remake.

"Its people who love great Westerns who find the film IMPLAUSABLE, we don't HATE the film, we just don't think it is anywhere near as good as the best Westerns ever made. " -cigar joe

PURE IGNORANCE! ;D

This is what cigar joe responded with when I was having a good chat with someone who LOVED the film.

"Go get a motel room together." -cigar joe

More immature responses from cigar himself...

"ITS A STUPID MOVIE!!!!!" -cigar joe

"You don't know Dick." -cigar joe

cigar's response to the majority of critics who loved the movie.

"Its gonna be the same with this once critics get their heads out of the clouds or their a$$es."

"Honor has nothing to do with it its the cockamamie plot that we are supposed to swallow, that flaws this remake." -cigar joe

"What most of us are trying to say is that its bad compared to the greatest Westerns."-cigar joe

Most? That's why most people who've I've talked to in person and on message boards love this. mmmm

"The remake is a dog turd. Hollwood dropped it on the ground for knuckleheads to lick like it was candy."-cigar joe

Oh and cigar most famous repeative statement about this film...

"It's implausable."

In short, cigar joe is a complete JERK.






Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: PowerRR on January 23, 2008, 02:47:31 PM
I applaud you, young sir, for exposing the ignorance of grandpa CJ.

The cock.

 O0


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: cigar joe on January 23, 2008, 05:19:35 PM
Talk about immature

Tuc and rr I feel so bad............

Gee TB did you get your rocks off going through all the old posts
And you know what I'm not gonna bother doing the same for your posts, (but I invite anybody who even cares what names you called me to check it out) I couldn't care less, you just can't take it that I don't like IMPLAUSABLE and IRRATIONAL Westerns.

Here's the full quote:

I never said I HATED it, I just said it ain't as good as the classics, no matter which critic ejaculated over it.

SetenzaAliasAngelEyes (this is his alias on imdb) doesn't know what he's talking about obviously and he can't refute the following which I'll post again:

Westerns are our legends our mythology, when you screw with the basic premisses of the genre folks who love Westerns will speak out.

For instance, people in the 1800's in the West were dealing with life and death situations constantly from Native Americans, from outlaws, from animals, from weather, from starvation from thirst. They were frontiersmen, soldiers, hunters, scouts, drovers, PIONEERS for god sakes! They crossed thousands of miles of desolate country on horseback in wagon trains, they knew how to shoot guns, kill game to eat, how to tie knots to stow their gear, how to rig wagons, saddle horses, start fires. Lots of 'em died with their boots on, some started trading posts that grew into towns others took up trades to service the growing communities.

This is the FRIGGING problem trying to explain something to neophites, that when WESTERNS where in vogue it was common knowledge to every male that enjoys the genre, people out West were not irrational idiots running around doing stupid things, they were SURVIVORS, don't put modern societies lables and PC behavior upon them.

If anything our ancestors were SMARTER than people are today.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on January 23, 2008, 05:42:48 PM
Tuc and rr I feel so bad............

Gee TB did you get your rocks off going through all the old post
And you know what I'm not gonna bother doing the same for your posts, (but I invite anybody who even cares what names you called me to check it out) I couldn't care less, you just can't take it that I don't like IMPLAUSABLE and IRRATIONAL Westerns.

Here's the full quote:

I never said I HATED it, I just said it ain't as good as the classics, no matter which critic ejaculated over it.

SetenzaAliasAngelEyes (this is his alias on imdb) doesn't know what he's talking about obviously and he can't refute the following which I'll post again:

Westerns are our legends our mythology, when you screw with the basic premisses of the genre folks who love Westerns will speak out.

For instance, people in the 1800's in the West were dealing with life and death situations constantly from Native Americans, from outlaws, from animals, from weather, from starvation from thirst. They were frontiersmen, soldiers, hunters, scouts, drovers, PIONEERS for god sakes! They crossed thousands of miles of desolate country on horseback in wagon trains, they knew how to shoot guns, kill game to eat, how to tie knots to stow their gear, how to rig wagons, saddle horses, start fires. Lots of 'em died with their boots on, some started trading posts that grew into towns others took up trades to service the growing communities.

This is the FRIGGING problem trying to explain something to neophites, that when WESTERNS where in vogue it was common knowledge to every male that enjoys the genre, people out West were not irrational idiots running around doing stupid things, they were SURVIVORS, don't put modern societies lables and PC behavior upon them.

If anything our ancestors were SMARTER than people are today.


No cigar, I just want you to stop putting down people who disagree with you, that's all. You stated your OPINION, that's what you don't understand, it's your opinion, and I WOULD RESPECT that if you would stop with the name calling and being so judgemental. You tell me I don't know anything about WESTERNS because I like the 3:10 to Yuma remake? The fact that I enjoy the remake doesn't make me anymore educated about the genre than you. I don't see the logic in your statement there.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, you know your stuff, I won't deny that, but you have to learn that other people have personal preference or look at some film's differently that you. You should respect that.



Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: cigar joe on January 23, 2008, 05:51:15 PM
WTF are you talking about, you have also been pretty free with the name calling my friend.

"You tell me I don't know anything about WESTERNS because I like the 3:10 to Yuma remake?"

OBVIOUSLY ( you've been calling it a Classic, I think that is something that is earned over a test of time)

Let me ask you the question this way how would you rate it along side "The Good The Bad & The Ugly", "The Wild Bunch", "Once Upon A Time In The West", "High Noon", "McCabe & Mrs. Miller"?


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on January 23, 2008, 05:58:47 PM
WTF are you talking about, you have also been pretty free with the name calling my friend.

"You tell me I don't know anything about WESTERNS because I like the 3:10 to Yuma remake?"

OBVIOUSLY

Let me ask you the question this way how would you rate it along side "The Good The Bad & The Ugly", "The Wild Bunch", "Once Upon A Time In The West", "High Noon", "McCabe & Mrs. Miller"?

Yes, I admit that I've been pretty free with the name calling because I don't like that you keep repeating that I don't know anything about western's when in fact it's my favorite genre. All we're doing here is disagreeing about a film cigar, and you're turning this into something it shouldn't be. I just don't get how you automatically assume that because I like this film, that makes me stupid. Strange thinking if you ask me.

Now, those films that you listed. Of course I think "The Good, The Bad and The Ugly," "The Wild Bunch", "Once Upon a Time in the West", "High Noon", and "McCabe & Mrs. Miller" are better. I never said that I held the "3:10 to Yuma" remake as a "masterpiece" but I do think it's damn good. Now, somewhere down the road, who knows what my opinion of the film is. It may decline in quality to me or it may get even better. That's still to be determined.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: cigar joe on January 23, 2008, 06:06:12 PM
You've been calling it a Classic, a Classsic is something that is earned after the test of time, you got to learn to realistically moderate your opinion

If this fim gets a 8.1/10 on imdb then GBU, TWB, OUTITW, and M&MM sould get a 16/10


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on January 23, 2008, 06:08:57 PM
You've been calling it a Classic, a Classsic is something that is earned after the test of time, you got to learn to realistically moderate your opinion

If this fim gets a 8.1/10 on imdb then GBU, TWB, OUTITW, and M&MM sould get a 16/10

