3:10 To Yuma
 

Great movie. Beautifully photographed, terrific acting, an iconic western with homages to John Ford, Sergio Leone and High Noon. Russell Crowe is playing Marlon Brando, but at least he's aiming high (pun intended) and succeeding. Christian Bale is wonderful and Ben Curtis, Logan Lerman (who went to pre-school with my son) and Peter Fonda (of all people) delivery outstanding supporting performances.

If you love westerns, you'll love this movie. Even if you don't, it's a wonderful entertainment and you'll be talking about it long after you leave the theater. Highly recommended.

Re: 3:10 To Yuma
 

How are the media reviews for this in general? I only saw one, kind of mixed review from the NY Times, but I really don't trust them.

Re: 3:10 To Yuma
 

Ebert gave it 4 stars.

Good to see the Western make a return to mainstream cinema.

Re: 3:10 To Yuma
 

see the thread in OOT about this movie. i think the movie was vastly over reviewed.

Re: 3:10 To Yuma
 

I also saw 3:10 to Yuma this weekend and I concur with your pithy non-iconic post. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Peter Fonda - He was a surprise! What a great role he played and he did it well, self-contained yet poignant.

This movie is indeed a great western and is worth seeing, a few times over in fact.

-Zeno

Re: 3:10 To Yuma
 

Movie was average at best.
Lousy directing devoid of any substance or style.
Solid turns by the actors but the Crowe character was laughably silly.

Ending was god awful.

Its your typical studio action movie set in the old west.

Re: 3:10 To Yuma
 

[ QUOTE ]
...and Peter Fonda (of all people) delivery outstanding supporting performances.

[/ QUOTE ]

Didn't you think Peter Fonda was good in Ulee's Gold?

~ Rick

Re: 3:10 To Yuma
 

Fonda is a solid actor and has been good in many roles...but his character had essentially about 5-10 lines in the movie and no depth at all...not sure how his performance could be considered outstanding.

Re: 3:10 To Yuma
 

Yes, he was excellent in that movie. But I don't think of him as someone I'd want to see in a western. Then again, Crowe and Bale don't come immediately to mind either.

Re: 3:10 To Yuma
 

Fonda was good in The Limey.

Re: 3:10 To Yuma
 

Andy - My friend (the Commerce 20 & 40 player) and I saw it yesterday. I thought it was well done and entertaining until the final ten minutes and was ready to give it a solid B+ or so. But the ending was way over the top and (I hate to use this word after my comments in "The Celebration" thread) implausible.

Coming out of the theater my friend and I talked about it in detail. We agreed on every unrealistic and outlandish scene. This movie doesn't compare with "Unforgiven" in the least. He also thought the original movie with the same name was far better. I've put that one on my Netflix Q.

I'm surprised and puzzled that you and Zeno liked it so much.

~ Rick

Re: 3:10 To Yuma
 

Here's a review I wrote of this film on another forum:

Other than knowing it was a western, I went into 3:10 TO YUMA completely cold. I didn't see the original, read any reviews, or even know so much as to who was in it. Now that I've seen the movie and read some reviews I'm pretty shocked at the accolades the film is getting. To be fair, Bale and Crowe are very good, and an appropriately haggard looking Peter Fonda also deserves praise (even though I rolled my eyes a bit at the way he aped John Wayne's trademark diction in one scene). The pacing and editing worked too, as the 2 hour runtime never lulled.

Unfortunately, what works in the film is outdone by what doesn't. It's true that the story is more interested in character interaction and development as opposed to shootouts and barfights, but it's also true that the way the characters interact and how they develop is, to be blunt, pretty stupid. Crowe repeatedly murders and commits crimes while in the clutches of Bale's group of lawman, but despite being mostly bloodthirsty killers themselves, it never occurs to them to justifiably shoot Crowe in order to stop him and save a life. The actions of Crowe's character are equally confused. He spares one character's life, only to somewhat pointlessly kill him later. <font color="red"> SPOILER: He expends much energy repeatedly trying to escape, yet practically allows himself to get originally caught. He even goes so far as to aid Bale in bringing him to the prison train only moments after trying to kill him. END SPOILER.</font> The dialogue is filled with the inane cliche of characters quoting obscure passages of literature that, in this case, they claimed to have read when they were 8.

