*** Official (2007) 3:10 TO YUMA Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

[Patrick Sun]

As far as the ending goes, perhaps if it's went down this way:

it's William that's killed by Prince in crossfire, and then Wade goes all Death Wish on his crew, and then voluntarily gets on the train to Yuma to accept some consequences, and shoot the scene from the train's POV moving on to Yuma, showing Dan sitting on the ground, holding his son in his arms (as the train continues to pull away from the station), that would have heightened some tragic undertones for Dan, who was willing to sacrifice a lot for a better future for his family. But that's been done before.

 

[Robert Crawford]

For those of us that are fans of the original film, I think most of them would not like the ending of the current film.

 

[Haggai]

Crawdaddy knows the original better than I do, so he can correct anything I mis-remembered or left out.

 

[Haggai]

I thought the ending of the current movie worked OK for the way in which they decided to re-tell the story. Like I said in the review thread, I prefer the original overall, but I don't have much of a problem with ending the 2007 version in the manner they chose.

 

[Robert Crawford]

This is the discussion thread so no spoilers are necessary so if you haven't seen either film then don't read any further.

One of the main changes between this film and the original is that Wade killed the stagecoach driver in the original film and he was from Contention City, the town in which they were trying to catch that train for Yuma. Anyhow, the stagecoach driver's brother found out Wade was being kept in the hotel room and busted in the room to kill Wade. Evans disarmed the brother and saved Wade's life, but in midst of doing so a gunshot went off and Prince who was in the street below heard the shot and looked up and saw Wade standing near the window. Prince then took off on his horse to gather the rest of the gang that had other towns staked out on the lookout for Wade. Of course, Prince arrives in town with the rest of the gang just prior to the train's arrival. Also, Mrs. Evans arrived in Contention City too and tried to convince her husband to let Wade go. However, Evans refuses because he believes bringing Wade to justice is the right thing to do and if the towndrunk, Potter, can risk his life to do so then so can he. By the way, Potter was killed by Wade's gang in Contention City as he warned Evans about a sniper across the street from the hotel. As his wife pleads to Evans, Wade watches the interplay between wife and husband, but says nothing. However, during the walk to the railroad station and the final shootout, Wade warns Evans a couple of times and somehow decides on the way to save Evans life by not getting out of the way while Prince pleads with him to hit the dirt so they can shoot Evans down. Once on board the train, Evans asks Wade why he did what he did. Wade replies that since Evans saved his life, he doesn't like owing favors to anybody and that he brokeout of Yuma before and can do so again.

 

[Phil Florian]

I guess one question I would have is this movie a "remake" or the newer term "reimagining" of the 1950's film or is it a new adaptation of the Elmore Leonard short story, "Three Ten to Yuma" from 1953? If it is the former, it points the discussion in one way (how things were changed from the original, for example) but if it is the latter, then both films would be guilty of a ton of changes.

The biggest would be Bale's character. In the short story, he is a marshal of Bisbey and not well suited to handling a killer of such renown. He is mostly used to handling drunks and bar fights. There is nothing about his feelings as a failure, the Civil War, bum luck on the farm (he doesn't have one) or corrupt landowners or even the railroad. It has been pointed out that this was Leonard's take on "High Noon" and in his story, that makes sense. A deadline, a street full of potential baddies and a gentleman thief with a sly grin.

I bring this up because though this current version of the movie varies, especially it sounds like in the ending, from the original movie, it is just as divergent as the original movie when compared to the short story. I think the story is simple enough that you can interpret it and adapt it in a variety of ways to tell an interesting story and each one could be different.

That said, I liked the ending. What I especially liked about it was the use of sound to enhance the mood. The ponderous chugging of the steam engine as Bale's character lay dying was fantastic for mood. It's ponderous, slow cadence followed the character's own heart as it slowly gave out. Fantastic use of sound without having to have a bombastic score telling you, "yes, this is a sad moment...please cry now." It was a bitter sweet moment, actually. It was a father who redeemed himself in his son's eyes and ended, oddly enough, on a high note.

It was interesting to see Crowe's character and ponder his motives. Was he always looking for a way out of this gang? Had they become too nasty, even for him? Was going to jail a fine way to get out of it, knowing he would escape yet again? Who knows. Fun to think about.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I consider this a remake of the original film because the basic premise of the story stays the same with most of the original characters.

 

[Josh.C]

Crawdaddy,

After seeing the film do you still think Cruise and Bana could have outdone Crowe and Bale?

Personally I could see Bana doing Evans very well, but I don't think Cruise could come close to Crowe's performance here. My opions of course.

JC

 

[Haggai]

I agree, on both counts.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I know a lot of people like to discount Cruise's acting ability, but I think Cruise would've done well with this part by being charming one minute and deadly the next like he was in Collateral.

 

[Josh.C]

Wow, I'm surprised there isn't more discussion on this film. Maybe the weekend will bring more people to the party

 

[John_Graz]

I am a sucker for good Westerns; I grew up watching them back in the 50's and 60's when there were plenty good ones and plenty not so good.

I especially enjoyed this movie's message and got a good feeling at the end even through Dan Evans died - he died for something he believed in. He kept the cause through all odds and didn't run when things got tough. The best part was he was NOT a "super-hero" type dodging every bullet and jumping over buildings. Even Ben Wade was human and had some values ! I liked the Peter Fonda character in the vein of the old Clint Eastwood voice and toughness.

I hope the movie does well; to inspire more movies with old fashioned values to come back.