Well, I think the term "classic" is just a figure of speech. When I see a film for the first time and am crazy about it, I tend to throw that term out a lot to describe it. It's just a habit. However, I do think a film can be an instant classic, but to be called a masterpiece, I think that's to be determined years after the film has been made.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Ben Tyreen on January 23, 2008, 06:09:19 PM
  With all this bickering, can we just agree that Charlie Prince is a total bad-ass? O0

(http://cache.reelzchannel.com/assets/content/review/yuma1.jpg)

A Youtube tribute to Charlie Prince
http://youtube.com/watch?v=nRzFoyZFd7M (http://youtube.com/watch?v=nRzFoyZFd7M)


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on January 23, 2008, 06:12:51 PM
 With all this bickering, can we just agree that Charlie Prince is a total bad-ass? O0

(http://www.flickr.com/photos/sluggobear/1351922868/)

A Youtube tribute to Charlie Prince
http://youtube.com/watch?v=nRzFoyZFd7M (http://youtube.com/watch?v=nRzFoyZFd7M)

hahaha, yeah, I liked Ben Foster's performance myself. I just wish we could have seen more of him.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Atlas2112 on January 23, 2008, 06:18:41 PM
 With all this bickering, can we just agree that Charlie Prince is a total bad-ass? O0
yeah princess is the kind of person id never wanna cross

baaaaaaad asssssssssss  O0


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Ben Tyreen on January 23, 2008, 06:23:39 PM
  I was going back through all 25 or so pages of posts and came upon something kinda funny.  Go to Page 7 and read CJ's review and then TB's a few posts down.  If I'm not mistaken, they actually both rate the movie 4/5 or 8/10.  Now I ain't no math genius, but I do believe that is the same thing. O0  You'd never know from the most recent posts back and forth. ;D


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on January 23, 2008, 06:26:45 PM
  I was going back through all 25 or so pages of posts and came upon something kinda funny.  Go to Page 7 and read CJ's review and then TB's a few posts down.  If I'm not mistaken, they actually both rate the movie 4/5 or 8/10.  Now I ain't no math genius, but I do believe that is the same thing. O0  You'd never know from the most recent posts back and forth. ;D

I would have to guess that cigar disliked it more with repeated viewings. Who knows.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: cigar joe on January 23, 2008, 06:48:04 PM
definitely, after I came down to earth, part of the problem is that Westerns don't get made very often and when one comes down the pike everyone is ecstatic over it initially.

Once I got past the smoke & mirrors and actually began to think about & analize what I saw and compared it to the the original my initial rating went south.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on January 29, 2008, 12:04:46 PM
3:10 to Yuma (2007) * * * *

By Roger Ebert

James Mangold's "3:10 to Yuma" restores the wounded heart of the Western and rescues it from the morass of pointless violence. The Western in its glory days was often a morality play, a story about humanist values penetrating the lawless anarchy of the frontier. It still follows that tradition in films like Eastwood's "The Unforgiven," but the audience's appetite for morality plays and Westerns seems to be fading. Here the quality of the acting, and the thought behind the film, make it seem like a vanguard of something new, even though it's a remake of a good movie 50 years old.

The plot is so easily told that Elmore Leonard originally wrote it as a short story. A man named Dan Evans (Christian Bale), who lost a leg in the Civil War, has come to the Arizona territory to try his luck at ranching. It's going badly, made worse by a neighboring bully who wants to force him off his land. The territory still fears Indian raids, and just as much the lawless gang led by Ben Wade (Russell Crowe), which sticks up stagecoaches, robs banks, casually murders people and outguns any opposition. Through a series of developments that seem almost dictated by fate, Dan Evans finds himself as part of a posse sworn in to escort Wade, captured and handcuffed, to the nearby town of Contention, where the 3:10 p.m. train has a cell in its mail car that will transport Wade to the prison in Yuma and a certain death sentence.

Both Dan and Ben have elements in their characters that come under test in this adventure. Dan fears he has lost the confidence of wife Alice (Gretchen Mol) and teenage son Will (Logan Lerman), who doubt he can make the ranch work. Still less does Alice see why her transplanted Eastern husband should risk his life as a volunteer. The son Will, who has practically memorized dime novels about Ben Wade, idealizes he outlaw, and when Dan realizes the boy has followed the posse, he is not pleased. Wade intuits, however, that the boy is following him, and not his father.

That's an insight into Wade. He plays his persona like a performance. He draws, reads, philosophizes, is incomparably smarter than the scum in his gang. Having spent untold time living on the run with them, he may actually find it refreshing to spend time with Dan, even as his captive. Eventually the two men end up in a room in the Contention hotel, overlooking the street, in earshot of the train whistle, surrounded outside by armed men who want to rescue Ben or kill him.

These general outlines also describe the 1957 version of "3:10 to Yuma," directed by Delmer Daves, starring Glenn Ford and Van Heflin in the roles of the rancher and the outlaw. The movie, with its railroad timetable, followed the slowly advancing clock in "High Noon" (1952) and was compared to it; when I saw it in 35mm at Telluride in the 1980s, I thought it was better than "High Noon," not least because of the personality shifts it involves.

Mangold's version is better still than the 1957 original, because it has better actors with more thought behind their dialogue. Christian Bale plays not simply a noble hero, but a man who has avoided such risks as he now takes and is almost at a loss to explain why he is bringing a killer to justice, except that having been mistreated and feeling unable to provide for his family, he is fed up and here he takes his stand. Crowe, however, plays not merely a merciless killer, although he is that, too, but a man also capable of surprising himself. He is too intelligent to have only one standard behavior which must fit all situations, and is perhaps bored of having that expected of him.

Westerns used to be the showcases of great character actors, of whom I was lucky enough to meet Dub Taylor, Jack Elam, Chill Wills, Ben Johnson and, when she wasn't doing a million other things, Shelley Winters. "3:10 to Yuma" has two roles that need a special character flavor and fills them perfectly. Peter Fonda plays McElroy, a professional bounty hunter who would rather claim the price on Ben Wade's head than let the government execute him for free. And Ben Foster plays Charlie Prince, the second-in-command of Wade's gang, who seems half in love with Wade, or maybe Charlie's half-aware that's he's all in love. Wade would know which, and wouldn't care, except as material for his study of human nature.

Locked in the hotel room, surrounded by death for one or the other, the two men begin to talk. Without revealing anything of the plot, let me speculate that each senses he has found the first man he has met in years who is his equal in conversation. Crowe and Bale play this dialogue so precisely that it never reveals itself for what it really is, a testing of mutual insight. One trial of a great actor is the ability to let dialogue do its work invisibly, something you can also see in next week's "In the Valley of Elah" with Tommy Lee Jones and Charlize Theron. Too many actors are like the guy who laughs at his own joke and then tells it to you again.

James Mangold first came into view with an extraordinary movie named "Heavy" (1995). His "Walk the Line" (2005) won an Oscar for Reese Witherspoon. To remake "3:10 to Yuma" seems an odd choice after such other modern films as "Girl, Interrupted," but the movie itself proves he had a good reason for choosing it. In hard times, Americans have often turned to the Western to reset their compasses. In very hard times, it takes a very good Western. Attend well to Ben Wade's last words in this movie, and who he says them to, and why.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: cigar joe on January 29, 2008, 05:48:31 PM
Too bad Ebert doesn't know WTF he's talking about.  8)


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on January 29, 2008, 06:56:50 PM
Too bad Ebert doesn't know WTF he's talking about.  8)

Sure he doesn't.  ::)


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: cigar joe on January 29, 2008, 08:47:32 PM
Quote
Sure he doesn't.