The FX, and in particular one explosion effect, are amateurish to the point of distraction. 3:10 TO YUMA also contains the most egregious continuity error that I've ever seen in a Hollywood movie. The characters walk into a hotel in the middle of a drought after traveling through miles of barren desert, yet when they walk out of the hotel a few hours later the ground is covered in snow. The movie would have been better if they filmed an actual explosion and used CGI to cover up the snow, rather than doing it the other way around. <font color="red"> SPOILER: And yes, I know it was a horse that exploded, but MY NAME IS NOBODY manages to do this effect just fine without CGI. END SPOILER. </font> Overall the film tries to show a battle between good and evil, but its arty pretensions just fail miserably. There's a lot of good films out right now, so I'd recommend seeing something else.

All of this is, of course, just IMHO.

Re: 3:10 To Yuma
 

[ QUOTE ]
To be fair, Bale and Crowe are very good, and an appropriately haggard looking Peter Fonda also deserves praise ...The pacing and editing worked too, as the 2 hour runtime never lulled.

Unfortunately, what works in the film is outdone by what doesn't. It's true that the story is more interested in character interaction and development as opposed to shootouts and barfights, but it's also true that the way the characters interact and how they develop is, to be blunt, pretty stupid. Crowe repeatedly murders and commits crimes while in the clutches of Bale's group of lawman, but despite being mostly bloodthirsty killers themselves, it never occurs to them to justifiably shoot Crowe in order to stop him and save a life. The actions of Crowe's character are equally confused. He spares one character's life, only to somewhat pointlessly kill him later. <font color="red"> SPOILER: He expends much energy repeatedly trying to escape, yet practically allows himself to get originally caught. He even goes so far as to aid Bale in bringing him to the prison train only moments after trying to kill him. END SPOILER.</font> The dialogue is filled with the inane cliche of characters quoting obscure passages of literature that, in this case, they claimed to have read when they were 8....Overall the film tries to show a battle between good and evil, but its arty pretensions just fail miserably. There's a lot of good films out right now, so I'd recommend seeing something else.

[/ QUOTE ]

Great post. The points you made in your post above is essentially what my friend and I discussed as we left the theater. I'm sure you are right on regarding what I didn't copy.

~ Rick

PS Check out "Sex and Lucia" Just finished it on DVD; thought it was beyond amazing.

Re: 3:10 To Yuma
 

[ QUOTE ]
Lousy directing devoid of any substance or style.


[/ QUOTE ]

it's not exactly a best director nominee, but it certainly isn't "lousy". maybe it just didn't have a "cool" factor you were hoping for?

[ QUOTE ]

Ending was god awful.


[/ QUOTE ]

yup, but it did set up the sequel nicely. 3:11 to Yuma, coming soon to a theatre near you

Re: 3:10 To Yuma
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Lousy directing devoid of any substance or style.


[/ QUOTE ]

it's not exactly a best director nominee, but it certainly isn't "lousy". maybe it just didn't have a "cool" factor you were hoping for?

[ QUOTE ]

Ending was god awful.


[/ QUOTE ]

yup, but it did set up the sequel nicely. 3:11 to Yuma, coming soon to a theatre near you

[/ QUOTE ]

Its lousy given you have two amazing leads with solid supporting characters and the majority of the scenes lack any real tension or suspense. It also sucks because it is a western which lends itself to having amazing settings and backgrounds and none of this is utilized. In large part because it seems like every damn shot is a tight shot or CU of either Bale or Crowe. The fight/shootout scenes are a joke and the set design and production values look like they belong on a TV show.

