The most important thing is to enjoy your life - to be happy - it's all that matters.

3:10 To Yuma - 2007

Moderators: Sue Sue Applegate, movieman1957, moira finnie, Lzcutter

User avatar
movieman1957
Administrator
Posts: 5471
Joined: April 15th, 2007, 3:50 pm
Location: MD

3:10 To Yuma - 2007

Postby movieman1957 » September 7th, 2007, 9:59 am

So far "The Baltimre Sun", "CNN", "USA Today", NY Daily News" have all given very nice reviews. They all like Crowe and Bale. There are even a few nods for Peter Fonda.

If anyone goes to see it feel free to say something here.
Chris

"Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana."

User avatar
Mr. Arkadin
Posts: 2657
Joined: April 14th, 2007, 3:00 pm

Postby Mr. Arkadin » September 7th, 2007, 10:22 am

I'm actually interested in seeing this. All the reviews I've read say that the acting is very well done, but the added length of the film drags it out and C.B.'s messed up leg makes much of the closing segment highly implausible.

Still, I think that the fact that 3:10 to Yuma is a film that is more about drama than action plays out well for both of these actors. I think they will probably be very good in their parts, the question is, did Hollywood add too much action and destroy the Faustian intensity of the film?

I will also miss that great theme song. :cry:

User avatar
vallo
Posts: 280
Joined: April 15th, 2007, 8:39 am
Location: Long Island, N.Y.

Postby vallo » September 7th, 2007, 12:20 pm

NY Post (3 out of 4 stars). I always loved Westerns. If this film makes money, there maybe a trend in Hollywood. And they'll may overkill the genre again. (Hopefully Not)


vallo
"We're all forgotten sooner or later. But not films. That's all the memorial we should need or hope for."
-Burt Lancaster

User avatar
Bogie
Posts: 534
Joined: September 3rd, 2007, 12:57 am
Location: Toronto, Canada

Postby Bogie » September 7th, 2007, 3:40 pm

I'm planning on seeing this probably this week coming or the week after. I have the original on disk at home so I will watch the remake first then watch the original. It'll be interesting to see which I like better.

User avatar
MissGoddess
Posts: 5108
Joined: April 17th, 2007, 10:01 am
Contact:

Postby MissGoddess » September 13th, 2007, 9:43 am

I saw it and thought it was crappy. Crowe was fine, at least he showed some personality but the direction exhibited a series of inexcusably poor choices---and pandering choices. Obviously, their core audience was the teenage boy who likes blood and gore and appallingly casual violence with no consequences.

And the number of close-ups would have sent John Ford screaming from the theater. In fact, try to count the number of medium and long shots, there are so few, taking no advantage whatever of the location. Might as well have stayed on a back lot.

And I did have some expectation of at least a reasonably entertaining couple of hours. I used to be no fan of the original---now, in protest, I am.

User avatar
movieman1957
Administrator
Posts: 5471
Joined: April 15th, 2007, 3:50 pm
Location: MD

Postby movieman1957 » September 13th, 2007, 12:17 pm

MissGoddess wrote:And I did have some expectation of at least a reasonably entertaining couple of hours. I used to be no fan of the original---now, in protest, I am.


The one problem I have with the original (which really would kill the story) is being caught in the hotel room. It seems to me the smart thing would have been to go directly to the depot. It could be just as well defended and you don't have far to go to get Ford on the train. Of course, that kills the action at the climax but it just seems more logical. I do think Ford and Heflin are quite good.
Chris

"Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana."

User avatar
MissGoddess
Posts: 5108
Joined: April 17th, 2007, 10:01 am
Contact:

Postby MissGoddess » September 13th, 2007, 12:29 pm

You are quite correct, Chris, about the hotel room situation--it was too dangerous to be a wise decision, but then look at another movie that did MUCH better at handling the exact same situation: Last Train from Gun Hill. The scenes where Kirk Douglas has to get his wife's killer out of the hotel room and down to the station are exceedingly well done and clever---I was expecting something along those lines and instead got to see the remarkable exploits of a man with a wooden leg LEAPING ACROSS ROOFTOPS. Wasn't that the monkey wrench Cary Grant threw into the police inspector's story when they tried to pin the "cat burlaries" on a peg-leg in To Catch a Thief?

Anyway, here are some of my other snappish remarks on this remake, and I beg pardon of anyone who really liked this movie:

"I saw 3:10 to Yuma last night---the remake, that is. My review is don't bother, rent the original instead. I wasn't a fan of the original before but now I am just in reaction to this mishap. I don't know why people are giving it such good reviews. Well, Crowe is good, he's the only think really worthwhile in the whole unbelievable mess. Close-up, after close-up after close-up....it nearly drove me out of theater. There was not one moment of tension or suspense in the entire film. So I blame terrible direction plus the 14 year old son of Christian Bale's character needed a good pistol whipping from someone---he kept cursing all the time, in his parents' house, in front of his mother and they didn't punish him! In those days that kid wouldn't have been able to sit for a week if he'd gotten potty-mouthed in front of his mother like that. I can't tell you how much that bothered me, and his whole disrespectful attitude toward his father."

