A CLASSIC, BUT I LIKED THE REMAKE JUST AS MUCH!
Added 11/9/2009
There is no doubt that this is a classic western, but since I saw the remake first, my opinion may be bias. I liked both films for different reasons, but maybe if I'd seen the original first, I might see why so many fans of that version hated the remake. Ford and Van Heflin are excellent in the lead roles, but I also liked Crowe and Bale in the same roles in the remake. Regardless this is an excellent film and should be seen by any fan of great westerns.
1 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
A Classic Western
Added 11/9/2009
3:10 TO YUMA(1957)---Glenn Ford, Van Heflin, Felicia Farr, Richard Jaeckel
Directed by Delmar Daves, this is the original version of the film re-made in 2007 with Russell Crowe and Christian Bale. I have not seen the re-make, but this version would be hard to beat. Heflin plays a small cattle rancher who is struggling to keep his ranch going due to a severe drought. Ford plays against type as the leader of a band of outlaws who hold up a stage and kill the driver. When Ford is captured by a posse, the focus of the film becomes keeping Ford's gang from freeing him before he can be put aboard the 3:10 train to Yuma to stand trial. When the owner of the stage line offers $200 to anyone that will guard Ford and get him safely aboard the train, Heflin takes him up on the offer. A battle of nerves and will ensues as Ford tries various ploys to get free before he can be put on the train. Reminiscent of such westerns as HIGH NOON and LAST TRAIN FROM GUN HILL, this is an excellent western and both Ford and Heflin give fine performances---I recommend this film to any fan of westerns.
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 2 people found this helpful.
|
A CLASSIC, BUT I LIKED THE REMAKE JUST AS MUCH!
Added 11/9/2009
There is no doubt that this is a classic western, but since I saw the remake first, my opinion may be bias. I liked both films for different reasons, but maybe if I'd seen the original first, I might see why so many fans of that version hated the remake. Ford and Van Heflin are excellent in the lead roles, but I also liked Crowe and Bale in the same roles in the remake. Regardless this is an excellent film and should be seen by any fan of great westerns.
1 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
A Classic Western
Added 11/9/2009
3:10 TO YUMA(1957)---Glenn Ford, Van Heflin, Felicia Farr, Richard Jaeckel
Directed by Delmar Daves, this is the original version of the film re-made in 2007 with Russell Crowe and Christian Bale. I have not seen the re-make, but this version would be hard to beat. Heflin plays a small cattle rancher who is struggling to keep his ranch going due to a severe drought. Ford plays against type as the leader of a band of outlaws who hold up a stage and kill the driver. When Ford is captured by a posse, the focus of the film becomes keeping Ford's gang from freeing him before he can be put aboard the 3:10 train to Yuma to stand trial. When the owner of the stage line offers $200 to anyone that will guard Ford and get him safely aboard the train, Heflin takes him up on the offer. A battle of nerves and will ensues as Ford tries various ploys to get free before he can be put on the train. Reminiscent of such westerns as HIGH NOON and LAST TRAIN FROM GUN HILL, this is an excellent western and both Ford and Heflin give fine performances---I recommend this film to any fan of westerns.
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.
|