But your right in saying that its solid "hollywood" directing much in the same way that the directing directing of Rush Hour 3 is good.

Re: 3:10 To Yuma
 

Sheesh, every great western is implausible. Have you watched High Noon or The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance lately? Like I say, I'm a sucker for 'em, so maybe I overlook things that would trouble me in other flicks.

But 3:10 to Yuma was cool.

I was going to see Jessie James this weekend, but the New Yorker review of Tommy Lee Jones in his new movie was so outstanding that I think I might see that instead.

Re: 3:10 To Yuma
 

[ QUOTE ]
Sheesh, every great western is implausible. Have you watched High Noon or The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance lately? Like I say, I'm a sucker for 'em, so maybe I overlook things that would trouble me in other flicks.

But 3:10 to Yuma was cool.

I was going to see Jessie James this weekend, but the New Yorker review of Tommy Lee Jones in his new movie was so outstanding that I think I might see that instead.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll be curious to see yr thoughts on Jesse James.
Have a feeling if you loved Yuma your not gonna like JJ lol.

Re: 3:10 To Yuma
 

[ QUOTE ]
Sheesh, every great western is implausible. Have you watched High Noon or The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance lately? Like I say, I'm a sucker for 'em, so maybe I overlook things that would trouble me in other flicks.

But 3:10 to Yuma was cool.

I was going to see Jessie James this weekend, but the New Yorker review of Tommy Lee Jones in his new movie was so outstanding that I think I might see that instead.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that a more "plausible" outlaw would have been a much flatter character.

Re: 3:10 To Yuma
 

There was a bit of homage in the film as well. Peter Fonda was definitely channeling both John Wayne and his father. Crowe was Brando. And Bale was Jimmy Stewart. 3:10 to Yuma is a kind of knock-off of High Noon anyway.

Re: 3:10 To Yuma
 

[ QUOTE ]

I'm surprised and puzzled that you and Zeno liked it so much.

~ Rick

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? I like to read Espinoza, does that surprise you also. In fact it would have been very quirky to have Bale quote from Espinoza’s Ethics instead of from the Bible, or perhaps some Shakespeare. The old west was rife with theatrical companies and many towns had theaters or performances were in the open air or under tents etc. So having Bale spew out some rancid Shakespeare would be very realistic.

Aside from the comments of Andy and Borodog, I will a few of my own. It is no sin to enjoy a movie that many others don’t think well of - If sin is the right word and I hope it ain't. Anyway, all the bitching about the ending and most of the other complaints are all hot air in my opinion (though no movie is perfect of course). And why have an ending that satisfies? Isn’t that the way most movies end, almost cliché like? Life never satisfies most people so why expect it in a movie.

Didn’t Bale’s pistols have the crucified Christ on the grips? Bloody awful wasn’t it.

But no matter, Some Like it Hot and some like it not. That’s the way of the world on this sorry ball. So Annie - Get your Gun.

Hope you are doing well Rick. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

-Zeno

Re: 3:10 To Yuma
 

[ QUOTE ]
I was going to see Jessie James this weekend, but the New Yorker review of Tommy Lee Jones in his new movie was so outstanding that I think I might see that instead.

[/ QUOTE ]

This must be "In the Valley of Elah". Saw the trailer for it before "3:10 to Yuma" and just read a brief review on movieslcom. From the review:

"Who'll Hate This: George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Dennis Miller, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh and their fans."

Now I can see why you might like it [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

~ Rick

Re: 3:10 To Yuma
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I'm surprised and puzzled that you and Zeno liked it so much. ~ Rick

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? I like to read Espinoza, does that surprise you also.

[/ QUOTE ]
How could it? Espinoza is another one of those guys I'd have to Google to figure out who he is and what he has done.