Obviously........... didn't he get BOTH GBU and OUTITW WRONG?????????? ::)


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Ben Tyreen on January 29, 2008, 11:06:12 PM
 
Quote
Obviously........... didn't he get BOTH GBU and OUTITW WRONG?

  He gave OUATITW 2.5 out of 4 upon its initial release and admits that's it is good fun if you know what you'll be watching.  To be fair, we don't know which version he saw, maybe the 140 minute version that cut Leone's intended version so badly? 

  And he gave GBU a 3 out of 4 so he liked it.  Not everyone thinks it's a classic.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Atlas2112 on January 29, 2008, 11:14:31 PM
  And he gave GBU a 3 out of 4 so he liked it.  Not everyone thinks it's a classic.
he later revised it and gave it four out of four, saying he was too much of a novice to recognize a classic when he sees one. I ad-libbed that, but that was his general statement


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: The Firecracker on January 29, 2008, 11:35:01 PM
 


  And he gave GBU a 3 out of 4 so he liked it. 

But his review read like a 2 out of 4.
I seem to recall him complaining about the violence, yet he gave Peckinpah's TWB a glowing review.
Prejudism is the word that comes to mind here.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on January 29, 2008, 11:49:52 PM
What cigar doesn't seem to understand is, when you're watching a film, you're not trying to compare it to OUATITW or GBU. Just because you give a film 4 stars, doesn't mean it's necessarily better than those films. There's films I give 4 stars to, but I prefer one over the other.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: moviesceleton on January 30, 2008, 05:43:20 AM
I've always wondered what kind of scale he uses in his revews. Is four stars the highest he gives? Odd way of rating...


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on January 30, 2008, 10:45:48 AM
I've always wondered what kind of scale he uses in his revews. Is four stars the highest he gives? Odd way of rating...

Yes, four stars is the highest most critics use. That's the basic rating scale from what I've gathered.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: moviesceleton on January 30, 2008, 12:29:44 PM
Yes, four stars is the highest most critics use. That's the basic rating scale from what I've gathered.
Oh, here they use exclusively five stars.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on January 30, 2008, 05:32:21 PM
Oh, here they use exclusively five stars.

I like the 4 star out of 4 rating scale myself.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: KevinJCBJK on January 30, 2008, 07:39:14 PM
I've watched it the other day. I have to watch it again, but the film is full of bad-asses.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: cigar joe on January 30, 2008, 07:47:28 PM
yes rewatch it please, and then rate it against  "For a Few Dollars More"


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: PowerRR on January 30, 2008, 08:49:39 PM
yes rewatch it please, and then rate it against  "For a Few Dollars More"
I thought I told you to shut the fuck up.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Ben Tyreen on January 30, 2008, 11:47:53 PM
Quote
yes rewatch it please, and then rate it against  "For a Few Dollars More"

  Come on, Joseph, just because you didn't like the movie doesn't mean everyone else has to dislike it.  I really enjoyed it, but FAFDM is better when comparing the two.  Some people liked 3:10, others didn't.  I just don't get why you can't give it up, my friend. :)


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on January 31, 2008, 12:29:53 AM
I thought I told you to shut the fuck up.

 ;D cigar was bitched by a teenager.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on January 31, 2008, 12:31:30 AM
  Come on, Joseph, just because you didn't like the movie doesn't mean everyone else has to dislike it.  I really enjoyed it, but FAFDM is better when comparing the two.  Some people liked 3:10, others didn't.  I just don't get why you can't give it up, my friend. :)

He won't give up because he's obsessed! You think this is bad, you should see how much of a jerk he is about it on IMDB. He's completely lost his mind. I used to love cigar on here. I enjoyed his posts very much, but this 3:10 to Yuma stuff he won't let go.



Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: cigar joe on January 31, 2008, 05:59:52 AM
I'm just asking you to rate it against "For A Few Dollars More", not too much to ask is it?
 
If 3:10 the remake is rated as an 8.0/10 on imdb, then FAFDM should be a 16/10


It's a personal thing, I'm on a "Spaghetti Western" like VENDETTA against Hollywood CRAP.  ;) O0


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on January 31, 2008, 09:56:01 AM
I'm just asking you to rate it against "For A Few Dollars More", not too much to ask is it?
 
If 3:10 the remake is rated as an 8.0/10 on imdb, then FAFDM should be a 16/10


It's a personal thing, I'm on a "Spaghetti Western" like VENDETTA against Hollywood CRAP.  ;) O0

Your rating system is out of whack.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: marmota-b on March 01, 2008, 07:58:49 AM
Going to see this in cinema on 29th. Phew.
Could be sooner, but it hasn't arrived to Brno yet and I'm not going to miss school because of it.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: marmota-b on March 03, 2008, 11:35:34 AM
I hope there isn't too much action for me not to be able to take in what's happening... I mean, I have nothing against action, but I prefer it Leone-style. ;D That is, with enough time and motivation for me to get it.
But no matter what, I'm sure I'll enjoy it.

the townsfolk of Contention

Interesting name...


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: marmota-b on March 29, 2008, 04:21:30 AM
Going to see this in cinema on 29th. Phew.
Could be sooner, but it hasn't arrived to Brno yet and I'm not going to miss school because of it.

Change of plan. This was in Prague, but it is in Kolín next weekend, so I'm going there. Because 1) it's my favourite cinema and 2) it's cheaper for me to go to Kolín. (It's on the route to Brno and I have student's discount for it.)

Moreover, in the meantime I noticed it was in Brno... but when I had school. And in some of those big cinema complexes (aargh, how do you call those?), so I guess it will be just the same price for me to go see it in a small cozy cinema in another town. ::)

Now I'm really looking forward to it. I love the cinema in Kolín. It's right where I saw Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid, so it's going to be a tradition...


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: noodles_leone on March 31, 2008, 08:06:06 AM
Seen it the other day! (it has only been released in theater in France last wensday)
I know the subject has become dangerous on this board so i'll be very careful, and i want to make this very clear: what i think about this movie is very personal. I "agree to disagree" with every guy whose opinion is different.


Here is my complete review:

I didn't like this movie and those who liked it are stupid communists who don't understand anything about Westerns (but what could you expect from a communist, eh?).


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: moviesceleton on March 31, 2008, 10:31:28 AM
Nooooo!! You uncovered me! Traitor!


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: noodles_leone on March 31, 2008, 10:46:03 AM
Moviesceleton? a communist?

NOOOOOOOOOOO!
It's IMPOSSIBLE!


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: marmota-b on April 05, 2008, 01:48:34 PM
OK. I've seen it. I'm afraid I don't have time now to go through everything what people have written before me, though...

The composer of the music for the movie said it reminded him of a Sergio Leone western

It could have reminded him, but one thing is certain: Leone would never let music play throughout almost all of the whole film. He knew too well how to use silence.
And the whole thing was somehow more hectic than Leone. It's difficult to point out a particular thing, but the music playing all the time was definitelly also responsible for that. I think Leone was always a bit more melodramatic - in the good sense and not only in quiet moments.
Plus, I had hard time believing Wade when he said he had read the Bible once, at the age of eight. I doubt he'd remember all the Proverbs, numbers included, in that case. Moreover, he seemed to remember Proverbs only.
Apaches wearing feathers also didn't seem quite right. I don't know; have you ever seen a photo of an Apache with feathers? I seriously haven't.

