3:10 to Yuma
- Thread starter mandingo
- Start date
I posted this all earlier.
I saw it and enjoyed it, but didn’t think it was that good except for the performances of co-stars Russell Crow and Christian Bale.
IMHO, they were well cast and rose above the material.
I think “Open Range” with Kevin Costner and Robert Duvall was a superior movie with a better story, more realistic gun fighting, equally interesting characters, better use of Western scenery, dialog more well-written, similar star value, comparable acting and a whole lot fewer bullet holes in its plot.
For me, even though Crow and Bale were fun to watch, “3:10 To Yuma” simply never exceeded the sum of its clichés.
But, it was worth the $5.50 I spent to see it on an otherwise uneventful afternoon and perhaps you’ll like it more than I did.
I also recently rewatched the original "3;10 to Yuma" starring Glenn Ford and Van Heflin, so I could compare it to the remake with Russell Crowe and Christian Bale.
I’d seen the original back in the day, but not since then.
Both versions are fine Western movies with equally big stars (in their time) and each with an excellent supporting cast giving fine performances, while acting out a timeless morality play that’s worth seeing.
I recommend both movies as being good entertainment.
The remake is finding a new audience which the old version would never have attracted, so I guess that’s reason enough to have redone it.
But unless an older flick that’s filmed in black and white is a deal breaker for you, I think the classic 1957 oater is the superior movie.
Western scenery, like distant mountains and mesas, rocky cliffs, vast deserts, big boulders and dusty frontier towns with a single dirt street flanked by a hodgepodge of wooden buildings, not to forget tumbling tumbleweed, pine trees and tall cacti, look really good in black and white.
And it might be argued that whatever color pictures of such locations gain in realism, they can lose as much or more in photographic style.
Just ask John Ford and Ansel Adams.
Anyway, the cinematography in the original was wonderful, while in the new version it was merely adequate.
The dialog’s often the same in both movies and the story lines are very, very close until the end, when the new offering goes a completely different way.
What can I say?
I liked the old ending better.
As I mentioned, they are both good movies, but the new version gives us more time spent (with some superfluous action added, IMHO) on the journey, whereas the old version has a lot more interaction between the good guy (Heflin/Bale) and the bad guy (Ford/Crowe), when their destination is reached and they’re waiting in the hotel for the train to arrive.
The director of the new flick chose to add some action scenes for today’s moviegoers as the story is unfolding, while the original director used more screen time emphasizing the crucial denouement between Ford and Heflin, as it took place in the final hours of the story and minutes of the movie.
Thus the newer version became more of an action movie while the older was a simpler allegory, pitting good against evil without so much embellishment.
An interesting thing about both versions is that in each the two main actors are cast against type; furthermore, their characters are not stereotypical either because the good guy is only a reluctant hero, while the bad guy has many redeeming qualities.
All that makes for pretty good viewing in both films.
BTW, the cloud of smoke and the billowing steam from a train looks great in black and white too.
And I thought some of the gun play was more realistic, even if the bullet holes were not as graphic, in the first film also.
Finally, I noticed that a few of the less believable parts in the new film were either addressed to my satisfaction or not even found at all in the old one.
In fact, I didn’t see much of anything that I thought was cinematically better in the remake of “3:10 to Yuma,” other than that it was brand, spanking new.
That’s just my opinion and if you watch and compare them both, of course, your thoughts may vary.
I saw it and enjoyed it, but didn’t think it was that good except for the performances of co-stars Russell Crow and Christian Bale.
IMHO, they were well cast and rose above the material.
I think “Open Range” with Kevin Costner and Robert Duvall was a superior movie with a better story, more realistic gun fighting, equally interesting characters, better use of Western scenery, dialog more well-written, similar star value, comparable acting and a whole lot fewer bullet holes in its plot.
For me, even though Crow and Bale were fun to watch, “3:10 To Yuma” simply never exceeded the sum of its clichés.
But, it was worth the $5.50 I spent to see it on an otherwise uneventful afternoon and perhaps you’ll like it more than I did.
I also recently rewatched the original "3;10 to Yuma" starring Glenn Ford and Van Heflin, so I could compare it to the remake with Russell Crowe and Christian Bale.
I’d seen the original back in the day, but not since then.
Both versions are fine Western movies with equally big stars (in their time) and each with an excellent supporting cast giving fine performances, while acting out a timeless morality play that’s worth seeing.
I recommend both movies as being good entertainment.
The remake is finding a new audience which the old version would never have attracted, so I guess that’s reason enough to have redone it.