[ QUOTE ]
In fact it would have been very quirky to have Bale quote from Espinoza’s Ethics instead of from the Bible, or perhaps some Shakespeare. The old west was rife with theatrical companies and many towns had theaters or performances were in the open air or under tents etc. So having Bale spew out some rancid Shakespeare would be very realistic.

[/ QUOTE ]
That part was OK. The part I had to suspend belief (outside of the last ten minutes) was letting such a dangerous guy (Bale) wear handcuffs with enough slack so he could have played wide receiver for the Oakland Raiders.


[ QUOTE ]
Aside from the comments of Andy and Borodog, I will a few of my own. It is no sin to enjoy a movie that many others don’t think well of - If sin is the right word and I hope it ain't. Anyway, all the bitching about the ending and most of the other complaints are all hot air in my opinion (though no movie is perfect of course). And why have an ending that satisfies? Isn’t that the way most movies end, almost cliché like? Life never satisfies most people so why expect it in a movie.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sin isn't the right word. And life sometimes satisfies, but maybe not my own so much.


[ QUOTE ]
Hope you are doing well Rick. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

-Zeno

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm waiting for Armageddon like most of us. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

~ Rick

Re: 3:10 To Yuma
 

From The New Yorker:

"Jones . . . give a great, selfless, and heartbreaking performance that completely dominates this elusive but powerful movie. . . . 'In the Valley of Elah' is a rarity: an American film that convinces you that its protagonist is genuinely a great man."

And for all you Angelinos, that was one helluva rain last night, wasn't it?

Re: 3:10 To Yuma
 

Good post Rick. I agree somewhat that the ending is 'strange', and catches most off guard as it did me also. But this reminds me of the great movie The Sand Pebbles. Jake (Steve Mcqueen) gets shot at the end and dies. This displeased many reviewers and movie goers alike. I mean - What the hell happened?

-Zeno

Re: 3:10 To Yuma
 

[ QUOTE ]
Good post Rick. I agree somewhat that the ending is 'strange', and catches most off guard as it did me also. But this reminds me of the great movie The Sand Pebbles. Jake (Steve Mcqueen) gets shot at the end and dies. This displeased many reviewers and movie goers alike. I mean - What the hell happened? -Zeno

[/ QUOTE ]

"The Sand Pebbles" was a great movie and holds up very well over time (I first saw it last year) even though (or perhaps because) it focuses on politics and blowback. I'm surprised people had problems with the ending but it may be that craving for happy endings by the public at large.

For me in the best movies the ending isn't too predicable and there is a possibility of a tragic outcome (but it's not required as in some types of "arty" movies; you simply don't know going into the theater). I can make exceptions for great movies like "Titanic" were we know the boat is going to sink.

When I hear somebody say "I didn't like that movie because it didn't have a happy ending" I know it's somebody I don't want as a movie date (or for much else for that matter).

~ Rick

Re: 3:10 To Yuma
 

[ QUOTE ]
Good post Rick. I agree somewhat that the ending is 'strange', and catches most off guard as it did me also. But this reminds me of the great movie The Sand Pebbles. Jake (Steve Mcqueen) gets shot at the end and dies. This displeased many reviewers and movie goers alike. I mean - What the hell happened?

-Zeno

[/ QUOTE ]

I saw this flick a few weeks ago. As I was leaving the theater, I had some doubts about the ending; I wasn't sure that it went with the rest of the movie. In the intervening time, the ending has "settled" a bit, and now I don't have a problem with it. It was never a problem that the ending was happy or sad, it was more a case of whether it was consistent with the rest of the flick.

As far as plausibility goes, I see no reason for it. Some of my favorite movies (The Big Sleep as it was originally released, and Once Upon a time in the West, to name two) make no sense whatsoever.

Re: 3:10 To Yuma
 

Jesse James &gt; Valley of Elah

Id see the former over the latter.


