|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WeAllHaveItCominKid
Member Extraordinaire
 Offline
Posts: 1108
They got a sign on him in front of Greely's?
|
 |
« Reply #433 on: September 12, 2007, 09:38:00 AM » |
|
"3:10 To Yuma" (1957)
"3:10 To Yuma" (2007)
What a difference 50 years makes. This is the way a remake should be done.
It stayed close to the originals storyline, but expanded upon it and made it it's own. Russell Crowe and Christian Bale did a terrific job recreating the roles originally done by Glen Ford and Van Hefflin. A great film and a must see for western fans.
Damn right Phantomstranger! I've been preaching this since I've seen the remake. A lot of people are not giving the remake credit for some odd reason, mostly over at the Leone Forums. They can't admit when a remake is worthy of recognition. I've seen the film twice now, and it's even better the second time. I absolutely love the original film. I've been a fan of it for years, and it's absolutely amazing how James Mangold stayed true to the original film, but but added some differences that were needed for the remake to work. There is aspects of the original I like better than the remake, and vice versa. I think both films are wonderful. Every western film fan should treat themselves and see this. We don't get to many westerns today, so go see it on the big screen if possible! |
|
|
|
Logged |
"It's a hell of a thing, killing a man. Take away all he's got and all he's ever gonna have."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cigar joe
Jr. Member
Offline
Posts: 83
easy come easy go
|
|
« Reply #437 on: September 16, 2007, 07:48:33 PM » |
|
3:10 To Yuma Liked the original even though it was flawed, Gave the new version a 4/5 for its amped up action, but on reflection its even worse, its more flawed, and asks you to suspend disbelief. From dave jenkins post which says quite a bit http://www.fistful-of-leone.com/forums/index.php?topic=6074.120SPOILERS below! The gang rides into town and sets up under the hotel window from which five armed men are overwatching. The gang are murderers, wanted men, known to law enforcement officers. The men in the hotel room include three peace officers. They have every legal and moral right to open up on the gang as soon as they appear. They also have the advantage of higher ground. No additional advantage can be gained by delaying. It is the height of idiocy that the men in the hotel room don't immediately start firing on the gang below! Further, even if they were to delay, the moment the gang starts offering the 200 dollar bounty the lawmen would begin firing just to shut the men up and discourage takers. But the men in the hotel room are completely passive. Yet this is just one stupidity in a sequence of hundreds in this stupid movie.
Equally stupid things happen on the trail from the farm to Contention. The group leaves at night, under cover of darkness. Presumably, speed and concealment are the two things the party is most concerned with. In the very next scene, however, we see them lounging about by a campfire. Why have they stopped? They want to make time, and they should want to do it in the dark. Also, stopping means having to put a watch on Wade while the others sleep. For some reason, Wade is allowed freedom of movement throughout the night (his manacled hands aren't much inconvenienced). Then, only one man is left to watch the notorious killer (a union rule?). In the morning, the watchman is dead. Incredibly, the men just write him off and proceed with their journey! All psychological plausibility goes out of the movie at that point. If you are traveling with a murderer, and he murders one of your company, you just don't continue on with the status quo ante. You reassess the situation. In the present case, you realize that getting the guy to Yuma may not be do-able, that even with your full crew it was gonna be tough, but now with one man short it is likely impossible. The guy who decided Wade had to go to Yuma (and who is bankrolling the expedition) is along, and therefore should call an audible. Even if he doesn't, the rest of the crew should prevail upon him to change the terms of the expedition. They should realize that all their lives are likely forfeit if Wade continues to live. They should do the rational thing: kill Wade on the spot.
Instead, they go merrily on their way, allowing Wade to kill again. Even then the group doesn't learn.
Then there is the "shortcut" through the pass, which we are told is controlled by hostile Indians. This shortcut requires another night and another campfire. What the f***?
Then there's the stupid digression with the mining camp. What the f***?
Finally, reaching Contention, more stupidities abound, as cited above (but not exhaustively. It would take 2 pages of text to enumerate all the idiotic things that occur there).
The original film was not flawless. It had great style and a good set-up, but the story turned stupid at the end. One problem was with the basic concept: waiting for a train. If you are traveling with a prisoner, the only reason to take him to a hotel is to conceal him. The moment his whereabouts is known, the hotel is a liability. You have enormous blind spots in a hotel room, and your mobility is compromised. Also, getting the guy from the hotel to the depot is something of a problem (as we see). Better to forget the hotel and go straight to the depot. Who cares if there aren't enough chairs for everyone, at least you have clear fields of fire in all directions.
