3:10 to Yuma Review

[Mulee Pete]

Did anybody else find the remake as lame as I did?  I kept hoping it would redeem itself, but it was just terrible.

[hellgate]

I never understood why the bad guy (BG) wouldn't have just gone limp and not run along with the good guy (GG)  toward the train. That part seemed dumb to me. However, I checked out the original 3:10 To Yuma from the library and watched it. It was worse. The new movie is much better and develops the treachery of the BG much better which builds tension. Somehow seeing Glen Ford as a bad guy in the original movie just didn't convince me. The original GG (Van Heflin) was as good as or more convincing than the modern GG. The newer version with the detour through Injun country was added and the night time shooting was real. There's just now way (at the end) that a fellow with that many holes in him could even live long enough to even give a wink to anyone. I was still very entertained by the newer version which is superior to the original.
Hey, there was more than enough to conjure up a couple of shooting stages outa the film.

[The General]

I thought the scene with the Chinese RR workers where the bad guys started chasing them & that Sheriff's badge kept changing sides was real funny!  There were some good shooting scenes but for the most part, I thought it was a pretty slow film.  I don't believe I ever saw the original.

[Advertising]

[sundance44`s]

Slow and dull for me ..I want a good western again 

[Deadeye Don]

Man you guys are tough. 

[sundance44`s]

Just getting grumpy and expecting more maybe ...But the wife made popcorn and it was good ..as always ! 

[Tommy tornado]

Hellgate from what I understand in real life the Youngers got shot to pieces in Northfield and survived.  Perhaps it was not totally off.  I agree tough crowd.  Atleast Hollyweird made another western.

[Pettifogger]

For better or for worse, it was the best western made in 2007.  Let's hope they make at least one in 2008.

[The Avocado Kid]

I thought the scene with the Chinese RR workers where the bad guys started chasing them & that Sheriff's badge kept changing sides was real funny!  There were some good shooting scenes but for the most part, I thought it was a pretty slow film.  I don't believe I ever saw the original.

The orig.is even slower...it's not an action film,either one of them.

[The General]

I saw the film as a story of the young pioneer attempting to compensate for his lack of honor as a soldier & trying to regain that honor by taking on this task.  An action film?  No, not by any sense of the word however, as I stated in an earlier post; it did have some fine shooting scenes.

A film critic I am not, JMHO.  I am more into the CW films personally.

[Skinny Preacher 66418]

It was better than Jackass part II....

I like ANY western that makes it to the Silverscreen...but don't really care to see it again 

[HappyTrigger]

Many critics say, and I agree, that the remake was better than the original, which was REALLY dull. It was meant to be a movie about personalities and characters, not action and shoot-um-up. There was not too much opportunity to examine guns in the movie. Did anyone spot anything in particular?

[Steel Horse Bailey]

Howdy!

I enjoyed it.  I had seen PART of the original (yawn) and then saw that the Western Channel was running the original a week after I saw the new version, so I DVR'ed (is that REALLY a verb?  ) it and watched it all the way.  It was a little better the second time.

It is, IMHO, NOT a shoot-em-up, like several have mentioned, but a story of people.

I was entertained by the new film.  The historical details weren't bad - considering the source.  The REAL bad guy (not Crowe) was REALLY bad, and even 'tho his outfit wasn't particularly accurate - except for Hollyweird - it was a cool get-up.  And he sure looked like he'd practicing his gun handling - as had Crowe.  Of Course, R.Crowe had done some handling in that other GREAT (  ) movie, "The Quick" etc. with Sharon Stone.

Hey - I'm easily entertained!  At least there are a FEW Westerns still being made.

Anyone seen the James flick with Brad Pit, yet? 

[Mogorilla]

    I watched the original 3:10 to YUma this summer, slow, and didn't buy Glen Ford as the villian.  The remake was a better film in my opinion, but I do have a fondness for Vinessa Shaw (the prostitute).   Overall, I think it was a decent film and Crowe did a good job.   Thought they sort of messed up with the sprint to the train, bale having only one leg and all.   Character wise Crowe knew he had amassed a gang of scum and him helping the farmer get him to the train would be a redemtion for them both. 
    I just saw Pitt's Jesse James movie this weekend.  Long, slow, well acted, long, short on action, slow, great character study, long, afflect not only looked like Ford but nailed the part, slow.   Did I mention the movie was long and slow?  2:40 minutes is a long movie, for a moment I kept expecting Kevin Costner to appear.   Frank James carries a 75 remmington.    I never could stand Ben Afflect and other than Hollywoodland, never thought he could act.  By default, a thought the same of the brother.    He and Pitt both do a great job, but the movie is a little long and slow.   Part of the James film problem was I watched Silverado the same day.  I know the lines to Silverado by heart and James suffered in comparison.

[Deadeye Don]

Hey - I'm easily entertained!  At least there are a FEW Westerns still being made.



Jeff,  Its not that you are so easily entertained it is that you appreciate the effort that goes into making a western in Hollywood for big screen distribution. 

[Steel Horse Bailey]

Yep.

[65bsaA65]

Way too short on believeability (what they call "suspension of disbelief").  I like both Crowe and Bales as action actors; they shoulda had a better script.  It's been 10,000 years since I saw the original; didn't Lee Van Cleef have a part in that?

[Steel Horse Bailey]

If Lee was in it, it was a tiny part and I didn't notice him in the original.

One thing about the script:  because I was able to see both movies within a few days of each other - and I saw each one 3 times - they had some of the dialog word-for-word the same in the new one as it was in the old!  Word-for-word!  Not ALL of it, by any means, but quite a bit.

[The Avocado Kid]

Howdy!

I enjoyed it.  I had seen PART of the original (yawn) and then saw that the Western Channel was running the original a week after I saw the new version, so I DVR'ed it and watched it all the way.  It was a little better the second time.

It is, IMHO, NOT a shoot-em-up, like several have mentioned, but a story of people.

I was entertained.  The historical details weren't bad - considering the source.  The REAL bad guy (not Crowe) was REALLY bad, and even 'tho his outfit wasn't particularly accurate - except for Hollyweird - it was a cool get-up.  And he sure looked like he'd practicing his gun handling - as had Crowe.  Of Course, R.Crowe had done some handling in that other GREAT (  ) movie, "The Quick" etc. with Sharon Stone.

Hey - I'm easily entertained!  At least there are a FEW Westerns still being made.

Anyone seen the James flick with Brad Pit, yet? 

The Western Channel is running the original again this week but real late...3 or 4am....never did like that film.

[Marshal Deadwood]

I saw the brad pitt 'Jesse James' ,,,abomination.
Rates in the top 2 of the worst movies I ever saw, and my mind wont recollect #1worst.

But,,to give pitt the actor credit,,it was Ford that ruined the movie for me. That,,and all the 'fear and guilt' expressions on EVERYONES face anytime JJ was around. A priest dont see that much guilt on human faces in his life.

3:10 to Yuma I really enjoyed.