Novelist Nick Antosca ("Fires")

This isn't really a review; consider it a breathless, extemporaneous appreciation. I saw The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford a few hours ago and it doesn't feel like something to sit down and matter-of-factly dissect. God, it's a majestic accomplishment. Hard to remember the last time a film had me so deeply in its reality. Park Chan-wook's Oldboy did it; so did Paul Thomas Anderson's Magnolia and, to a lesser extent, Darren Aronofsky's Requiem for a Dream and Alfonso Cuaron's Children of Men. (All great films, all very different from Assassination; I'm only comparing the effect.) I saw each of those three or four times in the theater and the same will probably end up being true of Andrew Dominik's film.

I experienced Assassination in my skin and my blood and my bones. It's such a powerful piece of art... spooky, absolutely beautiful, and so richly put together. From the trailer and early reviews I expected a tone poem, something lovely to look at but not necessarily affecting in any profound sense--like Terrence Malick's The New World, with its mumbling and utterly inscrutable characters framed by gorgeous forest--so what initially startled me was the genuine humor and deftness of Dominik's script (and of Ron Hansen's dialogue--Hansen wrote the novel). Every character is achingly human and distinguished with care, given dignity and pettiness and strange quirks and spotlit moments.

There are so many perfect things in this film, large and small: <font color="white"> The train robbery at the beginning... the sight of Jesse James toying with serpents in his back yard... the glimpse of fish beneath the ice... Dick Liddell seducing his friend's stepmother... the horrific forced laughter after Jesse pretends he's going to slit Bob Ford's throat... the moment of Jesse's murder, which is just as much a suicide... </font>

And everyone involved has done an astonishing job. No slack. Every actor (including Sam Shepherd as Frank James, Paul Schneider as Dick Liddell, Sam Rockwell as Charley Ford, and Ted Levine--Buffalo Bill from Silence of the Lambs, amusingly enough--as a lawman) has got it exactly. Even James Carville. Dominik must be a directing genius to have gotten performances this uniformly excellent out of his cast. And Roger Deakins' cinematography is otherworldly; I've never seen another movie that looked like this. And Warren Ellis and Nick Cave's score got into me like heroin. And--

Enough, I'll stop already. Suffice to say I loved this movie more than any I've seen in a very long time. Will you? Maybe. Maybe not. It doesn't seem to have been universally appreciated. But there have certainly been others--this guy, for example--who felt as strongly as I did. Devin Faraci, maybe the best movie critic on the internet, apparently also loved it so much he's having trouble writing a "review". So did one or two others. Like Magnolia and Oldboy and 2001 and Days of Heaven--it's an idiosyncratic taste. It meanders (perfectly, mesmerizingly) and digresses and draws moments out, and some people will just be bored (fair enough) and others will call it pretentious (many of these people will be ignorant) and that's that. So it's definitely not a movie I'll be recommending to every person I know. Only to select ones.

It is very long though..over 2 1/2 hours

Re: 3:10 To Yuma
 

[ QUOTE ]
As far as plausibility goes, I see no reason for it. Some of my favorite movies (The Big Sleep as it was originally released, and Once Upon a time in the West, to name two) make no sense whatsoever.


[/ QUOTE ]


I first saw Once Upon a time in the West around last Christmas with an old friend who has it on DVD. What a great flick; I especially loved the opening scene - Nothing like a gang of thugs to brighten up an otherwise dull day. Which reminds me that the timelessness of the Western is tied to thuggery, power, and avarice. I wrote an ode to Vladimir Putin, my present-day favorite thug, in the Politics forum months ago. Many took umbrage; Why was a real mystery to me.

-Zeno

Re: 3:10 To Yuma
 

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
As far as plausibility goes, I see no reason for it. Some of my favorite movies (The Big Sleep as it was originally released, and Once Upon a time in the West, to name two) make no sense whatsoever.


[/ QUOTE ]


I first saw Once Upon a time in the West around last Christmas with an old friend who has it on DVD. What a great flick; I especially loved the opening scene - Nothing like a gang of thugs to brighten up an otherwise dull day. Which reminds me that the timelessness of the Western is tied to thuggery, power, and avarice. I wrote an ode to Vladimir Putin, my present-day favorite thug, in the Politics forum months ago. Many took umbrage; Why was a real mystery to me.