But why wait for the train at all? Such a tactic fixes you in place, and allows the gang to catch up. A more prudent course would be to ride up the line toward the oncoming train and hail it as it approaches. You keep ahead of the outlaws, and then gain an earlier speed advantage. Also, why not use the telegraph and call for reinforcements? Maybe Contention is a worthless town, but why wouldn't there be towns up and down the line where reliable helpers could be recruited? Why not contact the army? They too have an interest in seeing Wade and his gang brought to justice.
If you do a remake of a film, you should set out to improve on the original. In the case of 3:10, a serious revision in the plot was called for. The remakers not only didn't fix the old problems, they created hundreds more. I'm really disappointed that they didn't adopt the obvious solution: put the good guys on the train early, and then have Wade's gang try to stop it. A running train battle would have been cool. The most important thing, though, would have been to have characters acting like rational beings, not pawns in a stupid plot. This remake gets 1/5, as do all stupid films. |
|
|
« Last Edit: September 17, 2007, 04:52:24 AM by cigar joe »
|
Logged |
|
|
|
WeAllHaveItCominKid
Member Extraordinaire
Offline
Posts: 1108
They got a sign on him in front of Greely's?
|
|
« Reply #438 on: September 16, 2007, 08:44:46 PM » |
|
3:10 to Yuma (2007)
If you have not seen the remake "3:10 to Yuma" yet, then DO NOT, I repeat, DO not refer to cigar joe's ripping apart of this GREAT film. It's getting great reviews and buzz for many reason's. It is not as flawed or bad as he says. I've seen the film twice now, and it was even better the second time.
"3:10 to Yuma" is a worthy remake of the 1957 classic which is regarded by many as one of the best American made westerns of all time, for many reasons. It was James Mangold's dream job to remake this film since he was a kid, and has succeeded ABOVE and BEYOND expectations and second guessing. He's kept the heart of the original story intact and has added his own elements which were needed to make the the remake work.
This is one of the best films of the year, and in my opinion the best so far. James Mangold's direction is superb. Russell Crowe and Christian Bale are OUTSTANDING and in top form, and Ben Foster nearly steals the whole show with his ELECTRIFYING performance as Russell Crowe's sidekick Charlie Prince. This is one of the most ruthless, cold blooded characters to grace the silver screen in years. You will be floored by this performance.
If you want to see a faithful retelling of the original story with great direction, storytelling, and acting, then do not miss do not miss "3:10 to Yuma"! It's a compelling ride filled with tense and taunt drama, thrilling action sequences, and beautiful photography. This film is one of the big reason's why the western genre still has life in it!
|
|
|
« Last Edit: September 16, 2007, 09:21:15 PM by WeAllGotItCominKid »
|
Logged |
"It's a hell of a thing, killing a man. Take away all he's got and all he's ever gonna have."
|
|
|
WeAllHaveItCominKid
Member Extraordinaire
Offline
Posts: 1108
They got a sign on him in front of Greely's?
|
|
« Reply #439 on: September 16, 2007, 09:01:56 PM » |
|
This was my response to the dave jenkins post cigar joe posted above which I DO NOT AGREE with.
The funny thing about this whole thing is that the film is not even that unrealistic!!! It's absolutely unbelievable how you're making such a stand against this film. Ok, you don't like it, that's fine, it's your opinion, but just because some of us do like it, doesn't make us crazy.
Now, you said something interesting back a few pages that didn't make much sense to me and here it is...
It's even stupider than that. The gang rides into town and sets up under the hotel window from which five armed men are overwatching. The gang are murderers, wanted men, known to law enforcement officers. The men in the hotel room include three peace officers. They have every legal and moral right to open up on the gang as soon as they appear. They also have the advantage of higher ground. No additional advantage can be gained by delaying. It is the height of idiocy that the men in the hotel room don't immediately start firing on the gang below! Further, even if they were to delay, the moment the gang starts offering the 200 dollar bounty the lawmen would begin firing just to shut the men up and discourage takers. But the men in the hotel room are completely passive. Yet this is just one stupidity in a sequence of hundreds in this stupid movie.
I'm so happy you pointed this out. You say that when the gang members ride into town, that the lawman should open fire right away. Um no, not necessarily. The reason why they don't is because they have good in them, they're moral men. They're not evil like these men. That was obvious. They're trying to do things the right way, by law, and not go down to their level. They're not assasins. You can see that they in the film that they were scared of being outnumbered. That was evident. This is not unrealistic by no means. Also, there were many innocent people out in the street walking around, in broad daylight no less.
Here's a quote I picked up years ago that pertains to this argument.
"The tragedy for human kind is that the good never stop the wicked in time."
Think about that for a second.
|
|
|
« Last Edit: September 16, 2007, 09:06:27 PM by WeAllGotItCominKid »
|
Logged |
"It's a hell of a thing, killing a man. Take away all he's got and all he's ever gonna have."
|
|
|
Clint Eastwood Forums
Author