brilliant film
Added 10/17/2009
i dont have the special edition but i do have the film. it is one of my fav westerns starring my fav glenn ford it is the first and best film dont bother with the remake if you have seen this version. the film is great the musical score by frankie laine is good. the five stars here is for the film
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
A comparison between the new and old
Added 10/14/2009
I'm glad I saw the original first. Short comparison: original is genuinely great; remake is merely good.
Longer comparison: the original handles the hero and villain very differently from most movies, especially from that era. The bad guy isn't your typical villain. He has a sense of morality, but he's not a tragic villain, as would usually be the case. Very interesting character. The hero, too, acts from very human (fallen) motivations, and his ultimate choices make him that much more triumphant morally. The pacing and location shots also make this film stand out.
The remake has a lot of good points, but any improvement over the original is superficial. The costuming, casting, locations, and action scenes are all great and make for an entertaining picture. But the real meat of the original story is watered-down in Mangold's version.
The biggest change was the inclusion of Dan's kid in the story. In the original, it was sufficient to show his family's disappointment at his ranch and then leave him to wrestle with that on his own for the rest of the movie. Keeping the kid around the entire time artificially created a tension that wasn't as interesting or dramatic, because it took focus away from Dan and also diluted Dan's decision-making process. (If the kid is right there, there's much more pressure to "do the right thing," and it makes his choice less about him having the courage to do what is right and more about "well, can't look bad in front of the kid." The decision is more powerful in the original, where the only witness to it is Wade.)
This hurts my favorite aspect of the original, that being the moral conflict between Wade and Dan. It's just not as well-executed in the remake. I really felt for Dan in the original, and you could clearly see this moral anguish going on in his head as Wade tortures him in the hotel room. It was profound stuff, and it comes off as forced and awkward in Mangold's version. Also, it's not as efficient in its storytelling. The real heart of the 1957 version centered entirely around waiting in the hotel room, which was the most interesting and provocative part of the story, while the 2007 version treated that scene like any other and just moved through it.
Another (rather odd) negative aspect is Bale's physicality versus Van Heflin's. For whatever reason, Mangold made Bale scrawny, greasy, and weak-looking. You never once thought he could take Crowe in a fight. In the original, Van Heflin is physically bigger than Ford, and this makes his character that much more tragic. It's a minor detail, but it made me sympathize with him more. Here is a man who you can see once had the respect of others, who had control over his own destiny, and who has now lost the respect of his own family and has to beg for money. The physical difference tipping the other direction worked better for the conflict between Ben and Dan.
All that being said, both are worth watching, but the original remains the only truly great Western of the two.
Regarding the DVD: it's a fine transfer of a black-and-white classic. No extras to speak of, but worth picking up. Here's hoping for a Blu-Ray release one day!
1 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
Great original 3:10 to Yuma quit trying to make remakes.
Added 9/7/2009
Its just not the same on remakes. if you have seen the original one the 2nd one is just not the same.
0 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
One of the Greatest Cowboy Movies Ever: Why some movies should be in monochrome
Added 8/19/2009
I love this movie. It is one of the best cowboy movies ever and certainly the best of the three starring Glenn Ford that Delmer Daves directed. I like it more than the Russell Crowe version. For me, monochrome format focuses attention on the dialog and the actors' expressions: There's no spectacular color to distract from these. Glenn Ford is at his quiet, calm, and powerful best in this movie. He's one of my favorite actors. The story line is very believable. It's a study of farm life in Arizona in the latter half of the 19th century and the hardships and desperation faced by farmers in those times. It's also a study of two personalities: each one hard, determined, and pragmatic. In the end, each ends up respecting the other. I think the agricultural theme plays a large role in this and it's interesting to watch it a second or third time from that perspective. And that's what makes the movie a great one: it can be watched on several levels and from several perspectives. It's also a good shoot-em-up too. Glenn Ford was offered the role of the rancher but asked for the Ben Wade (criminal) role after he read the script. He's one of the most likable criminals I've seen in a movie.
1 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
This taut, classic Western demonstrates what craftsmanship in making movies is all about
Added 8/12/2009
There is a lonely train called the 3.10 to Yuma
The pounding of the wheels is more like a mournful sigh
There's a legend and there's a rumor
When you take the 3.10 to Yuma
You can see the ghosts of outlaws go ridin' by...
In the sky...
Way up high...
Now that we've got out of the way one of the most awful opening theme songs any Western has been cursed with (sung by Frankie Laine), let's talk about one of the best-crafted Westerns Hollywood ever made...a fine example of getting the job done superbly and without phony flash, burdensome moral lessons, extra hormones or intense "acting." 3:10 to Yuma is the real goods.
It's the short, unadorned story of Dan Evans (Van Heflin), a poor, stubborn rancher in the third year of a drought. He needs water. He needs money. His wife loves him and works as hard as he does. He worries how she's able to put up with all the misfortune. His two young sons look up to him but he'd like to leave them with a memory of him of more than just a hard-working failure. When they're out rounding up cattle the three witness a stagecoach holdup. The youngest boy wants his father to stop the holdup and capture the robbers. He knows with young certitude his father could do it all. Dan tells the boys to be quiet. As played by Van Heflin, we accept Dan's integrity and his earnest desire to do something for his family.
It's also the story of Ben Wade (Glenn Ford). He and his gang rob anything they can get money from. Wade makes it a point of pride that he kills a person only if there were no other way to protect his own safety. Ben Wade is intelligent. He's charming, tough, and knows how to get around a woman or get inside a man's head. As played by Glenn Ford, we're nearly captured by star charisma and likeability. We know Ben Wade is a smart, sly villain, but we admire his confidence and smiling way of undermining another man's confidence.