Apart from that (and some of the necessary wise talks) I enjoyed it a lot. Now I'd love to see the original.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: The Firecracker on May 03, 2008, 11:30:02 PM
Franco Nero told me he thought this flick was shit.

I defended it and said it was decent until the final 15 minutes.

He also said Seraphim Falls wasn't very good either. Haven't seen that.
Apparently Liam Neeson (who is the godfather of Nero's kids) was disatisfied with the movie as well.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on May 04, 2008, 12:31:04 PM
Franco Nero told me he thought this flick was shit.

I defended it and said it was decent until the final 15 minutes.

He also said Seraphim Falls wasn't very good either. Haven't seen that.
Apparently Liam Neeson (who is the godfather of Nero's kids) was disatisfied with the movie as well.

It's just Franco Nero's opinion. I don't hold anything he he says on a pedestal.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: The Peacemaker on May 04, 2008, 07:21:08 PM

He also said Seraphim Falls wasn't very good either. Haven't seen that.


Gotta agree with him there. It was okay at best.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: The Firecracker on May 04, 2008, 08:40:15 PM
It's just Franco Nero's opinion. I don't hold anything he he says on a pedestal.

I made the post because I thought folks would be interested. That's all.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Groggy on November 15, 2008, 08:15:27 PM
Hate to stir this hornet's nest up again (hell, why should I? Nevermind) but I saw this over the summer and never added my two cents to this epic thread. Plus I re-read this thread tonight, or at least part of it.

It's a good movie. It's not a classic by any means, and maybe not even a great film, but let's take it for what it is. It's an action Western - something like The Magnificent Seven and The Professionals, or maybe 100 Rifles to be a bit less controversial - it's not an intelligent or thematically deep movie like, say, The Searchers or OUATITW or The Assassination of Jesse James etc., unless you want to be all criticish and read stuff into the movie. CJ and DJ's criticisms about realism and plausibility are valid, but also missing the point. I agree wholeheartedly that the posse should have wasted Ben Wade after he killed the first sentry, and that the mining camp scene was pointless, and the bit about the deputies not shooting the outlaws whilst they were offering the bounty (although there was a more or less identical scene in the original IIRC). And the ending was ludicrous and almost insulting. But you know what? I don't care. Any number of action films have infinitely stupider character actions and decisions throughout, as do a lot of "adult" movies that get a lot more respect from certain members around here. It's not trying to be a deep, adult Western, nor is anyone claiming it is; it's an action Western, and trying to characterize it otherwise is just silly.

Other attributes? Nice cinematography, decent if unremarkable score, nice performances by Crowe, Fonda and Foster (Bale's a bit stiff). The action scenes are well-done although often silly, so I don't see what there is to complain about on that score.

I have to say I find CJ and DJ's posts about the original quite amusing, since they never seemed crazy about that one, but defend it as a masterpiece when it suits their arguments against this movie. The original is alright but it's claustrophobic and doesn't really feel like a Western; more like a stilted morality play in period dress. It has its positive attributes - the cinematography is nice and Glenn Ford is an interesting character, although I can't remember a single note of music from the score to be honest - but it's in no way a masterpiece or even a great film (though I will say it's better than the perenially overrated High Noon). The remake is better in my opinion, in spite of its flaws, because it embraces what it is. Maybe it's "dumb" compared to the original, but who the fuck cares? It's more entertaining. The two films wouldn't be compared at all if they didn't share a title, since they're so different in tone, scope and style.

I'm sorry if I'm reigniting a flame war but I thought to make my two cents known on this issue.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: The Firecracker on November 15, 2008, 08:53:36 PM
The remake is better in my opinion


That proves that you're stupid... stupid... STUPID!!!


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on November 16, 2008, 02:19:03 AM

That proves that you're stupid... stupid... STUPID!!!

Stupid, why? You act like the original isn't flawed. There were certain aspects of the remake that were better than the original and vice versa. I'm so sick of the likes of cigar joe and now yourself, putting down people who like this film and there's a lot of people who like it for that matter. The people who do like it are not "stupid." Films are subjective for god sakes. When are some of you going to realize this?


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: The Firecracker on November 16, 2008, 02:28:50 AM
Stupid, why? You act like the original isn't flawed. There were certain aspects of the remake that were better than the original and vice versa. I'm so sick of the likes of cigar joe and now yourself, putting down people who like this film and there's a lot of people who like it for that matter. The people who do like it are not "stupid." Films are subjective for god sakes. When are some of you going to realize this?


I was merely parodying how most of us have acted on this thread when another person's opinions differ from our own.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: cigar joe on November 16, 2008, 05:03:09 AM
Well since we are brigning this thread back from the dead:

It was ridiculous, illogical, implausible, a mindless action film on par for today's audience. I did give it a 7/10 on imdb for effort and that was a bit generous.

A gang attacking from behind a Gatling gun defended stagecoach, which field of fire is only from behind. That was just briliant, Next that same Gattling gun can't hit the broad side of a barn, another brilliant touch to dovetail with the first absurdity, that whole sequence is only included for the mindless action it provides. I have nothing against action but I like smart action.

The Pinkerton gut shot at point blank range bullet @ 900 + or - ft/sec where the bullet should go clean on through, has said bullet revoved as if it was a splinter and then recovers enough to ride a horse, ridiculous.

The fact that they didn't handcuff a dangerous man from behind, ok if the guy is peacfull let it slide (like in the original version) but to not do so (even after he killed one of their members) is absurd, the whole Apache attack at night, the dead eye sharpshooter at the coach robbery who can't hit the the broadside of a barn in the town inconsistent.

The sequence in Contention where the posse with the advantage of height doesn't just blow the "Wanted Dead Or Alive" gang out of the saddle before Prince opens up his mouth, is stupid. Compound that with when they do let him speak he offers the townfolk $200 dollars and they fall all over themselves to become accomplices to murder is also brilliantly stupid.

A great Western should hit on all cylinders, this one doesn't.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: dave jenkins on November 16, 2008, 08:20:27 AM
I have to say I find CJ and DJ's posts about the original quite amusing, since they never seemed crazy about that one, but defend it as a masterpiece when it suits their arguments against this movie.
I can't speak for CJ, but your representation of my views on the topic are utterly false. I was, I think, at pains to show how the original film had many failings: my point being, if you are are going to do a remake of a flawed film, by all means fix the flaws in the process, don't merely replicate them and then add new ones into the bargain. Which is what, to my mind, 2007 did. Flawed as it is, 1957 is a much better film, if for no other reasons than it has superior photography, Felicia Farr, and fewer plot stupidities.

And the whole idea that we should just leave our brains at the door when we go into an action Western (whatever the hell that is): the argument is unworthy of you. You were a much better thinker before you went off to college, Grogs. Better get out before it's too late.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: stanton on November 16, 2008, 12:36:55 PM
Most of the action scenes are so shitty made in the remake. And there are too much of them, some of them even superfluous.

For this major failure and for several stupid plot developments, this western is disappointingly average.

4/10


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Groggy on November 16, 2008, 03:12:43 PM
I never said it was a great Western CJ, nor do I disagree with much of what you say. So I'm not going to bother rebutting your post, except to point out how ridiculous it is for you to spend all of your time bashing it and then give it a 7/10, which in my book means "good".