But unless an older flick that’s filmed in black and white is a deal breaker for you, I think the classic 1957 oater is the superior movie.
Western scenery, like distant mountains and mesas, rocky cliffs, vast deserts, big boulders and dusty frontier towns with a single dirt street flanked by a hodgepodge of wooden buildings, not to forget tumbling tumbleweed, pine trees and tall cacti, look really good in black and white.
And it might be argued that whatever color pictures of such locations gain in realism, they can lose as much or more in photographic style.
Just ask John Ford and Ansel Adams.
Anyway, the cinematography in the original was wonderful, while in the new version it was merely adequate.
The dialog’s often the same in both movies and the story lines are very, very close until the end, when the new offering goes a completely different way.
What can I say?
I liked the old ending better.
As I mentioned, they are both good movies, but the new version gives us more time spent (with some superfluous action added, IMHO) on the journey, whereas the old version has a lot more interaction between the good guy (Heflin/Bale) and the bad guy (Ford/Crowe), when their destination is reached and they’re waiting in the hotel for the train to arrive.
The director of the new flick chose to add some action scenes for today’s moviegoers as the story is unfolding, while the original director used more screen time emphasizing the crucial denouement between Ford and Heflin, as it took place in the final hours of the story and minutes of the movie.
Thus the newer version became more of an action movie while the older was a simpler allegory, pitting good against evil without so much embellishment.
An interesting thing about both versions is that in each the two main actors are cast against type; furthermore, their characters are not stereotypical either because the good guy is only a reluctant hero, while the bad guy has many redeeming qualities.
All that makes for pretty good viewing in both films.
BTW, the cloud of smoke and the billowing steam from a train looks great in black and white too.
And I thought some of the gun play was more realistic, even if the bullet holes were not as graphic, in the first film also.
Finally, I noticed that a few of the less believable parts in the new film were either addressed to my satisfaction or not even found at all in the old one.
In fact, I didn’t see much of anything that I thought was cinematically better in the remake of “3:10 to Yuma,” other than that it was brand, spanking new.
That’s just my opinion and if you watch and compare them both, of course, your thoughts may vary.
Up until a few years ago, I would never walk out on a film. I'd hang in there, regardless of how bad it was. (The lone exception was "Popeye", a supremely awful piece of crap.)
These days, I have better things to do than sit through something uninteresting.
3:10 To Yuma met the criteria -- I walked out about 2/3 through. I just found it really dull. Not bad, per se, just dull, and worse yet, predictable.
These days, I have better things to do than sit through something uninteresting.
3:10 To Yuma met the criteria -- I walked out about 2/3 through. I just found it really dull. Not bad, per se, just dull, and worse yet, predictable.
Well, I felt like crap due to a terrible cold I've been fighting, so maybe that was a contributing factor. However, it seemed like a serious reach to suggest that the two main characters would develop such a bond in just the closing moments of the film. That's where it fell apart for me. That and it just wasn't all that compelling. Bale and Crow were great, as they always are, imho.
Since we got off on the topic of modern westerns, how 'bout this one..."The Hi-Lo Country", starring Billy Crudup, Woody Harrellson, and Penelope Cruz. I thought it was outstanding.
Since we got off on the topic of modern westerns, how 'bout this one..."The Hi-Lo Country", starring Billy Crudup, Woody Harrellson, and Penelope Cruz. I thought it was outstanding.
The Hi-Lo Country was where I fell in love with Penelope Cruz. I did not understand then, nor do so now, why Crudup could possibly pine away for Arquette when Cruz was already in the bag. This extreme suspension of disbelief undid the movie for me.
I liked, but did not love, 3:10 to Yuma. Open Range is terrific. Costner and Duvall should only make westerns.
I liked, but did not love, 3:10 to Yuma. Open Range is terrific. Costner and Duvall should only make westerns.
happy fun ball
100+ Posts
It was not on my top anything list, but I can't imagine walking out of it. It was fine, but not as good as the names and history and hype would have suggested.
definately not impressed at all
*spoilers*
Yeah the ending just flat out blew it. I can understand Russell getting on the train the first time. Especially since he thought his crew would come after him again.
But my question is- you are getting onto a train, in which you have to jump UP to get into and you stand up to shake the guys hand you are imprisoning. Exposing yourself to the SEVEN guys shooting at you - including a ******* sharpshooter, and gee what a surprise you get blasted.
What I just dont understand is why Russell got back ON the train after he had just killed everyone who gave a **** about him being a criminal, he could have walked away. THAT part just didnt make any sense- even understanding the "guilt" factor
*******
*spoilers*
Yeah the ending just flat out blew it. I can understand Russell getting on the train the first time. Especially since he thought his crew would come after him again.
