Cool News
Three Readers Offer Differing Opinions About Their Ride On The 3:10 TO YUMA!!
Merrick again...
...with three reviews of 3:10 TO YUMA. Somehow, I didn't receive a notification reagrding screenings for this film...so I haven't seen it...which makes me sad because I'm really looking forward to it.
Alas, it opens Friday. Here are several substantive takes on the movie; one positive, one lukewarm, and one not-so-hot.
The first review is from Rubens Reviews - it's the most positive of the batch.
3 :10 to Yuma is a remake of the 1957 film of the same title which starred Glenn Ford and Van Heflin and arguably stands as one of the best western films that still holds up today.
With the string of bad remakes Hollywood has under it's track record there stands room for concern that this remake is just another attempt to cash in on a familiar name. But the film is directed by the careful hands of James Mangold who also directed the award winning film Walk the Line with Joaquin Phoenix.
Thankfully 3 :10 to Yuma delivers the goods and just in time after a long batch of bad movies.
Christian Bale plays Dan Evans, a family man who is struggling to survive in his ranch who witnesses a stage coach robbery led by deadly outlaw Ben Wade (played by Russell Crowe) and his Gang of murderers. After seeing Evans wants no conflict and just wants to farm with his family Wade allows him to leave with his 2 sons. While separated from his gang Wade is captured and issued to be sent to Yuma where he will be hanged for his crimes. In debt and desperate for money, Evans takes the job of escorting Wade to the 3 :10 train to Yuma. Wades gang now led by the insane Charlie Prince played by Ben Foster is on their trail intent of getting their leader back and will kill anybody in their way.
The biggest concern when seeing a remake is that it might miss the mark on whatever made the original film so special .3:10 to Yuma isn't a re-imagining of the story by Elmore Leonard. It stays true to what made the original a classic but It's also one of the few times you will ever see a remake stand on it's own as a great film. There is enough that’s different here to appease today’s modern filmgoers and those who love the western genre. Even if one thinks Western films are just too cliché these days any clichés here are only the ones self imposed by the viewer. 3:10 to Yuma doesn’t rely on overacting or dramatic stare downs. It’s not only a great western but also a great film with some genuine powerful moments that bring the story down to earth instead wallowing in bravado.
Christian Bale does his best performance since The Machinist as a man trying to provide for his family while maintaining that sense of nobility he’s trying to instill to his sons. He’s a torn character doing what he has to do to define what makes him a man. Russell Crowe who easily could have slept through this role has HIS best performance in a while playing the impressionable Ben Wade. His character is not your cookie cut bad guy and Crowe pulls off a villain you just want to see more of. Bale and Crowe are both amazing actors and share an on screen chemistry that is rarely seen when two main actors need to share screen time. A fact that’s vital considering the main appeal of the film is the relationship that is built between Dan Evans and Ben Wade.
It’s a relationship that would never have worked if the movie didn’t do such a good job with the characters. You feel for Evans in his dream to be respected and admired by his sons and wife. You get the sense of his desperation as he tries to not only cling on to his goals but his morals and decency. As their relationship forms you see how deep Wade is and get a sense that inside in that murderous madman there’s a good person who just had the rotten luck of having to do what he had to do to survive.
Every other character in this film is treated with the same respect as they all play a role in the overall story. Something that is missed by so many movies intent on putting Caricatures on screen instead of devoting 1 or 2 extra minutes of dialogue to make them actual characters instead. One character that deserves honorable mention is Charlie Prince played by Ben Foster who has totally redeemed himself with me after what he did to Angel in X-men 3. All the care they put in these characters bring this movie to life and you actually feel this is a real situation and the danger is very real.
Any time I thought the movie dragged too long something happened. Any time I questioned the characters actions, it was explained. I haven’t seen a movie focus that much attention to detail in a long time. This is easily one of my favorite films of the year and there were no digital effects with a thousand moving parts or slow motion bullet time effects , Just solid story telling and great film making. This film gets a Golden Ruben award and a personal thanks for ending a long streak of bad movies. It’s movies like this that remind me why I love going to the movies.
Rubens Reviews
Knight In Shining Armour sent in this look after a screening in the UK. He didn't hate the film, but thinks it's too Hollywood (a criticism voiced in the next review as well).
I know you guys have spread serious love for this film on aintitcool, but as its not officially released yet and I've just seen a sneak preview in Gateshead, ERngland, I thought I'd throw in my opinion.
