Josh's Blind Buys: Watching The Unseen Collection (1 Viewer)

[Scott Merryfield]

My understanding is that in order for it to even have a chance of making sense, you'd need some substances that are only legal in certain states. But I've never seen the movie so I can't comment

I have no idea if it's true, but I once heard that the reason they named the movie that was so if it ever got a sequel, they could say "From the guys who gave you Head..."

And now back to our regularly scheduled program! Drum-roll!

That's funny, because at dinner tonight with some friends I described the film as being "written by people on LSD... for people on LSD".

 

[Josh Steinberg]

#35 - 3:10 To Yuma (1957)
Viewed on: March 7th, 2017
Viewing Format: Blu-ray (Criterion)

I had seen James Mangold's 2007 remake of this back when it was first in theaters, but never got around to the original. With Mangold's new movie Logan opening up, I had just revisited his remake, and enjoyed it as much I had remembered. Not long after that, Criterion had a flash sale, and it seemed like the right moment to check out the original version.

Directed by Delmer Daves back in 1957, with Glenn Ford as the outlaw and Van Heflin as the rancher, the original production of 3:10 To Yuma shares a lot with the remake, but tells the same story with a greater sense of speed and urgency. Mangold's remake is as much about the characters and their lives, and what led them to those fateful moments, as it is about the specific outlaw capture at hand. For a modern audience not accustomed to westerns, all of this setup made for an engrossing drama that would appeal to a wider audience, and help orient an audience to being in a different time and place. The original film, by contrast, is about half an hour shorter and begins its story at what was about the thirty-minute mark in the remake. And it turns out, we don't really need to know more about either Ford or Heflin's characters than what we get in their first encounter. It's interesting to begin the film right at the moment when Heflin observes Ford staging a scene - it changes the context of the action, as if to say, everything that happened in your life before this moment is irrelevant, if you see someone doing something wrong, what will you do about it? Many of the scenes that follow are roughly the same in both versions, but this original version has a freshness to it that makes it compulsively watchable even when what's onscreen isn't a surprise.

The transfer on the Criterion disc, provided by Sony, is up to the usual high standards that Sony is known for. The picture is nearly flawless, with the black and white photography often gorgeous. The disc offered both the original mono track and a 5.1 remix; I watched with the 5.1 version, and it might as well have been mono - perfectly satisfactory, but not a lot of movement, which was perfectly fine. The disc also included a couple interviews, and English subtitles were available.

The original 3:10 To Yuma was very engaging despite having seen the remake first. There wasn't an obvious winner in my mind between the two; they're both excellent in slightly different ways. But where the remake mixes in slower moments of introspection and character study between moments of action, the original movies along at a surprisingly quick pace, and I got completely caught up in it. Daves' direction is effective as always, and Ford and Heflin are great as opposing forces sharing the screen. This is a great movie that's aged remarkably well.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

#36 - My Darling Clementine (1946)
Viewed on: March 7th, 2017
Viewing Format: Blu-ray (Criterion)

This was another Criterion flash sale purchase from last week. I had almost picked it up during the July B&N sale, and then again during the November sale, so it was just time. I had almost bought this back when it was a new Fox Studio Classics DVD back in 2003 or 2004. So I've almost bought this a bunch of times. File it under, "what took so long?!" I also ended up with a couple days off opposite my wife's schedule, so I had extra viewing time, as you can see from the burst of reviews the past couple days. Back to work tomorrow, but this was a nice detour before heading back into real life.

Directed by the great John Ford and starring Henry Fonda, My Darling Clementine is a classic telling of the OK Corral gunfight. What it lacks in historical accuracy it more than makes up for with sheer enjoyment and movie magic. Henry Ford has instant charisma in the role of Wyatt Earp; I liked him from the moment he stepped onscreen. Victor Mature is fantastic as Doc Holliday, giving a very mature performance. (Sorry, I couldn't resist!) As I was watching the movie, I kept noticing that every member of the cast was fantastic in his or her role. The other thing that kept coming to mind was Ford's incredible use of light and shadow throughout the film. At 97 minutes, it just flies by, building tension along the way until the inevitable gunfight.

Criterion's disc sports a beautiful transfer of this Fox classic. The disc includes both the original theatrical version and the pre-release version, and both are in HD. There's a commentary, a lengthy presentation detailing the differences between the two versions which was fascinating to watch, and other assorted odds and ends. Everything here is first rate. I watched the original theatrical version this time, and will check out the prerelease version next time. Based on the bonus feature detailing the differences, I think studio head Darryl F. Zanuck made the right call with these cuts and trims; the movie flows so beautifully as released.

My Darling Clementine was a great purchase, and my feeling that I'd probably like this movie turned out to be absolutely right. I'm probably able to appreciate it more now than I would have back when the DVD first came out, so it might have been worth waiting for. As long as you know going in that it's not the gospel truth, it's a really fun movie filled with great performances and a striking look.

 

[bujaki]

Josh, I saw the original 3:10 way back when I was a kid. Then I saw the remake, which I thought was fine. So I went back to the original and appreciated it much more. I found the sexual chemistry between Ford and Felicia Farr to be quite daring for a '50s film. I also found the ending to be starker. Mangold's rewrite added a softness to Crowe's motivations at the end which didn't ring true to his character. At least that's how I recall it. I much prefer the original.

 

[Robert Crawford]

#35 - 3:10 To Yuma (1957)
Viewed on: March 7th, 2017
Viewing Format: Blu-ray (Criterion)

The original 3:10 To Yuma was very engaging despite having seen the remake first. There wasn't an obvious winner in my mind between the two; they're both excellent in slightly different ways. But where the remake mixes in slower moments of introspection and character study between moments of action, the original movies along at a surprisingly quick pace, and I got completely caught up in it. Daves' direction is effective as always, and Ford and Heflin are great as opposing forces sharing the screen. This is a great movie that's aged remarkably well.

IMO, I think most of the people that have seen the original first were very disappointed in the remake. I was one of them. I didn't enjoy the remake and I love westerns. Part of my problem is the lead actors in both films. I thought both, Ford and Heflin were much better in their roles than Crowe and Bale. I never connected with either of the latter pair. For some reason, I just cared more about Ford and Heflin than Crowe and Bale. Furthermore, even though the original is a much shorter film, you can understand why Ford came to care and respect Heflin and his family. Also, I liked the humor and secondary characters in the original more and thought Felicia Farr (was Jack Lemmon's Wife until his death) and Richard Jaeckel were more effective in their roles. Even the desk clerk in the original, cracked me up with Jaeckel.

In short, I just like the original movie much more than the remake.

 

[Robert Crawford]

#36 - My Darling Clementine (1946)
Viewed on: March 7th, 2017
Viewing Format: Blu-ray (Criterion)

This was another Criterion flash sale purchase from last week. I had almost picked it up during the July B&N sale, and then again during the November sale, so it was just time. I had almost bought this back when it was a new Fox Studio Classics DVD back in 2003 or 2004. So I've almost bought this a bunch of times. File it under, "what took so long?!" I also ended up with a couple days off opposite my wife's schedule, so I had extra viewing time, as you can see from the burst of reviews the past couple days. Back to work tomorrow, but this was a nice detour before heading back into real life.

Directed by the great John Ford and starring Henry Fonda, My Darling Clementine is a classic telling of the OK Corral gunfight. What it lacks in historical accuracy it more than makes up for with sheer enjoyment and movie magic. Henry Fonda has instant charisma in the role of Wyatt Earp; I liked him from the moment he stepped onscreen. Victor Mature is fantastic as Doc Holliday, giving a very mature performance. (Sorry, I couldn't resist!) As I was watching the movie, I kept noticing that every member of the cast was fantastic in his or her role. The other thing that kept coming to mind was Ford's incredible use of light and shadow throughout the film. At 97 minutes, it just flies by, building tension along the way until the inevitable gunfight.

Criterion's disc sports a beautiful transfer of this Fox classic. The disc includes both the original theatrical version and the pre-release version, and both are in HD. There's a commentary, a lengthy presentation detailing the differences between the two versions which was fascinating to watch, and other assorted odds and ends. Everything here is first rate. I watched the original theatrical version this time, and will check out the prerelease version next time. Based on the bonus feature detailing the differences, I think studio head Darryl F. Zanuck made the right call with these cuts and trims; the movie flows so beautifully as released.

My Darling Clementine was a great purchase, and my feeling that I'd probably like this movie turned out to be absolutely right. I'm probably able to appreciate it more now than I would have back when the DVD first came out, so it might have been worth waiting for. As long as you know going in that it's not the gospel truth, it's a really fun movie filled with great performances and a striking look.

The prerelease version has been my preference between the two versions. One of my favorite scenes of this great film is when Earp tells the Clantons he got a job marshaling and their reactions once he told them his name and his slow walk into the rain.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

The prerelease version has been my preference between the two versions. One of my favorite scenes of this great film is when Earp tells the Clantons he got a job marshaling and their reactions once he told them his name and his slow walk into the rain.

I wanted to ask about the different versions, thanks for mentioning it.

I love that scene, that was one of many great moments in the film. Really wonderful from start to finish.

 

[DavidJ]

IMO, I think most of the people that have seen the original first were very disappointed in the remake. I was one of them. I didn't enjoy the remake and I love westerns. Part of my problem is the lead actors in both films. I thought both, Ford and Heflin were much better in their roles than Crowe and Bale. I never connected with either of the latter pair. For some reason, I just cared more about Ford and Heflin than Crowe and Bale. Furthermore, even though the original is a much shorter film, you can understand why Ford came to care and respect Heflin and his family. Also, I liked the humor and secondary characters in the original more and thought Felicia Farr (was Jack Lemmon's Wife until his death) and Richard Jaeckel were more effective in their roles. Even the desk clerk in the original, cracked me up with Jaeckel.

In short, I just like the original movie much more than the remake.

I haven't made it around to the original yet, but I did like the remake.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I haven't made it around to the original yet, but I did like the remake.

With no point of reference, I can see why, but those of us that have admired the original film have expressed serious misgivings towards the remake. Also, many of us didn't appreciate the end changing nor the age of the children.

 

[DavidJ]

With no point of reference, I can see why, but those of us that have admired the original film have expressed serious misgivings towards the remake. Also, many of us didn't appreciate the end changing nor the age of the children.

That's understandable. I need to give the original a spin.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

That's understandable. I need to give the original a spin.

It's well worth it - I was surprised at how much I enjoyed the original despite having just watched the remake. I don't think any less of the remake after seeing the original but there's a lot I appreciate about the original maybe even more than I would have otherwise for having seen the remake first.

 

[RMajidi]

#35 - 3:10 To Yuma (1957)
Viewed on: March 7th, 2017
Viewing Format: Blu-ray (Criterion)

I had seen James Mangold's 2007 remake of this back when it was first in theaters, but never got around to the original. With Mangold's new movie Logan opening up, I had just revisited his remake, and enjoyed it as much I had remembered. Not long after that, Criterion had a flash sale, and it seemed like the right moment to check out the original version.

Directed by Delmer Daves back in 1957, with Glenn Ford as the outlaw and Van Heflin as the rancher, the original production of 3:10 To Yuma shares a lot with the remake, but tells the same story with a greater sense of speed and urgency. Mangold's remake is as much about the characters and their lives, and what led them to those fateful moments, as it is about the specific outlaw capture at hand. For a modern audience not accustomed to westerns, all of this setup made for an engrossing drama that would appeal to a wider audience, and help orient an audience to being in a different time and place. The original film, by contrast, is about half an hour shorter and begins its story at what was about the thirty-minute mark in the remake. And it turns out, we don't really need to know more about either Ford or Heflin's characters than what we get in their first encounter. It's interesting to begin the film right at the moment when Heflin observes Ford staging a scene - it changes the context of the action, as if to say, everything that happened in your life before this moment is irrelevant, if you see someone doing something wrong, what will you do about it? Many of the scenes that follow are roughly the same in both versions, but this original version has a freshness to it that makes it compulsively watchable even when what's onscreen isn't a surprise.

The transfer on the Criterion disc, provided by Sony, is up to the usual high standards that Sony is known for. The picture is nearly flawless, with the black and white photography often gorgeous. The disc offered both the original mono track and a 5.1 remix; I watched with the 5.1 version, and it might as well have been mono - perfectly satisfactory, but not a lot of movement, which was perfectly fine. The disc also included a couple interviews, and English subtitles were available.

The original 3:10 To Yuma was very engaging despite having seen the remake first. There wasn't an obvious winner in my mind between the two; they're both excellent in slightly different ways. But where the remake mixes in slower moments of introspection and character study between moments of action, the original movies along at a surprisingly quick pace, and I got completely caught up in it. Daves' direction is effective as always, and Ford and Heflin are great as opposing forces sharing the screen. This is a great movie that's aged remarkably well.

I like the original 3:10 to Yuma ...a lot.

It came within 3 minutes of being in my top handful of greatest westerns.

Powerhouse performances by a couple of my favourite character actors. Great cinematography. Killer theme song and haunting score. Wonderful script (*) and taut direction & pacing by one of my go-to directors.

Don't get me wrong - I love a happy ending, but the ending here just didn't do it for me.

Spoiler

Yes, Glenn Ford was growing in appreciation and respect for Van Heflin's integrity, honesty and courage. He also said he wanted to square the ledger as Heflin had earlier saved his life. I can buy all that, so I can just about accept that he found a streak of selflessness within himself that allowed him to put Heflin and Mrs first; and just maybe backed himself to break out of Yuma again like he said.

What I found hard to swallow was Ford impassively watching his right-hand man shot dead without any show of remorse or regret. He was positively glowing in the aftermath of the death of his loyal sidekick, so filled was he with goodwill towards his captor (the instrument of his buddy's demise) and his wife. This was no mere character arc... and it just didn't ring true for me - not when everything else up to that point had been so intelligently satisfying.

In any lesser film, I wouldn't have minded this ending, but this one was so tantalisingly close to greatness.

 

[Robert Crawford]

What I found hard to swallow was Ford impassively watching his right-hand man shot dead without any show of remorse or regret. He was positively glowing in the aftermath of the death of his loyal sidekick, so filled was he with goodwill towards his captor (the instrument of his buddy's demise) and his wife. This was no mere character arc... and it just didn't ring true for me - not when everything else up to that point had been so intelligently satisfying.

In any lesser film, I wouldn't have minded this ending, but this one was so tantalisingly close to greatness.

Do you remember seeing him shoot his own man earlier in the film? Actually, I think Ben Wade is only loyal to himself. What he did was out of character and probably made him feel good about himself, but in the end, he's still an outlaw/murderer that really only cares about himself.

Anyhow, when it comes to movies, I try not to think too deeply about what motivates any particular character because in the end, for the most part, filmmakers are making movies to entertain you, not give you insight or reasoning behind the characters actions.

 

[RMajidi]

...for the most part, filmmakers are making movies to entertain you, not give you insight or reasoning behind the characters actions.

I think that's my point right there. The filmmakers had meticulously crafted a story casting great light on the insight and reasoning of the characters' actions... and then let it drop at the end.

No argument with its entertainment value, and as I said it remains a wonderful film for me... just shy of great.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I think that's my point right there. The filmmakers had meticulously crafted a story casting great light on the insight and reasoning of the characters' actions... and then let it drop at the end.

No argument with its entertainment value, and as I said it remains a wonderful film for me... just shy of great.

Well, I still don't agree with you as Ben Wade as just paid back his debt to Dan Evans for saving his life and has no real loyalty to anyone except himself. I think the ending was perfect! Which is something I hold against the remake for changing it.

 

[RMajidi]

Well, I still don't agree with you as Ben Wade as just paid back his debt to Dan Evans for saving his life and has no real loyalty to anyone except himself.

That's OK, Robert. We don't have to agree on this.

For me, if his loyalty was only to himself, then his 'sacrifice' is inexplicable. All he needed to do was drop down at the railtrack as his buddies were imploring him to do and he would have been a free man. He had no cause to jump onto the carriage (his own suggestion, no less).

 

[Robert Crawford]

That's OK Robert. We don't have to agree on this.

For me, if his loyalty was only to himself, then his 'sacrifice' is inexplicable. All he needed to do was drop down at the railtrack as his buddies were imploring him to do and he would have been a free man. He had no cause to jump onto the carriage (his own suggestion no less).

Again, though, he's loyal to himself, he felt he owed Evans so he saved his life in return.