-Zeno

[/ QUOTE ]

Now that you mention it, thugs may be the entire basis for Westerns. I can't think of a Western where the primary thrill isn't watching the thugs get their just deserts in the end. (Once Upon a time in the West is, of course, an exception. The primary thrill in watching Once Upon a time in the West is looking at Claudia Cardinale, but I digress (I'll come back to Claudia in a couple of sentences).) Anyway, its all a morality play about thugs.

Sometimes the thugs represent the establishment and get offed by the outlaws (Wild Bunch, McCabe and Mrs. Miller). Sometimes the thugs are outlaws and get offed by the establishment (High Noon).

The big question about Once Upon a time in the West is whether Henry Fonda got his just deserts. Sure, he was killed by Death Wish, but he got to bang Claudia Cardinale for God's Sake! It's hard to believe that he didn't get the best of it.

Re: 3:10 To Yuma
 

[ QUOTE ]
And for all you Angelinos, that was one helluva rain last night, wasn't it?

[/ QUOTE ]

I only had a passing glance at the reality of Friday night's rain since I was inside a card barn. Then the next day I saw one of the oddest rain showers ever and it was at another barn of course.

As I drove into the Hustler's parking lot (everything geographic on these forums should be in relation to a cardroom or casino) I could see blue sky with scattered clouds in every direction. But one of the clouds was very small, very dark and extremely fast moving. It settled over the Hustler and created an intense downpour which kept me in my car for three minutes. The edges of the entire cloud would easily fit inside the parking lot perimeter; everywhere else the clouds were still puffy white with lots of blue sky in between. Keep in mind until the age of 35 I had been on the water or offshore most of my years (racing sailing and offshore hard weather deliveries of fast sailing yachts) so I've seen a lot of weird weather up close. But I never saw a raincloud so intense yet small.

I should have taken it as an omen. In a great game I was card dead for seven hours but through sheer determination built up my stack anyway in the 5-5 blind NL. Late in the session I finally built a perfect sized pot with a 3X mini-raise of a straddle with a middle pair (Matt Flynn/Sunny Mehta/Ed Miller would be proud of my SPR - about 10-1). Against my two opponents I flop a set of eights on a rainbow, mostly disconnected board (Q-8-6) and bet almost pot. I get called in two spots. The turn comes a suited jack. BB bets out potish ($200). I put him on QJ or 66. Original limper makes it $500; I'm concerned about him hitting a straight but his range and aggression is big so a smaller set, draw or the queen jack our equally likely. I commit and push. He had hit the straight and I don't redraw. I'm felted.

Since I would have to rebuy short and had put in a long frustrating day I decided to leave. The sky was clear when I left.

~ Rick

PS to Mods: No problem with me if you delete this mostly beat story; I'm human and had to get it out of my system. But do beware of card-room sized dark clouds.

Re: 3:10 To Yuma
 

A poetic post, Rick, with the unhappy ending, unfortunately, that you alluded to. Which is one of the things I don't like about no-limit. Seven hours of careful hard work belly busted by one card.

Re: 3:10 To Yuma
 

[ QUOTE ]
There was a bit of homage in the film as well. Peter Fonda was definitely channeling both John Wayne and his father. Crowe was Brando. And Bale was Jimmy Stewart. 3:10 to Yuma is a kind of knock-off of High Noon anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's mostly a knockoff of the original version of 3:10 to Yuma, with Glenn Ford.

I just saw this over the weekend and enjoyed it, despite the ending. I'm a fan of westerns and realize that one does not see these movies expecting plausibility. But even by those standards, the ending was deficient, in my view.

On the other hand, I had no complaints about the acting or directing. And I was diverted the entire time, which is really all I want from this kind of movie.