I found a nice Western list http://www.cinemacom.com/westerns.html#500%20list

 

[Michael:M]

I saw this film this past weekend and loved it, as did my girlfriend. While Crowe turned in a solid performance as Wade, I saw Bale's performance as the more nuanced and difficult one (much like Hoffman & Cruise in Rain Man: Hoffman was fantastic, but I thought Cruise's portrayal of the slow turn in the character was the real acting job). Evans' humanity and decency was on full display, and the relationship with his son felt very real.

I have to disagree with Cruise being a good choice for Wade; for me, he was the weak link in Collateral. While I find him convincing as a nutcase , I think Crowe lends a lot more "weight" and depth to the role. I just don't think Cruise has the range that Crowe does, nor does he have the gravitas.

Ben Foster was scary good as Charlie Prince,a man blindly following Wade as a means to express his inner monster.

 

[JonZ]

I had to wait a few days to see this and finally got around to it last night. Best western since Unforgiven and IMHO Mangolds best film.

"What I especially liked about it was the use of sound to enhance the mood. The ponderous chugging of the steam engine as Bale's character lay dying was fantastic for mood."

Yea I noticed that as well and thought it was wonderful.


"It was interesting to see Crowe's character and ponder his motives. Was he always looking for a way out of this gang? Had they become too nasty, even for him? Was going to jail a fine way to get out of it, knowing he would escape yet again? Who knows. Fun to think about."

I think the last shot of the film makes it very clear. No prison, jail or person will ever get the better of Wade. Wade forms a respect and liking for Evans. Its easy to make a choice when you have a gang of guys behind you and hard when youre by yourself and facing overwhelming odds. I think Wade got on the train for Evans becuase he knew he'd get away. I havent read the book or seen the previous version, but Prince made a comment, when one of his men was talking about deserting Wade, which was "have you forgotten what he's done for us".Wades men came after him to rescue him, so Wade may have felt they were even.

That scene causes a bit of uneasiness and because theres not a easy answer. I think both of his choices were the right thing to do. He should have showed loyalty to his men, but he also did the right thing by helping Evans(In my opinion anyway). Theres information given during the dialogue about Wades past, and I guess the viewer has to make up his own decision about whether what he did to his men works or not.

Wade is one of the more complex characters we've seen in a western "bad guy" role.

I really liked this film.

 

[Josh.C]

I agree Michael. Cruise is great in the Mission Impossible, high octane, fast paced action genre, but I don't see him pulling off Wade. Cruise can do cold and nasty, but Wade's character is much deeper. Crowe was 100% the right guy for this part imo.

As weird and Tom Cruise is, I still think he is a good actor, and he has some range (The Last Samurai). That being said, he can't hold Crowe's Jock Strap when it comes to versatility and the ability to become whichever character he portrays.

After Batman Begins, The Prestige, and Yuma, Christian Bale is growing on me as well.

 

[Kirk Tsai]

I enjoyed this film until the last 15 minutes. I just wasn't sold on Wade suddenly risking his life when he hears of Evans's story. I could see that the filmmakers were going for this path, but it was too big a character break.

 

[Richard--W]

deleted.

see post 39.

 

[Steve Christou]

British remake? Well I'm not stuck in the past I'm sure I'll enjoy this film when I eventually get to see it.

Btw I was looking at the IMDB page for this film and I think they're overdoing the Plot Keywords page just a tad, a little more detailed than usual don't you think? Any more keywords and they'll spoil the film for everyone, tsk tsk

http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0381849/keywords

 

[Richard--W]

The original 3:10 TO YUMA (Columbia, 1957) is a character-driven suspense drama in the guise of a plaintive outlaw ballad and an earthy pioneer story. 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 of the film, giving it 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. 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 expression saying come hither even while her voice, full of resignation, bids a reluctant goodbye.

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 in this film, just down-to-earth grit. The two leads -- Van Heflin and Glen Ford -- are cast against type. Normally they'd have switched roles. Heflin seems to inhabit his western rancher like a tailored suit of clothes, a simple man who works hard and hopes for the best. Glen Ford's charming performance as the outlaw is as much a revelation as Henry Fonda's in Once Upon A Time In the West.

The remake has every advantage, but it ain't a patch on the original. 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 scenes it has in common with the original shrivel in comparison, perhaps because the emphasis on morality has shifted to a plea for sympathy. Unfortunately, the new material is not better, nor is it believable. It is not believable for every supporting and background character to be a vicious opportunist ready to kill the posse for revenge or money. Nor is the spaghetti-western version of violence and gunfights appropriate to an 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. Evans has been changed from a stoic pioneer to a veteran who lost a leg in the Civil War. 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 the skirts in L.A. 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 remake is badly misdirected by James Mangold who blows every opportunity to improve and elaborate on the original. 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 minimilism. The audience is allowed to fill in the spaces. In the remake, Mangold makes certain there are no spaces.

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. The focus is constantly being pulled while we watch, and that's annoying. 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.

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 neurotic. Female characters are dismissed as quickly as possible. They were more important to the story and more fleshed out in the original. Russell Crowe was a good choice for Ben Wade. He has the sneaky charm that the character requires. Christian Bale is a fine actor, and 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.

Nevertheless, Mangold was wise to keep the story, such as it is, up close and personal. 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 couldn't 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 Tucson situated between Contention and Yuma)

 

[Richard--W]

Realizing that mine is a minority opinion, I revised my review in the post above to make the points more clear. It will not hurt my feelings or anything if someones wants to debate or disagree.