Another thing I disliked about it: everyone, with the sole exception of Christian Bale's character and his family were portrayed as, at best, venal and generally criminal, vicious, psychotic, and dangerous. I mean entire towns were portrayed this way---mine workers, farmer, Indians, townfolk, Everyone! Basically, the director is saying everyone out west in those days was absolute trash who'd shoot you down for a quarter. That is rubbish---what about all the decent, honest, hardworking people who just wanted a new start in life---I think they vastly outnumbered the scavengers and it bothers me that "revisionist" ideas in westerns for the past 30 years try to paint everyone who settled the west as a vicious outcast. That is simply untrue and frankly, not very interesting from a storytelling point of view.

Look at how High Noon, for instance, presents a similar circumstance: supposedly only one man is standing up for what is right. But that doesn't mean that everyone in the town was ready to sell out to Frank Miller and gun down Marshall Kane, does it? That is how they would show it today. They were scared, they had gotten soft and comfortable but it would be unrealistic to show them all suddenly turning into murderers. That's what they did in Yuma. It was like the west suddenly became Sodom and Gomorrah...."

"I think they were trying hard to pander to a teenage male audience---there are virtually no real love scenes (thank heavens no nudity) but I haven't even mentioned to you....how much blood and gore there was---it made Gladiator look tame. It was so unnecessary too---like one scene where the animal vet operates on a Pinkerton agent that Russell shot in the stomach---they show EVERYTHING, all the gore and I had my face averted for about 1/4 of the film due to scenes like that. Totally gratuitous and in the most juvenile fashion. "

"I believe the more restrained handling of these shooting scenes [in older westerns] gave the filmmaker a chance to show the IMPACT of a death....in Yuma there was only ONE instance, in about 200 shooting deaths, where the director chose to give a few lousy seconds to absorbing the impact of one man's dying. It is sickening to do otherwise."

"We really need to send these directors to school, to John Ford, Howard Hawks, Delmer Daves, and Anthony Mann 101."

END OF RANT :twisted:

User avatar
movieman1957
Administrator
Posts: 5471
Joined: April 15th, 2007, 3:50 pm
Location: MD

Postby movieman1957 » September 13th, 2007, 12:42 pm

MissGoddess:

Thanks for the extra review. It must really be ramped up with the action because I think the lack of violence in the original added to the suspense.
And what there was certainly wasn't there just for the sake of having it.

I'm embarassed that I forgot about "Last Train.." It is one of my favorites. It is a very tense movie. If there is a depot they don't really mention it. The logic of the hotel seems to work ther but I must go back and look. They also didn't have as far to go to the train. The personal angle for Douglas' character and his friendship with Quinn give it a built in tension that is well done.

Maybe a thread for "Last Train" is in order?
Chris

"Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana."

User avatar
MissGoddess
Posts: 5108
Joined: April 17th, 2007, 10:01 am
Contact:

Postby MissGoddess » September 13th, 2007, 12:45 pm

Actually, Chris, this has inspired me to go ahead and rent Last Train from Gun Hill and the original 3:10 to Yuma so I can watch the handling of those key scenes again. A separate thread would be great!

User avatar
Mr. Arkadin
Posts: 2657
Joined: April 14th, 2007, 3:00 pm

Postby Mr. Arkadin » September 14th, 2007, 12:52 am

Thanks for the post Miss G. I'm glad I didn't waste my hard earned cash! It's been years since I graced the inside of a theater for a new film. Looks like it will be a bit longer still.

User avatar
movieman1957
Administrator
Posts: 5471
Joined: April 15th, 2007, 3:50 pm
Location: MD

Postby movieman1957 » January 17th, 2008, 9:22 pm

Long overdue but I finally got to see it. My daughter are watching it all we can do is compare it to the original.

If I can separate myself from the '57 version it's ok until the end. I hated it. But that may be me not being able to separate the two films. The acting is good.
Chris

"Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana."

User avatar
Vienna
Posts: 397
Joined: October 24th, 2012, 8:03 am
Location: Scotland
Contact:

Re: 3:10 To Yuma - 2007

Postby Vienna » November 30th, 2012, 4:17 pm

I avoid remakes of my favorite westerns . I love the Glenn Ford/Van Heflin film and wouldn't see any point in viewing the remake.

User avatar
movieman1957
Administrator
Posts: 5471
Joined: April 15th, 2007, 3:50 pm
Location: MD

Re: 3:10 To Yuma - 2007

Postby movieman1957 » July 31st, 2015, 8:42 am

A few years removed from the initial viewing shows little to change my mind. There is one thing that was weak in comparison with the original, which I know is a bad thing to do, is the lack of biting sarcasm between the two in the hotel room. The '57 version can be quite funny which is a nice juxtaposition with the tension of the situation. The new version does not have it. It plays as straight drama.

Still don't like the ending anymore than I did. It seems as implausible one might think. It isn't that there needs to be a happy ending (that was always a little too well wrapped up in '57) but Crowe's respect for Bale has him take it too far. Unless he is just tired of the whole thing and thinks this was a good way to end it.

Performances are fine but the one I didn't care for is Bale's. He comes across to me as a little too cool for the character. Oh, and the whole thing about his leg should have been left out. He still moves too well for one that is using a prosthetic.

It looks good on BluRay though.
Chris

"Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana."


Return to “Westerns”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest