film: 3:10 to Yuma - Page 10

ThaSaltCracka · #91 09-14-2007, 07:10 PM

I am curious if anyone else noticed this parallel.

Wade's women moved because she had TB and needed a dry enviroment.

Dan moved because his son had TB and needed a dry enviroment.

I think Wade saw a lot in Dan that he liked and I think he wished his life was like Dan's.

I'll agree with you GTL about Wades character. I found him and his actions pretty uninteresting until they got to Contention. That was when the movie took off IMO.

GTL · #92 09-14-2007, 07:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I am curious if anyone else noticed this parallel.

Wade's women moved because she had TB and needed a dry enviroment.

Dan moved because his son had TB and needed a dry enviroment.

I think Wade saw a lot in Dan that he liked and I think he wished his life was like Dan's.

I'll agree with you GTL about Wades character. I found him and his actions pretty uninteresting until they got to Contention. That was when the movie took off IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

saltcracker, i understand the parallels, i just think they are lame. it's corny to me for wade to just be another goody two shoes who is going to redeem himself by helping out bales character and killing off his bad nasty crew.

ThaSaltCracka · #93 09-14-2007, 07:18 PM

The thing is, he doesn't really redeem himself. He kills his whole crew at the end. He seems to accept what he really is , which is why he hopped on the train instead of just walking away.

ImaShark_420 · #94 09-14-2007, 07:19 PM

Freaking great movie

GTL · #95 09-14-2007, 07:20 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The thing is, he doesn't really redeem himself. He kills his whole crew at the end. He seems to accept what he really is , which is why he hopped on the train instead of just walking away.

[/ QUOTE ]

he calls his horse after the train. you can take that for what it's worth. the whole movie was totally hollywood cliche.

ThaSaltCracka · #96 09-14-2007, 07:41 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The thing is, he doesn't really redeem himself. He kills his whole crew at the end. He seems to accept what he really is , which is why he hopped on the train instead of just walking away.

[/ QUOTE ]

the whole movie was totally hollywood cliche.

[/ QUOTE ]so what? As if any of us know what being a cowboy in AZ during the late 1800's was like.

I thought the movie had some cool/interesting/fun things about it. It was entertaining as well.

GTL · #97 09-14-2007, 07:45 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The thing is, he doesn't really redeem himself. He kills his whole crew at the end. He seems to accept what he really is , which is why he hopped on the train instead of just walking away.

[/ QUOTE ]

the whole movie was totally hollywood cliche.

[/ QUOTE ]so what? As if any of us know what being a cowboy in AZ during the late 1800's was like.

I thought the movie had some cool/interesting/fun things about it. It was entertaining as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

i don't want it to be a documentary, i just find cliched hollywood movies boring. again, i'll just agree to disagree on that one.

oddjob · #98 09-14-2007, 07:56 PM

the horse thing was cheesey. i think they wanted to show he could get out, and knew it, but i don't think they had to slam it in our faces.

my take is, crowe obviously explained about his childhood. he had no family, and i think he idealized bale and his family. the idea of family, and the great lengths and sacrifice bale was willing to go through for his family.

he knew people, and he despised them, which is why he didn't care if he killed them or not. i think he had great respect for bale because of this.

he knew what everyone was going to do at the end. that they were all run by money. he thought bale was too, then realized he was a man of honor. that he felt he had to earn waht he was given. even in the early bar scene, he asked for 5 more dollars, and said it was for making him nervous. he thought that was owed to him, so he asked for it. if he really just wanted money, he would have taken the $1,000 crowe offered.

of course it's a hollywood movie, but i think it was entertaining. and i'd see it again.

ThaSaltCracka · #99 09-14-2007, 08:24 PM

I'd see it again too.

CharlieDontSurf · #**100** 09-15-2007, 01:10 AM

I don't have a problem with people saying they enjoyed it, thought it was good, and would see it again.

it bugs me when people say [censored] like...this is by far the best film of the year, its a great western...much like unforgiven, good bad ugly, wild bunch, etc.

I didnt care for it and thought it was kind of dull and cliche, had really uninspired directing/set design/camera work...but it had solid performances from its actors. I can see how people might really enjoy it though. Great film it is not.