Incidentally, a kind of similar movie - and one of the classics - is "Last Train from Gun Hill," with Kirk Douglas.

Re: 3:10 To Yuma
 

Well, the original 3:10 to Yuma was an attempt to cash in on the success of High Noon. "Diverting" is a good description of the curent 3:10.

Re: 3:10 To Yuma
 

I cannot understand the people who are calling the end of 3:10 "deficient."

As far as I could tell the ending was perfect. What sort of ending did you want exactly?

[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

Re: 3:10 To Yuma
 

I walked into the movie with the prejudice of seeing the original plus reading these posts. I am greatly disappointed in the veteran posters who praised the film so highly.

The people who say the film is implausible are right on. There are things that are implausible in real life, and things implausible in the context of themselves. Unfortunately, the remake of 3:10 to Yuma is the latter, which is a mortal sin in movies.

The idea that people would bother taking an outlaw to a train to be hung in another city, while dozens of others are being blown away in the process is ridiculous and distracting. If a member of your posse is having his throat gouged out with a fork, you would not shoot the offender on the spot?

Also, Russell Crowe's character completely lacked the charm that Glenn Ford brought to the role. The scene with the woman at the bar was markedly inferior to the original film, which was a lot more suggestive without seeing any skin or a bedroom at all. The change of Crowe's character in the end was also unconvincing. Why would his posse bother going after him when it is clear that he is running away from them while jumping from roof to roof?

I'm adding "3:10 to Yuma" to this years list of most overrated films. It is second only to "The Bourne Ultimatum" in that regard.

Re: 3:10 To Yuma
 

Westerns have always been fairy tales to me. I don't expect the same level of plausibility in a western that I do in other movies. After all, the "west" that is depicted in westerns is not what the west was like at all. (It was essentially made up by Owen Wister, who never saw the west.)

Re: 3:10 To Yuma
 

[ QUOTE ]
Westerns have always been fairy tales to me. I don't expect the same level of plausibility in a western that I do in other movies. After all, the "west" that is depicted in westerns is not what the west was like at all. (It was essentially made up by Owen Wister, who never saw the west.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Gotcha Andy. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] According to this thingy I just Googled Wister (who I never heard of prior to your post) "....had spent summers in the West, and on the basis of these experiences he started to produce Western sketches."

Also ran into 2+2er Private Joker today. He said the guy who directed "3:10 to Yuma" couldn't direct traffic and the Brad Pitt western about Jesse James was great.

~ Rick

Re: 3:10 To Yuma
 

[ QUOTE ]
Why would his posse bother going after him when it is clear that he is running away from them while jumping from roof to roof?

I'm adding "3:10 to Yuma" to this years list of most overrated films. It is second only to "The Bourne Ultimatum" in that regard.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree completely with this stuff. Both of these movies threw themselves in the garbage with characters just acting in bizarre and irrational ways for the last 45 minutes of each.

Re: 3:10 To Yuma
 

[ QUOTE ]
I cannot understand the people who are calling the end of 3:10 "deficient."

As far as I could tell the ending was perfect. What sort of ending did you want exactly?

[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Will driving the cattle in front of the train to trample Charlie Prince and provide cover for his dad, a trick he learned from Ben Wade at the beginning of the film; Ben Wade's gang being killed by "The Hand of God;" the more I think about this ending, the more I agree that it was perfect.

Btw, when Ben Wade is jumping from roof to roof, not only is his gang shooting at Dan, but they have to kill all the trigger-happy townfolk they'd hired five minutes previously (referred to as "dumb sh!ts" by Charlie Prince), since they're just as likely to kill their boss. For all the gang knows, Ben Wade is running from the mob.

Re: 3:10 To Yuma
 

[ QUOTE ]
If a member of your posse is having his throat gouged out with a fork, you would not shoot the offender on the spot?

[/ QUOTE ]

Shoot the offender, do not pass Go, do not collect $200.