The 2 main film mags in England (Empire & Total Film) have given this film 3 out of 5 stars and I'd have to agree. I haven't seen the original, I purposely didn't watch it before seeing the remake to avoid distraction (though I think Glenn-superman's dad-Ford is frickin' amazin').
I think the film had some great moments, and was full of great characters, but in the end it left me cursing Hollywood.
For example, Ben Forster. he creeped the fuck out of me, but all he had was dedication & loyalty to go with his severe spare-changing by his complex character'd boss. his 'i don't like posse's' line was pretty shit, but when he burned the guy to death in the carriage he was awesome.
same with the two main characters, lots of awesome scenes/moments (especially Crowe's one-liners) were immense, but i didn't get a feel for their characters, as if their Hollywood back-story was meant to compensate for lack of film back-story (i.e. bad boy Russell Crowe the big charmer, intense good guy Christian bale [okay maybe the good guy bit sounds bad for Patrick Bateman, but he was the protagonist in empire of the sun] & mental teenager Ben Forster).
It sounds wrong as a huge fan of once upon a time in the west, but this was quite a slow boring western too, as if it was only livened by its great moments.
To counter the great bits, the end was covered in Hollywood schmaltz, like Mr. Crowe's getting on the train (if he was Lee Van Cleef he would still have killed his henchmen, but instead rode off on his horse & told the kid his dad was a great man). And what the f**k was the whistle about- "Yeah kid, I've honoured your dad's wishes by getting on the train but I'm going to escape as if I'm in Blazing Saddles!"
If this seems a bit rambely its cos I've been drinking (I'm 26 today, hooray!).
If you use it, call me Knight In Shining Armour. Please
The final review is from EthanRunt, who is a touch more critical...
Heya guys, long time reader first time contributor, I just felt it a
necessary benefit to give an insight into the new western remake 3:10 To
Yuma, which I'm sure a lot of people must be interested in just because of
Russel Crowe and Christian Bale side by side alone.
I managed to grab a free ticket for this a few weeks ago and got myself
revved up, when i found out it was an R rated western i just thought "Score,
finally some balls-out bad ass Shoot 'Em Up in the olden times films are
coming" and it pains me to say they missed every opportunity.
Now, I don't deny some of the acting was amazing, Logan Lerman and Ben
Foster were perfectly cast as the parallel characters, one trying, and
succeeding, to be a complete and utter bad ass, and the other being taken from
the coolness of being a bad guy to being the respectable citizen, and Alan
Tudyk was well relied on again to bring the funny, and some of the drama,
but unfortunately, even in the brilliant wave of these guys, the two leads
were relied on too much, and as much as Crowe wants to deliver, he never
feels bad enough, always that glint of compassion in his eyes.
Sadly Bale isn't helped out either, muttering a terrible selection of
dialogs perfect for trailers, but never get any deeper than "I lost ma leg
in the war" and "Them boys help me out, now the money's all dried up", and
that's just an attempt from me to transcribe it through the terribly muttered
Bale, which i was realy upset about, having my fingers crossed that this
could be his Oscar role, he deserves one by now, we've all seen enough of
brilliant actors overlooked for these things, look at Paul Giamatti, Edward
Norton and Peter O Toole.
The trailer somehow managed to be more exciting than the film, and that was
the one thing i was praying wouldn't be true, the trailer just was boring
and desperate to fit in drama and action, like the film itself, and if this
is the start of more westerns in the same vein, that's if it proves to be a
hit, then we can say goodbye to quality movies for a while, not like we
don't do that enough at this present moment. Rather than something
interesting, new and edgy, the makers have just done the "One man will take
the guy in a black hat and black suit to justice, and win his family's
respect" kind of style, and even with an R rating, the violence is amazingly
tame. Where was the gritty explosion of beautiful blood sweeping through the
town during the end, where was the gritty looking shootings as Crowe was
supposed to be presented as the ultimate bad guy?
The film feels so Hollywood, the aesthetic is just straight from the good
old westerns, with modern day extras, but it just doesn't hit any of the
marks, some get close, but in the end it feels like dribble that anyone
could have made, a shame from someone like James Mangold, Walk the Line
upped the standard a little too much it seems.
If I were you, I'd wait until DVD and rent it; it's sadly just not big
enough for the big screen, and the subtitles will really help you guys too.
EthanRunt
With the string of bad remakes Hollywood has under it's track record there stands room for concern that this remake is just another attempt to cash in on a familiar name. But the film is directed by the careful hands of James Mangold who also directed the award winning film Walk the Line with Joaquin Phoenix.