I can't speak for CJ, but your representation of my views on the topic are utterly false. I was, I think, at pains to show how the original film had many failings:

True, but then you go and post articles about how the original is a great film or something. Which is rather a reach IMO.

Quote
my point being, if you are are going to do a remake of a flawed film, by all means fix the flaws in the process, don't merely replicate them and then add new ones into the bargain. Which is what, to my mind, 2007 did.

This is fair enough Jenkins, and I don't disagree, but I also think the films themselves are drastically different in every conceivable way.

Quote
Flawed as it is, 1957 is a much better film, if for no other reasons than it has superior photography, Felicia Farr, and fewer plot stupidities.

It's more well-constructed, but I found it less entertaining.

Quote
And the whole idea that we should just leave our brains at the door when we go into an action Western (whatever the hell that is):

Is this really so hard to comprehend? An action Western is, well, a Western whose primary focus is action rather than, say, plot or themes. I'm surprised at you Jenkins.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on November 16, 2008, 03:21:33 PM
Well since we are brigning this thread back from the dead:

It was ridiculous, illogical, implausible, a mindless action film on par for today's audience. I did give it a 7/10 on imdb for effort and that was a bit generous.

A gang attacking from behind a Gatling gun defended stagecoach, which field of fire is only from behind. That was just briliant, Next that same Gattling gun can't hit the broad side of a barn, another brilliant touch to dovetail with the first absurdity, that whole sequence is only included for the mindless action it provides. I have nothing against action but I like smart action.

The Pinkerton gut shot at point blank range bullet @ 900 + or - ft/sec where the bullet should go clean on through, has said bullet revoved as if it was a splinter and then recovers enough to ride a horse, ridiculous.

The fact that they didn't handcuff a dangerous man from behind, ok if the guy is peacfull let it slide (like in the original version) but to not do so (even after he killed one of their members) is absurd, the whole Apache attack at night, the dead eye sharpshooter at the coach robbery who can't hit the the broadside of a barn in the town inconsistent.

The sequence in Contention where the posse with the advantage of height doesn't just blow the "Wanted Dead Or Alive" gang out of the saddle before Prince opens up his mouth, is stupid. Compound that with when they do let him speak he offers the townfolk $200 dollars and they fall all over themselves to become accomplices to murder is also brilliantly stupid.

A great Western should hit on all cylinders, this one doesn't.

hahahahahaa, I'm so sick of this guy.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: cigar joe on November 16, 2008, 03:37:01 PM
Ditto tb ditto!


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on November 16, 2008, 03:44:22 PM
Ditto tb ditto!

You don't make any sense whatsoever regarding this film. I'm sick of your "implausable" rants when a lot of the films you like are a hell of a lot more unrealistic than this. People are just scared to talk up to you and I'm not going to be. You're nothing but a bully when someone doesn't agree with you. You are not above anybody. You are not on a pedestal. Your opinion's regarding this film are just what I said, opinion's.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: cigar joe on November 16, 2008, 03:49:35 PM
go tell your moma about it  8)


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on November 16, 2008, 03:52:23 PM
go tell your moma about it  8)

Don't have to man. I'll tell you myself. I wish I had the opportunity to talk to you in person because I'd bring your ass down to earth you snob.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: cigar joe on November 16, 2008, 03:59:19 PM
I'm shakin'  ::)


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Groggy on November 16, 2008, 04:13:50 PM
Jeez, I should have known this would happen. :D Feel free to put me in the stocks Banjo, I deserve it. :-\


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: cigar joe on November 16, 2008, 04:29:55 PM
I would have let it slide except for this comment from tb

Quote
I'm so sick of the likes of cigar joe and now yourself


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on November 16, 2008, 05:34:33 PM
I would have let it slide except for this comment from tb


Don't lie. You would have never let anything slide. You're always calling me names on IMDB and within here. When I was gone for a couple weeks recently, you ripped me apart in a thread when I wasn't present. If you don't like me, don't be shy about it. The thing is, you dislike me because of this 3:10 to Yuma none sense. Just  because I like the movie.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: dave jenkins on November 16, 2008, 05:52:39 PM
C'mon, TB, don't take everything so personally. Let's have a civil difference of opinion and enjoy the arguments. Just because we all don't agree doesn't mean that we're all out to get each other. The point of this board is to have spirited discussions, otherwise the whole exercise turns into a circle jerk.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: dave jenkins on November 16, 2008, 05:55:01 PM

... but then you go and post articles about how the original is a great film or something. Which is rather a reach IMO.


Please point me to where I do this. I have no idea what you're talking about, as I've always considered it a flawed film.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on November 16, 2008, 05:56:51 PM
C'mon, TB, don't take everything so personally. Let's have a civil difference of opinion and enjoy the arguments. Just because we all don't agree doesn't mean that we're all out to get each other. The point of this board is to have spirited discussions, otherwise the whole exercise turns into a circle jerk.

I don't take anything personal. It's the way C J acts. He does it in a way that I'm an idiot for not agreeing with him. I don't like that. Read C J's real thoughts on IMDB. It's absurd how he treats people for liking YUMA.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: cigar joe on November 16, 2008, 06:32:12 PM
(http://www.animationplayhouse.com/babycry.gif)


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on November 16, 2008, 06:38:24 PM
 ;D


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: dave jenkins on November 16, 2008, 06:45:40 PM
Is this really so hard to comprehend? An action Western is, well, a Western whose primary focus is action rather than, say, plot or themes. I'm surprised at you Jenkins.
It's not hard to comprehend, but it IS hard to scrape off the bottom of my shoe.

Action Westerns, huh? Another category to contend with. "Hello, Fandango, I'm calling about one of the films currently playing  and I'd like to know, before debiting my account, whether it's an action Western or a regular Western? You know, one of those Westerns whose primary focus is action rather than, say, plot or themes? What's that? You say the film has action, and plot and  themes? Yeah, but, but, where does the primary focus lie? On the action or on the plot and themes? Hello? Hello, Fandango?"

I can foresee a very successful thread where we divvy up all the Westerns between the two categories. I can't wait for the spirited discussion over which SWs are the action ones and which are the SWs whose primary focus is plot and themes.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: The Firecracker on November 16, 2008, 06:48:48 PM


Action Westerns, huh? Another category to contend with. "Hello, Fandango, I'm calling about one of the films currently playing  and I'd like to know, before debiting my account, whether it's an action Western or a regular Western? You know, one of those Westerns whose primary focus is action rather than, say, plot or themes? What's that? You say the film has action, and plot and  themes? Yeah, but, but, where does the primary focus lie? On the action or on the plot and themes? Hello? Hello, Fandango?"




BRILLIANT


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on November 16, 2008, 07:14:18 PM

BRILLIANT

What's so brilliant about it FC? Sub-genre's do exist if you hadn't noticed.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: The Firecracker on November 16, 2008, 07:17:05 PM
What's so brilliant about it FC? Sub-genre's do exist if you hadn't noticed.

Are you purposely trying to pick a fight?

Of course I understand the concept of a sub-genre.
I was saying that DJ's joke was well thought out and hilarious.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Groggy on November 16, 2008, 07:18:24 PM
There can't be a middle ground DJ? Should I amend my post to say "mostly action"? ::)

From a gentleman who puts so much stock in categorizing and separating films, this is a peculiar statement.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on November 16, 2008, 07:25:00 PM
Are you purposely trying to pick a fight?

Of course I understand the concept of a sub-genre.
I was saying that DJ's joke was well thought out and hilarious.


I'm sick of you saying I'm trying to pick a fight when I call you out on something. No, I'm not trying to pick a fight. I just think the hate towards this film is ridiculous. It's fricking hilarious.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: The Firecracker on November 16, 2008, 07:31:45 PM
I'm sick of you saying I'm trying to pick a fight when I call you out on something.


1. You didn't call me out on anything.

2. "Sub-genre's do exist if you hadn't noticed. ?" sounds like a snarky remark whose sole purpose is to incite an arguement.



I just think the hate towards this film is ridiculous. It's fricking hilarious.


How does DJ's disagreement with labeling westerns have anything to do with a nasty remark of the quality of the movie?


(http://www.encircling.us/photoplog/file.php?s=b255c7bca63231898624920db70b79ae&n=1149&w=o)


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on November 16, 2008, 07:36:50 PM

Yeah I did call you out for something, being a jerk Mr. Multiple personality FC. And now you post your ridiculous religious picture again. Never fails.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: dave jenkins on November 16, 2008, 07:53:04 PM
Everybody, chill. What's with all the tension tonight? I'm on my way to a glass of bourbon . . . .


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on November 16, 2008, 07:54:24 PM

I am chilled. That's the thing jenkins. We're just talking.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: dave jenkins on November 16, 2008, 07:56:13 PM
You say that, and then go off on somebody three comments later. Well, nevermind, I'm outta here.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on November 16, 2008, 08:08:23 PM
You say that, and then go off on somebody three comments later. Well, nevermind, I'm outta here.

Disagreeing with someone isn't "going off" on them. Unreal.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Groggy on November 16, 2008, 08:55:47 PM
Everybody, chill. What's with all the tension tonight? I'm on my way to a glass of bourbon . . . .

I'm to blame for this I fear Mr. Jenkins. I shouldn't have re-started this thread. :-\


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: The Firecracker on November 16, 2008, 09:03:38 PM
Yeah I did call you out for something, being a jerk Mr. Multiple personality FC.


All this hostility from me enjoying DJ's joke?

Jeez Laweez!
Not too "Ha ha" tonight are we?


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on November 16, 2008, 09:40:25 PM
I'm to blame for this I fear Mr. Jenkins. I shouldn't have re-started this thread. :-\

You're not to blame for anything.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: T.H. on November 16, 2008, 10:26:07 PM
I don't want any part of this debacle but I found DJ's joke absolutely hysterical, and this is the guy coming off the heels of defending the noir tag to death.

I may be the biggest jerk in this thread because I didn't even give the remake  a shot.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: The Firecracker on November 16, 2008, 11:26:17 PM
I don't want any part of this debacle

Nor do I but somehow I was sucked into it because somebody spiked TB's Kool-aid last night.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on November 17, 2008, 01:06:31 AM
Nor do I but somehow I was sucked into it because somebody spiked TB's Kool-aid last night.

Funny. I like the "3:10 to Yuma" remake, sue me.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: The Firecracker on November 17, 2008, 01:13:00 AM
I like the "3:10 to Yuma" remake, sue me.

Your beef is with CJ not I!
I don't mind that you like it.
It's entertaining.
I just think the whole thing falls apart the last 15 minutes.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on November 17, 2008, 01:16:38 AM
Your beef is with CJ not I!
I don't mind that you like it.
It's entertaining.
I just think the whole thing falls apart the last 15 minutes.

That's the thing. I have no beef with you. I just think C J is extremely rude and my hate for that behavior has emerged within this thread. I just know how this guy is from his behavior on IMDB and I'm tired of it. I should keep quiet about it but I like this movie and I hate that he keeps trashing it here.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: cigar joe on November 17, 2008, 05:57:25 AM
It deserves being trashed, I could have been way better and it wasn't.  It was dissapointing because none of the faux pas were neccessary if they had done their homework and inserted some common sense into the action and story it would have been better. 

Compound that with the fact that it was a remake of a Classic (not that the original wasn't flawed) and it added new flaws didn't help.

One thing I can possitively say is it looked closer to the Golden Age Westerns (except for the almost compelet indifference to the landscape), than most recent Westerns filmed.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Groggy on November 17, 2008, 08:49:17 AM
CJ, you're a clown. Since you spend much time bashing a movie you gave a 7/10, I'd hate to see what you'd do with a movie you gave, say, a 3 or 4. Let alone a 1. :o


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Banjo on November 17, 2008, 09:23:53 AM
Jeez, I should have known this would happen. :D Feel free to put me in the stocks Banjo, I deserve it. :-\

Yeah thanks a bunch for reviving the Jerry Springer Show. ::)

I think everybody's made their point (again and again) adequately enough so this thread should now be left alone for  others  to post.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: titoli on May 30, 2009, 04:43:17 PM
Finally found a cheap dvd. I had much expectations from this, having heard positive judgements from people I know.
Still this movie sucks. CJ, Cusser, Jenkins, FC gave many, substantial reasons for this. I'll add some reflections. The torture at the railway camp: is this The Battle of Algiers? And Voigts with his men cannot hit the Bale group even if they only have to shoot straight. The photography and the design are anonymous. But these are only other particulars (and, yes, like Jenkins I felt, when the gang arrives in town, that they would be shot at: that they weren't it is very frustrating). But let's come to the main flaw.
In my book, Crowe should have played the Heflin part and Bale, if you want to have him in the movie at all (can he pass up for a farmer? When?) should have played Ben Wade. Sure, then you would have had a Charly Prince clone, as these new Hollywood actors all look alike. So you would have been light-years away from Glenn Ford's ultra-brilliant perfomance, and have the usual nevrotic, viciouos cold-blooded killer. But that would have fit with his figure. As it is, his character is completely out of the picture as he never shows to have a possible edge on Crowe. I wonder why he is said to have been  the best marksman of his regiment (or whatever) when this ability of his is never shown. He is not a hero in the classical sense. So one is led to suppose he would show to be a failure who proves his moral superiority to Crowe and earns his respect to the point of generating Crowe's idiotic and unplausible decision to abide his wish. But he is just a bloke trying to earn some money, saved from his son at a crucial moment and that shows nothing so special to justify Crowe's respect. As it is, the movie ends up on expanding on the big flaw marring the original version, adding implausibility on implausibility (the wild street shooting, the Crowe's killing of his pards, his willing surrender to the train jailor). I give it a generous 5\10 for some performances already noted in this thread. And I give to all my advice to watch Broken Trail instead.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Dust Devil on June 02, 2009, 01:26:08 PM
Depending on the mood I'm in I'd give it a 6 - 6.5 /10, not more. It has a few good moments but overall doesn't deliver (and I'm not talking about technicalities, inaccuracies etc.). Certainly could have been better. Too bad.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: titoli on June 03, 2009, 06:17:25 AM
Depending on the mood I'm in I'd give it a 6 - 6.5 /10, not more. It has a few good moments but overall doesn't deliver (and I'm not talking about technicalities, inaccuracies etc.). Certainly could have been better. Too bad.

I think that the difference between a 5 and a 6\10 should depend on whether one plans to ever rewatch it or not. You probably plan to give it another try. I don't.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Dust Devil on June 03, 2009, 08:57:52 AM
Watched it two times so far but yeah, I was kinda thinking of giving it another try one day... Well, I'll see, but doubt it'll be any time soon.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Groggy on May 10, 2011, 09:21:48 AM
Quote
Aside from a brief spurt of interest in the mid-'90s, Westerns haven't been box-office gold for four decades. The past five years have seen a number of ambitious oaters (Appaloosa, The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford), but few did any business until the Coens' True Grit remake proved a surprise hit last winter. With Disney said to be reviving The Lone Ranger and Quentin Tarantino lined up for a neo-Spaghetti, it's possible Westerns will come back, but I'm skeptical.

3:10 to Yuma (2007) is one of the more ambitious stabs at reviving the genre. With a prestige director - James Mangold, fresh off the much-garlanded Walk the Line (2005) - two super-stars and a $55 million budget, jampacked with action and mayhem, 3:10 is clearly geared towards a mass audience. But this remake of a venerable '50s cult classic sacrifices the original's focused intensity for expansive silliness, resulting in an uneven, unsatisfying film.

Rancher Dan Evans (Christian Bale) loses his barn to landowner Hollander's (Lennie Loftin) thugs, and has a week to raise $200. His wife (Gretchen Mol) questions Dan's judgment, and oldest son William (Logan Lerman) thinks he's a wimp. Dan and his sons witness a stagecoach robbery, and Dan helps apprehend gang leader Ben Wade (Russell Crowe), a legendary outlaw. Dan joins a posse, organized by railroad agent Butterfield (Dallas Roberts), to transport Ben to Contention, where he'll catch the titular train to Yuma prison. Surviving Indian ambush, a run-in with crooked miners and Ben's own trickery and temptation, Dan and the gang arrive in Contention, only to find Ben's psychotic sidekick Charlie Prince (Ben Foster) waiting.

The strongest memory I had of 3:10 to Yuma, before today's rewatch, was being waylaid twice by vagrants while going to see it in theaters, on two consecutive days. Because of this, I didn't actually see the film until it was safely on DVD in July 2008. That might explain the film's middling box-office returns: the target audience was too busy tangling with rapacious hobos.

Personal experience aside, 3:10 is definitely a film for 21st Century viewers looking for action, thrills and stars. It's hardly the first contemporary Western to target this demographic, and it's certainly less obnoxious than Young Guns or American Outlaws. It's also nice to see a Western starring actors a few decades younger than, say, Ed Harris or Robert Duvall. But many Western fans will reject its modern trappings, and even lay viewers might take issue with its problematic screenplay.

Mangold marshals an impressive production. The script remains close to the original's basic story, but expands the journey to Contention to allow for more action scenes and character development. The action often borders on the ridiculous, but the big set-pieces are well-staged, exciting and intense. Fans of the original might be disappointed that the suspenseful finale is replaced by a huge-scale running gunfight, but it's enjoyable enough on its own frenetic terms. Phedon Papamichael's striking photography and Greg Berry's rustic art direction provide a lot of nice pictures. Aside from Marco Beltrami's muzak Morricone score, the production yields little to complain about.

However, all the action and pretty scenery come at the expense of pacing and plot logic. Ben's escort must be the most incompetent posse in Western history: they let Ben get away with killing posse mates, twice, without any punishment but a few raps to the head. After a criminal kills two deputies and temporarily escapes a third time isn't it time to string him up from the nearest tree? At 122 minutes, 3:10 still feels about twenty minutes too long: Mangold wastes time on needless digressions (a shootout with renegade Apaches, Ben's trip to a mining camp) and a large but colorless supporting cast. Then there's the finale, with the original's already suspect twist mutating into absurdity.

3:10 further stumbles by trying to make its protagonists needlessly complex. The original's simple but effective battle of wills turns into a trite psychodrama. Dan spells out his motives in bright neon lights, every grunt and twitch explained by some traumatic past incident. His family conflicts are trite and cheesy, and Dan becomes unbearably pathetic. Meanwhile, Ben sketches his conjugal conquests, tempts Dan's son William and muses over his lost parents. This backstory is contrived and unaffecting; curiously, the more Mangold and writers Michael Brandt and Derek Haas probe Ben and Dan's motivations, the less credible and interesting they become.

Russell Crowe gives a striking performance, nearly besting Glenn Ford in the original. Crowe dominates the film, giving Ben lots of superficial charm to conceal his snake-like nastiness. Christian Bale is intense but one-note, more pitiable than sympathetic. (And pray tell, how can a guy with one foot run and leap across rooftops so easily?) Ben Foster's psychotic second banana makes a striking villain, and Peter Fonda gets a nice supporting role as a grizzled Pinkerton agent. Gretchen Mol (The Shape of Things) is wasted in a tiny role, and the rest of the cast doesn't register at all.

3:10 to Yuma is a respectable attempt at bringing the Western to a modern audience. More jaded viewers will find much to criticize, however, and most Western fans should probably stick with the original. 6/10

[urlhttp://nothingiswrittenfilm.blogspot.com/2011/05/310-to-yuma-2007.html][/url]


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: T.H. on March 01, 2016, 12:11:42 PM
While I didn't read through the entire thread (though maybe I should have), I basically agree with the logic flaws that people like DJ, CJ, et al mentioned. It's an entertaining movie, has a nice pace and Crowe was pretty damn good (though I agree he should have been the rancher), but it's plagued by pedestrian visuals and is ultimately a forgettable experience. I saw the movie last week and almost forgot that I even watched it.

The score was solid but underused and not properly utilized, and there were way too many plain-jane medium close ups and the bland art direction didn't help either. Even though the original may have some logic issues with the plot, I consider it a masterpiece and it's the furthest thing from forgettable. This one is entertaining, and held my attention despite some stupidity (ie lazy writing), but it's one of those movies where I doubt I'll even remember anything about it six months from now.

For now it gets a generous 7 because I liked Crowe, Fonda and the brisk pace, but six months from now (or whenever I forget almost everything about this movie) it's probably a 6/10.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Spikeopath on February 08, 2017, 08:25:34 PM
When you think about it, which I have been lately, is they weren't paying me to walk away. They were paying me so they could walk away.

3:10 to Yuma is directed by James Mangold and co-adapted to screenplay by Halsted Welles, Michael Brandt and Derek Haas. A remake of Delmer Daves' 1957 film of the same name, it's based on a story written by Elmore Leonard. It stars Russell Crowe, Christian Bale, Peter Fonda, Ben Foster and Logan Lerman. Music is by Marco Beltrami and cinematography by Phedon Papamichael.

After the capture of notorious outlaw Ben Wade (Crowe), a posse is put together to escort him to the town of Contention from where he will be put on the 3:10 train to Yuma prison. Joining this posse is broke rancher Dan Evans (Bale), disabled in the Civil War, Dan is struggling to keep hold of his land and to support his family. Seen as a flop in the eyes of his eldest son William (Lerman), Dan sees this opportunity as a way out of his problems. But with Wade an intelligent foe, and the outlaw boss' gang on their trail, Evans and the posse will do well to make it to Contention alive…..

