3:10 To Yuma YIFY __LINK__
Years and years ago, I saw "3:10 to Yuma" and loved it. However, seeing it about 30 years later, I am struck how many illogical plot elements there are in the film--too many to make this a truly memorable western.When the film begins, Ben Wade (Glenn Ford) and his gang are holding up the stage. In order to make this easier, they've stampeded some of a local rancher's cattle into the path of the wagon. Dan Evans (Van Heflin) can't do anything to stop the men from doing this with his cattle, as it's just him and his two small sons against a dozen vicious killers. Additionally, Evans is a pragmatic guy and doesn't want to be a hero.Later, after Wade is captured, the local Marshall wants to take the gang leader into Yuma to be tried for murder and robbery. However, there's a problem--the town is minuscule and he needs help. One of the guys he enlists is Evans. While Evans is hesitant to risk his life, he's about to lose his ranch--and the reward money could sure help him. So far, this is a very good western. The dilemma is interesting and Evans is an interesting sort of anti-hero. However, as the film progresses many problems are very noticeable. First and foremost, Wade tries several times to escape and even nearly kills several people in the process. So why not just shoot him?! After all, if a prisoner tries to escape, you shoot him. And, with his gang of thugs wandering about, you really cannot see why they didn't kill the murderer. It isn't like there's any doubt that he is a killer-- he admits it and was witnessed doing the killing. So why allow him to repeatedly try to escape and threaten to have the various posse members killed?! Kill the jerk!! Later, when his gang does arrive and they start killing off the posse members, STILL Evans doesn't shoot Wade...and you wonder why!! To make matters worse, the final scene shows Evans hopelessly outnumbered and surrounded--and then Wade does something that makes sense only to a script writer!! No criminal in the history of mankind would ever have done what Wade then did...NONE! Highly illogical.
3:10 to Yuma YIFY
3:10 TO YUMA was a difficult film for me to watch because it's one of those rare times that I've seen the remake, starring Christian Bale and Russell Crowe, before the original. The two films have plots that follow one another closely, so they're virtually indistinguishable, although the remake adds in extra action sequences that weren't in this '50s western.This original turns out to be a surprisingly decent little fable with strong black and white cinematography and good performances from the two leads. Glenn Ford is a likable ne'er-do-well and Van Heflin puts in a commendable turn as a man of principle. The plot is quite straightforward, but it lends itself well to an undercurrent of tension that runs throughout and you're never quite sure what the outcome will be.I suppose you could argue that this version of the story is a little slow in paces (that scene in the hotel room seems to go on forever) but it's still above average and well made by genre standards and a film that's difficult to criticise too much.
This western, a remake of a 1957 film, is centred on two men. One is honest rancher, Dan Evans, a man who is in financial trouble and fears losing his ranch and letting down his family. The second is Ben Wade, the leader of a band of gangsters, who is captured after a raid on a stagecoach carrying railway wages. Needing the money, Evans volunteers to be part of the group escorting Wade to the town of Contention where he is to be put on the 3:10 train to Yuma. It won't be an easy journey; they will pass through territory occupied by renegade Apaches and have to face members of Wade's well-armed gang who are determined to set him free.Having enjoyed the 1957 version of the film I was interested to see how this would compare... I think it compares well. The story might be relatively simple but that doesn't lessen the film. It provides several impressive action set pieces; from the stage coach robbery at the start to the gunfight in Contention as Wade's gang try to stop Evans getting him to the train. Despite the impressive action it often feels character driven as we learn more about Evans and Wade. Both are interesting although Wade is slightly more so as there is a degree of ambiguity about the character... he is an unapologetic villain but can be kind at times. The cast is impressive; particularly Russell Crowe and Cristian Bale who are on great form as Wade and Evans. Overall I'd definitely recommend this to anybody who enjoys westerns.
There are so many remakes and imitations on the screen these days that I'm tempted to borrow a line from a thirty-year-old movie myself and remark that if the MBAs who greenlight these projects had an original thought it would die of loneliness.The original was a modest black-and-white Western of relatively low budget and a more or less satisfying 1950s ending. The poor rancher (Van Heflin then, Christian Bale now) gets to successfully deliver his carefree prisoner (Glen Ford then, Russell Crowe now) to the train on time and collects the money that will save his ranch.This rifacimento isn't badly done but it's gargantuan by comparison. It's updated. Currently, the word "updated" can only mean more brutal, sexier, bloodier, sadistic, muddier, dirtier, and characterized by filthier language. All the modern conventions are adhered to.Gone are the familiar studio back lots. Gone are the sunny days of dusty streets at the imitation ranches outside of Los Angeles. This was shot in northern New Mexico in the winter and it looks it. Everyone seems cold, dirty, and grim.Again, that's not necessarily bad news. The historic Old West, though probably nothing much like this, probably resembled the remake more than the original.But, unpretentious as the original was, I think I prefer it. There was only one deliberate murder in the original, and a fairly gruesome one. A hapless helper is hanged by the neck in the hotel lobby. We don't see the lynching but the image of the abject body is startling. This one has multiple killings -- more than I could count, since I have only ten fingers, not counting the extra pinky, and can no longer reach my toes. Russell Crowe is a convincing enough chief heavy but lacks the fake charm that allows Glen Ford to talk barmaid Felicia Farr into bed.Crowe has only to say a few words to Farr's replacement, Vinessa Shaw, before the cut to the bedroom scene, giving the viewer a chance to ogle her nude body, which, as a matter of fact, is worth an ogle or two.Ford kills nobody but here Crowe murders two of his captives. In one case he creeps up on a sleeping figure and stabs him in the chest with a stolen fork -- whap whap whap whap. It's kind of disgusting. It projects the sense that the producers were pandering to an audience of violence-hungry kids who must have their periodic fix. The original was all tension. This one is tense enough, but the bloodletting seems designed to make us sigh with relief. At last, some gore after all that talk.The original ended with Heflin getting Ford on the 3:10 to Yuma Territorial Prison (which is still there and can be visited). A Hollywood ending, one might say. This one finishes with the rancher being plugged full of holes by one of Crowe's gang, then dying in the arms of his teenaged son. Looking down at Bale's dying body, Crowe has a ludicrous epiphany, draws his gun, whirls around, and instantly kills off the gang that has just saved him from the rope, one by one. Unlike the original, the remake must end, as it started, with a cascade of gore. Then Crowe turns the whole movie into self parody by jumping aboard the train to Yuma and climbing into the barred cell. There has never been a hint of remorse in his attitude before, nothing but deadpan stoicism, so this comes as a complete surprise. Yet, although the climax must be bloody, the producers don't want the bad guy to go free, so at least a part of the old Hollywood ending is retained after all -- even if it must be forced onto the narrative like a one-size-fits-all sock that doesn't fit.What will they come up with next? How about Roy Rogers' "Son of Trigger," only with Keanu Reeves, and this time we kill Trigger and then eat him. It will probably make a nickel or two. Is the portfolio of Hollywood's ideas completely bankrupt? It's a legitimate question.
"Time waits for one man.".In Arizona in the late 1800's, infamous outlaw Ben Wade and his vicious gang of thieves and murderers have plagued the Southern Railroad. When Wade is captured, Civil War veteran Dan Evans, struggling to survive on his drought-plagued ranch, volunteers to deliver him alive to the "3:10 to Yuma", a train that will take the killer to trial. 041b061a72