But my question is- you are getting onto a train, in which you have to jump UP to get into and you stand up to shake the guys hand you are imprisoning. Exposing yourself to the SEVEN guys shooting at you - including a ******* sharpshooter, and gee what a surprise you get blasted.
What I just dont understand is why Russell got back ON the train after he had just killed everyone who gave a **** about him being a criminal, he could have walked away. THAT part just didnt make any sense- even understanding the "guilt" factor
*******
rage-a-holic
250+ Posts
I assumed he did it so Bale's son could get paid for the job.
what you all are forgetting is that Bale got him ON the train- which is exactly what he said he would do to fulfill the contract- thus his family would be paid because he got on the train (AND Butterfield SAW him get on the train).
The fact that the outlaw got back off the train afterwards (and the contractee being killed in the process) doesnt negate the fulfillment of the contract.
So again- unless Russell has decided to just die by the authorities, him getting on that train makes no ******* sense
The fact that the outlaw got back off the train afterwards (and the contractee being killed in the process) doesnt negate the fulfillment of the contract.
So again- unless Russell has decided to just die by the authorities, him getting on that train makes no ******* sense
Art Vandelay
500+ Posts
I liked it. It's definitely got its flaws, and its not as realistic as Open Range -- yet I enjoyed it just about as much.
As far as the end, Crowe got back on the train so that Bale's family would get the reward. And I think he just really respected the hell out of Bale. He knew it was the right thing to do -- and as the son said about him, "you're not all bad."
But no doubt he was planning to escape -- that's why he whistled for his horse.
As far as the end, Crowe got back on the train so that Bale's family would get the reward. And I think he just really respected the hell out of Bale. He knew it was the right thing to do -- and as the son said about him, "you're not all bad."
But no doubt he was planning to escape -- that's why he whistled for his horse.
Several things on this thread make me rise to the bait.
The original 3:10 to Yuma was great when I saw it at the age of eight. Good actors, great and believable story. Seeing it now, the production values are about equal to the old Twilight Zone series. In his frenzied Christmas shopping on the 24th, my boy bought me the DVD at Wal Mart, thinking it was the new version and amazed at the price.
Not all that familiar with Bale, but I really like Crowe, and have since he stole every possible scene in L.A. Confidential. I don't care if he throws phones at snooty Noo Yawkers.
Have to say I did not like the new ending and I am not totally sure why. I've known hundreds of criminals in my work including cho mo's, multiple murderers, and guys with armed robbery backgrounds. Crowe's thinking was perhaps just a little too subtle.
Open Range (I've said all this before.) Duvall and Costner are great, and the same for Bening. She went full frontal in The Grifters, if you recall. Great characters, photography and all. Still, the whole idea of walking a herd of cattle around interminably is just plain stupid and never happened. A familiar motto at the King Ranch is: "Don't make a cow walk unless you have to, and never let one run." The people in that little town looked like they could have used some beef, but after walking around the West for umpteen years, the meat would have made what comes off a feral Longhorn seem like Kobe.
The original 3:10 to Yuma was great when I saw it at the age of eight. Good actors, great and believable story. Seeing it now, the production values are about equal to the old Twilight Zone series. In his frenzied Christmas shopping on the 24th, my boy bought me the DVD at Wal Mart, thinking it was the new version and amazed at the price.
Not all that familiar with Bale, but I really like Crowe, and have since he stole every possible scene in L.A. Confidential. I don't care if he throws phones at snooty Noo Yawkers.
Have to say I did not like the new ending and I am not totally sure why. I've known hundreds of criminals in my work including cho mo's, multiple murderers, and guys with armed robbery backgrounds. Crowe's thinking was perhaps just a little too subtle.
Open Range (I've said all this before.) Duvall and Costner are great, and the same for Bening. She went full frontal in The Grifters, if you recall. Great characters, photography and all. Still, the whole idea of walking a herd of cattle around interminably is just plain stupid and never happened. A familiar motto at the King Ranch is: "Don't make a cow walk unless you have to, and never let one run." The people in that little town looked like they could have used some beef, but after walking around the West for umpteen years, the meat would have made what comes off a feral Longhorn seem like Kobe.