Daves' original film is a fine effort, very much pulsing with psychological beats and cloaked in claustrophobic atmospherics. Backed up by two excellent Western performers in Glenn Ford and Van Heflin, there is many a Western fan who cherish it and never felt it was a genre piece ripe for a remake; myself included. But the logic behind the reasons Mangold and his team put forward for remaking it made sense. A story of great thematics for the adults, and action a go-go for the younger modern film fan. Thus putting a Western back in the headlines at yet another time when the genre was gasping for air. All that was left to do was get two of the modern era's biggest stars to play Wade and Evans-which of course they duly did-and it was good to go. Just don't mess it up was all that was asked of the makers.

Running at nearly half an hour longer than the original, Mangold's movie slots in a new mid-section and changes the ending. The former works a treat as the posse venture through hostile Apache country, meet some ne'er-do-well railroad ruffians, while Wade's gang, led by the supremely fiendish Charlie Prince (Foster), are on the bloody trail. The latter is a huge misstep, both in execution and character development. Most film fans are happy to suspend disbelief in the name of good entertainment, but here we are asked to ignore some impossible athletics while also being asked to swallow a character turn around that beggars belief. Such a shame because up till then the blend of traditional Western character themes such as morality and redemption, had dovetailed nicely with the pistol banging and all round breezy action construction. While the father and son axis gives the narrative some extra bite.

Even bad guys love their mothers.

The performances are also of a high standard. In the support slots Fonda, Foster and Lerman are top dollar. Fonda is all leather faced and gruff as bounty hunter McElroy, Foster does a quality line in sneering villainy, and Lerman, in a tricky role, utterly convinces as the conflicted boy breaking out into a man. But this is Crowe and Bale's movie. Crowe has Wade as an intelligent dandy, a man who loves and understands women, an artist who also has a tongue as quick as his hands are on his guns. We know that Wade is callous, but Crowe ensures that we never know what is around the corner or truly on his mind. Bale puts much dignity into Evans, he's a put upon man, tortured by his failings on the home front, but there is stoic nobility there and as he and Wade venture further on their journey, a grudging respect begins to form and Bale and Crowe really start to put credibility into their characters. And then that last quarter nearly undoes all their excellent work….

In spite of this, 3:10 to Yuma is a good time to be had as a modern Western production with old traditional values. Energetic and never dull from first frame to last, it's recommended on proviso you don't mind unscrewing your head and taking out your brain for the last 15 minutes. 7.5/10


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Moorman on February 28, 2017, 10:42:06 PM
Ok. Just saw this for the first time.  It was actually pretty good.  For people who didn't like it because of it being a remake, it came off better than the Magnificent 7 remake which HUGELY dissappointed me.  This movie felt like a western, and not a big fake hollywood blockbuster like the new MAG7 did.  Here is my quick review:

1. Cinematography.  Interestingly, this may have been the film's weakest point.  The camera work by Phedon Papamichael was ok, but there was nothing special about the scenery or the set pieces.

2. Script: This was hit and miss with me.

The Good. I love the fact that the new screenplay veered off into a couple of new directions. Spoiler Alerts: The ending in particular surprised me.  I like the way the writers added more to the main story.  The fight with the Indians.  The opening scene with the Gatlin gun.  The confrontation at the mining camp.  The aggressiveness of Wade was pretty good.

The Bad.  I have mixed feelings about the son being heavily involved.  It didn't play bad, it was just a huge extra element.  Another thing that i didn't like.  Wade's character was soo aggressive and violent, that you never had a sense that he was REALLY not in charge and could escape anytime he wanted to. This especially affected the hotel room scene in which Evans character was supposedly calling the shots while waiting on the train.  Wade had run roughshod over everything in sight, but suddenly, was helpless in the Hotel room.  The writers atoned for this during the final chase scene by having Wade take control of Evans.

3.  The Acting. Crowe's character was very good. Bale was ok. Foster was very good.  Everybody else was solid.

4. Musical Score. Solid. It was different for a western and i liked it.

Overall. I was pleasantly surprised by this. I didn't know what to expect with Crowe playing a bad guy.  Again, unlike the new MAG7, it was a hollywood blockbuster, that didn't play like a hollywood blockbuster, which was a good thing.  Is it better than the original? Thats very subjective.  Some will say yes, some will say no.  Thats also a good thing.  Its a great movie to add to your Blu Ray collection.  I rate this a solid 7 out of 10...


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: stanton on March 01, 2017, 02:49:28 AM


Overall. I was pleasantly surprised by this. I didn't know what to expect with Crowe playing a bad guy.  Again, unlike the new MAG7, it was a hollywood blockbuster, that didn't play like a hollywood blockbuster, which was a good thing.  Is it better than the original? Thats very subjective.  Some will say yes, some will say no.  Thats also a good thing.

Really?
Some will say that this is a total disaster (despite a wonderful Russell Crowe), and a pretty idiotic film. And it got worse in a 2nd viewing. 2/10

Delmer Daves' original on the other hand is one of the best westerns of the 50s. 9/10

Mag 7 isn't good either, but at least watchable and enjoyable on a minor level. 5/10


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Moorman on March 01, 2017, 05:31:02 AM
Really?
Some will say that this is a total disaster (despite a wonderful Russell Crowe), and a pretty idiotic film. And it got worse in a 2nd viewing. 2/10

Delmer Daves' original on the other hand is one of the best westerns of the 50s. 9/10

Mag 7 isn't good either, but at least watchable and enjoyable on a minor level. 5/10

I saw this right after watching the Missouri Breaks.  That must be why this looks like a masterpiece in comparison....lol   It DOES have some flaws...


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: stanton on March 01, 2017, 05:36:40 AM
I saw this right after watching the Missouri Breaks.  That must be why this looks like a masterpiece in comparison....lol   It DOES have some flaws...

The Missouri Breaks is much better for me, despite some flaws, but another league compared to the 3:10 remake.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: dave jenkins on March 01, 2017, 02:07:18 PM
Some will say that this is a total disaster (despite a wonderful Russell Crowe), and a pretty idiotic film. And it got worse in a 2nd viewing. 2/10
Sometimes stanton is so right it's scary.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Dust Devil on March 02, 2017, 02:48:19 AM
I bet I'd give this a 4/10 now. Anybody wanna bet?


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: stanton on March 02, 2017, 05:15:18 AM
I bet I'd give this a 4/10 now. Anybody wanna bet?

Not really, but a 4 is mighty generous ... ;)


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: noodles_leone on March 02, 2017, 05:17:48 AM
He's gonna rate it 4 anyway. They have never seen a western movie before in Eastern Europe.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Dust Devil on March 02, 2017, 10:00:33 AM
I've had neighbours who were in Winnetou movies, at least I saw their pictures from the shooting locations.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: noodles_leone on March 03, 2017, 01:11:32 AM
Fair enough.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Spikeopath on March 03, 2017, 04:17:50 AM

1. Cinematography.  Interestingly, this may have been the film's weakest point.  The camera work by Phedon Papamichael was ok, but there was nothing special about the scenery or the set pieces.

I'll have to dig it out for another look. Cinematography is a very big thing for me, yet I haven't mentioned it i my own review, which indicates you are right!  :)

Glad you had a look and enjoyed it whilst acknowledging the non film killing flaws.


Title: Re: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Post by: Moorman on March 03, 2017, 09:19:30 AM
I'll have to dig it out for another look. Cinematography is a very big thing for me, yet I haven't mentioned it i my own review, which indicates you are right!  :)

Glad you had a look and enjoyed it whilst acknowledging the non film killing flaws.

No problem. I try and be objective when i review a film...