 

[RMajidi]

Again, though, he's loyal to himself, he felt he owed Evans so he saved his life in return.

I can't see it that way either. If that was the case, then why wait that long after Heflin saved his life to decide that he must repay the debt at any cost for his own loyalty-to-self's sake.

He could have called off the dogs at any time before the train arrived. But instead, he was trying to get Heflin killed, even barking orders to his man on the roof not to miss again as they walked outside. Didn't seem like the attitude of a man intent on repaying a debt.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I can't see it that way either. If that was the case, then why wait that long after Heflin saved his life to decide that he must repay the debt at any cost for his own loyalty-to-self's sake.

He could have called off the dogs at any time before the train arrived. But instead, he was trying to get Heflin killed, even barking orders to his man on the roof not to miss again as they walked outside. Didn't seem like the attitude of a man intent on repaying a debt.

We just disagree, you didn't like the outcome while I loved it. Nothing else to say here.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I appreciate both of your points of view on the Yuma ending - I think I'm somewhere between both of you.

When I watched the remake the first time around, I liked the ending, and it seemed appropriate somehow that Bale's character dies at the end. Watching the movie nearly ten years later, I didn't enjoy that part of the ending as much.

I was surprised when watching the original afterwards to discover that Heflin survived at the end of the picture. On a pure enjoyment level, I liked that better, especially because I was just coming off of the more mixed feelings about Bale's version of the character dying. But I agree with Ramin in the sense that the mechanics of the whole thing played as too easy, and didn't necessarily seem to match the characterization the had proceeded it. It wasn't necessarily a complete 180 for me, but it was definitely unexpected on my part. I think I was too delighted by the ending in the moment to have my critical thinking hat on.

It's as if the original's ending is a more fun way to end the story (and I haven't read Elmore Leonard's original short story so I don't know how he ended his version), while the remake goes to pains to suggest a more "realistic" ending. I'm not sure that either completely work for me, but I find them at least workable. It wasn't one of those endings that nullified all of the enjoyment I had gotten up until that point, thankfully.

Anyhow, when it comes to movies, I try not to think too deeply about what motivates any particular character because in the end, for the most part, filmmakers are making movies to entertain you, not give you insight or reasoning behind the characters actions.

I'm not sure I agree with that - but I recognize that we all look for different things in movies, so what's entertaining to me might be different than what's entertaining to you, etc. But I think the difference between a good film and a bad film often is the how and the why beyond what's unfolding onscreen. I feel like Hollywood has shifted back and forth as to the style they make the most. For instance, I think today, we're in a very plot-heavy time. The big studio movies today seem to place a lot of emphasis on plot, and less on character development and motivation. (With so many movies coming out where world destruction is the threat, it's easy to skip the character development and motivation part - the motivation is "not dying".) Go back to the 1970s, for instance, and it seems to me that a lot of what Hollywood was putting out was about character, and less about plot - it was more about who these characters were and why they were that way than any particular objective they were trying to accomplish.

If a movie's got too much plotting, I can get a little bored, because at a certain point, there's not enough in there about the characters to make me feel something. But on the flip side, I have a difficult time with movies that are all about how their characters are feeling or what they're thinking, but where nothing actually ever really happens to those characters. If I had to pick one or the other, I'd take extra plot over an actor staring at a blank wall watching paint dry and thinking about his life, but I'd say it's better for me when a movie includes both.

When a movie balances those elements well, and then suddenly drops one of them out, it can feel to me as if someone's rushing - whether it's the writer trying to get the script done on a deadline, or the editor thinking that the movie is running too long and trying to cut it down - and that's often the single biggest thing to get me to check out of a movie mentally. I'm trying to remember what it was and I'm drawing a blank, but I saw a tentpole movie recently where I really enjoyed the beginning, felt like it had good character development and it got me interested in everything that was going on, and then at a certain point near the halfway mark, it was as if someone flipped a switch and the rest of the movie was just about action and more action. That kind of thing can be a real bummer to me.

For both versions of 3:10 To Yuma, I felt that the films balanced plot and character very well. I agree somewhat with Ramin that I don't know if the ending of the original version completely makes sense based on everything that's come before, but I also agree somewhat with Robert in that I enjoyed the ending as I was watching it, and hadn't been inspired to give it second thought until now.