Dan Evans, desperate for money, agrees for $200 to take the captured Ben Wade to Contention, where he'll put him on the 3:10 train to Yuma and the Yuma Territorial Prison. Ben Wade knows that his gang will sooner or later figure out that he's being taken to Contention to await the train. He even tells Evans how they'll find out. When they show up and rescue him, they'll kill Evans and anyone helping him.
This taut, simple story is told with economy and tension. There's no angst or "acting," no allusions to the director's favorite causes, no close-ups of the make-up artists' skill at creating blood clots. In fact, there's not much bloodshed or violence until Dan finally has to find a way to get Ben from the hotel in Contention to the train station, where the train is waiting, and where so is Ben Wade's gang.
Although there are some fine subsidiary performances, the movie is all about Evans and Wade. And that means that Heflin and Ford had to be at the top of their game to sustain this 92-minute movie. Dan Evans is a man much like Heflin's Dan Starrett in Shane. He's more resourceful than we might think, but mainly he's an honorable, earnest man who might be tempted by Ben Wade's coaxing tongue, but not for long. He wants the $200 for his family and because he knows he's doing the right thing. Unlike the 2007 remake, there's little question but that his wife loves him and that his two sons look up to him. Glenn Ford rarely played bad guys (watch him in Lust for Gold), but he makes an outstanding one here. His shooting of two men at the start of the movie, one of them a member of his gang, is fast and startling. But it's Ford's winning personality that makes Wade so attractive and so dangerous. Maybe sometimes, when he dallies with a tired, pretty barmaid, he even believes some of what he says.
A good deal of the movie is spent in a hotel room in Contention with Wade in handcuffs lying on the bed and Evans holding a shotgun, peering uneasily out the window looking for signs of Wade's gang. The interplay between Ford and Heflin - easy and underplayed - is a pleasure to watch. Ford shows how he can worm his way into Evans' mind, undermining his will and raising doubts. Heflin shows how tempting and frustrating just thinking about what Wade is saying must be. The final shootout is well-staged and violent; the conclusion is satisfying. There are no attempts by rich Hollywood directors and producers to bring Tinsel-town tragedy to a good story.
There are echoes of High Noon, which the craftsmanship of this movie and the performances of Ford and Heflin quickly dispel. There are a few clichés that are handled so respectfully, so matter-of-factly and so quickly that they are easy to forgive. The budget for 3:10 to Yuma (1957) was probably, even in 2007 dollars, less than Russell Crowe's salary alone in 3:10 to Yuma (2007). If you like movies and appreciate well-crafted stories, 3:10 to Yuma (1957) might find a place in your collection.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
brilliant film
Added 10/17/2009
i dont have the special edition but i do have the film. it is one of my fav westerns starring my fav glenn ford it is the first and best film dont bother with the remake if you have seen this version. the film is great the musical score by frankie laine is good. the five stars here is for the film
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
A comparison between the new and old
Added 10/14/2009
I'm glad I saw the original first. Short comparison: original is genuinely great; remake is merely good.
Longer comparison: the original handles the hero and villain very differently from most movies, especially from that era. The bad guy isn't your typical villain. He has a sense of morality, but he's not a tragic villain, as would usually be the case. Very interesting character. The hero, too, acts from very human (fallen) motivations, and his ultimate choices make him that much more triumphant morally. The pacing and location shots also make this film stand out.
The remake has a lot of good points, but any improvement over the original is superficial. The costuming, casting, locations, and action scenes are all great and make for an entertaining picture. But the real meat of the original story is watered-down in Mangold's version.
The biggest change was the inclusion of Dan's kid in the story. In the original, it was sufficient to show his family's disappointment at his ranch and then leave him to wrestle with that on his own for the rest of the movie. Keeping the kid around the entire time artificially created a tension that wasn't as interesting or dramatic, because it took focus away from Dan and also diluted Dan's decision-making process. (If the kid is right there, there's much more pressure to "do the right thing," and it makes his choice less about him having the courage to do what is right and more about "well, can't look bad in front of the kid." The decision is more powerful in the original, where the only witness to it is Wade.)
This hurts my favorite aspect of the original, that being the moral conflict between Wade and Dan. It's just not as well-executed in the remake. I really felt for Dan in the original, and you could clearly see this moral anguish going on in his head as Wade tortures him in the hotel room. It was profound stuff, and it comes off as forced and awkward in Mangold's version. Also, it's not as efficient in its storytelling. The real heart of the 1957 version centered entirely around waiting in the hotel room, which was the most interesting and provocative part of the story, while the 2007 version treated that scene like any other and just moved through it.
Another (rather odd) negative aspect is Bale's physicality versus Van Heflin's. For whatever reason, Mangold made Bale scrawny, greasy, and weak-looking. You never once thought he could take Crowe in a fight. In the original, Van Heflin is physically bigger than Ford, and this makes his character that much more tragic. It's a minor detail, but it made me sympathize with him more. Here is a man who you can see once had the respect of others, who had control over his own destiny, and who has now lost the respect of his own family and has to beg for money. The physical difference tipping the other direction worked better for the conflict between Ben and Dan.
All that being said, both are worth watching, but the original remains the only truly great Western of the two.
Regarding the DVD: it's a fine transfer of a black-and-white classic. No extras to speak of, but worth picking up. Here's hoping for a Blu-Ray release one day!
1 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
Great original 3:10 to Yuma quit trying to make remakes.
Added 9/7/2009
Its just not the same on remakes. if you have seen the original one the 2nd one is just not the same.
0 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