I too bought it to watch this weekend and after really looking forward to it was disappointed. They just couldn't resist the overblown ending with 35,000 bullets fired. I thought the old version was more believable, much more tension, and overall the superior movie. It's a shame that directors today think so little of us as an audience that they're afraid we'll lose interest without a high body count.
wild_turkey
250+ Posts
Just watched it this morning and I had to dig this thread up to comment. I was extremely disappointed with the movie, which is odd since I had no expectations going into it. I guess I had heard some buzz from friends and such, but wish I had done a little digging prior to wasting 2 hours of my life. Here's some things I didn't like:
a) Why didn't they shoot Crowe from the start? Just kill him in Bisby? Someone mentioned that it would spell the death of the town, but that's pretty much what happened anyways.
b) The group of guys that decided to escort Crowe to the train station, they were ****** at this job. I get that they may be bankers and stuff, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that you don't turn your back on a criminal and mass murderer. Every 10 seconds they were turning around or getting to close to him, each time result in the death of a "good guy".
c) That little prick that was Crowe's 2nd in command - why didn't anyone ever shoot him? He would ride into a town acting like he owned the place, fire a bunch of gunshots, and the village people would just sit and watch. If someone would've taken him out, I have a feeling that Crowe's remaining 6 men wouldn't have been much good.
d) Perhaps worst of all was the ending sequence where Crowe finally decided to help Bale. After 15 people had died trying to guard Crowe, why would he suddenly have a change of heart and decide to help Bale "force" him onto the train? It doesn't even make Bale a hero, because Crowe could've easily killed him at several points, but just chose not to. Bale was just lucky that Crowe took pity on him, but he still ended up dying and making his wife into a widow and his kids little ********. It seems like he gave his life for nothing.
And yes, I would agree that Open Range is a much better modern western, although I haven't seen too many others.
a) Why didn't they shoot Crowe from the start? Just kill him in Bisby? Someone mentioned that it would spell the death of the town, but that's pretty much what happened anyways.
b) The group of guys that decided to escort Crowe to the train station, they were ****** at this job. I get that they may be bankers and stuff, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that you don't turn your back on a criminal and mass murderer. Every 10 seconds they were turning around or getting to close to him, each time result in the death of a "good guy".
c) That little prick that was Crowe's 2nd in command - why didn't anyone ever shoot him? He would ride into a town acting like he owned the place, fire a bunch of gunshots, and the village people would just sit and watch. If someone would've taken him out, I have a feeling that Crowe's remaining 6 men wouldn't have been much good.
d) Perhaps worst of all was the ending sequence where Crowe finally decided to help Bale. After 15 people had died trying to guard Crowe, why would he suddenly have a change of heart and decide to help Bale "force" him onto the train? It doesn't even make Bale a hero, because Crowe could've easily killed him at several points, but just chose not to. Bale was just lucky that Crowe took pity on him, but he still ended up dying and making his wife into a widow and his kids little ********. It seems like he gave his life for nothing.
And yes, I would agree that Open Range is a much better modern western, although I haven't seen too many others.
preznick555
25+ Posts
I thought it was one of the more underrated movies of the year. Not perfect, but definitely a good movie. The leading performances were especially strong, and I'm not even a huge Russell Crowe fan.
Handler XIII
1,000+ Posts
Should have been called 3:10 to Oklahoma - cause that movie sucks!
wild_turkey
250+ Posts
Ok I thought the acting was pretty good, but that was about it.
irishtexan
100+ Posts
meh.... boring and predictable. and totally cheesy.
LonghornLawyer
500+ Posts
Crowe and (especially) Bale did very good jobs. The story itself was just okay, but I was certainly entertained.
Weekly Prediction Contest
* Predict TEXAS-KENTUCKY *
Sat, Nov 23 • 2:30 PM on ABC
Recent Threads
-
Post a picture that makes you lol
- Started by Longhorn_Fan68
- Replies: 9K
- Cactus Cafe
-
Post a video that makes you lol
- Started by LonghornCatholic
- Replies: 78
- Cactus Cafe
-
Tell me somethin' good...
- Started by TheWalkingHorn
- Replies: 525
- Cactus Cafe
-
Random Thoughts
- Started by LonghornCatholic
- Replies: 99
- Cactus Cafe
-
Something Interesting Thread
- Started by Dionysus
- Replies: 791
- Cactus Cafe
-
What are you listening to?
- Started by TheWalkingHorn
- Replies: 2K
- Cactus Cafe
-
Movie & TV series favorites
- Started by Driver 8
- Replies: 30
- Cactus Cafe
-
Hurricane Helene / Milton
- Started by Dionysus
- Replies: 29
- Cactus Cafe
-
Seth Altman
- Started by Chop
- Replies: 3
- Cactus Cafe
-
There is NO oldie that won't get sold.
- Started by Horn6721
- Replies: 3
- Cactus Cafe
Prediction Results Threads