Thankfully 3 :10 to Yuma delivers the goods and just in time after a long batch of bad movies.
Christian Bale plays Dan Evans, a family man who is struggling to survive in his ranch who witnesses a stage coach robbery led by deadly outlaw Ben Wade (played by Russell Crowe) and his Gang of murderers. After seeing Evans wants no conflict and just wants to farm with his family Wade allows him to leave with his 2 sons. While separated from his gang Wade is captured and issued to be sent to Yuma where he will be hanged for his crimes. In debt and desperate for money, Evans takes the job of escorting Wade to the 3 :10 train to Yuma. Wades gang now led by the insane Charlie Prince played by Ben Foster is on their trail intent of getting their leader back and will kill anybody in their way.
The biggest concern when seeing a remake is that it might miss the mark on whatever made the original film so special .3:10 to Yuma isn't a re-imagining of the story by Elmore Leonard. It stays true to what made the original a classic but It's also one of the few times you will ever see a remake stand on it's own as a great film. There is enough that’s different here to appease today’s modern filmgoers and those who love the western genre. Even if one thinks Western films are just too cliché these days any clichés here are only the ones self imposed by the viewer. 3:10 to Yuma doesn’t rely on overacting or dramatic stare downs. It’s not only a great western but also a great film with some genuine powerful moments that bring the story down to earth instead wallowing in bravado.
Christian Bale does his best performance since The Machinist as a man trying to provide for his family while maintaining that sense of nobility he’s trying to instill to his sons. He’s a torn character doing what he has to do to define what makes him a man. Russell Crowe who easily could have slept through this role has HIS best performance in a while playing the impressionable Ben Wade. His character is not your cookie cut bad guy and Crowe pulls off a villain you just want to see more of. Bale and Crowe are both amazing actors and share an on screen chemistry that is rarely seen when two main actors need to share screen time. A fact that’s vital considering the main appeal of the film is the relationship that is built between Dan Evans and Ben Wade.
It’s a relationship that would never have worked if the movie didn’t do such a good job with the characters. You feel for Evans in his dream to be respected and admired by his sons and wife. You get the sense of his desperation as he tries to not only cling on to his goals but his morals and decency. As their relationship forms you see how deep Wade is and get a sense that inside in that murderous madman there’s a good person who just had the rotten luck of having to do what he had to do to survive.
Every other character in this film is treated with the same respect as they all play a role in the overall story. Something that is missed by so many movies intent on putting Caricatures on screen instead of devoting 1 or 2 extra minutes of dialogue to make them actual characters instead. One character that deserves honorable mention is Charlie Prince played by Ben Foster who has totally redeemed himself with me after what he did to Angel in X-men 3. All the care they put in these characters bring this movie to life and you actually feel this is a real situation and the danger is very real.
Any time I thought the movie dragged too long something happened. Any time I questioned the characters actions, it was explained. I haven’t seen a movie focus that much attention to detail in a long time. This is easily one of my favorite films of the year and there were no digital effects with a thousand moving parts or slow motion bullet time effects , Just solid story telling and great film making. This film gets a Golden Ruben award and a personal thanks for ending a long streak of bad movies. It’s movies like this that remind me why I love going to the movies.
Rubens Reviews
I know you guys have spread serious love for this film on aintitcool, but as its not officially released yet and I've just seen a sneak preview in Gateshead, ERngland, I thought I'd throw in my opinion.
The 2 main film mags in England (Empire & Total Film) have given this film 3 out of 5 stars and I'd have to agree. I haven't seen the original, I purposely didn't watch it before seeing the remake to avoid distraction (though I think Glenn-superman's dad-Ford is frickin' amazin').
I think the film had some great moments, and was full of great characters, but in the end it left me cursing Hollywood.
For example, Ben Forster. he creeped the fuck out of me, but all he had was dedication & loyalty to go with his severe spare-changing by his complex character'd boss. his 'i don't like posse's' line was pretty shit, but when he burned the guy to death in the carriage he was awesome.
same with the two main characters, lots of awesome scenes/moments (especially Crowe's one-liners) were immense, but i didn't get a feel for their characters, as if their Hollywood back-story was meant to compensate for lack of film back-story (i.e. bad boy Russell Crowe the big charmer, intense good guy Christian bale [okay maybe the good guy bit sounds bad for Patrick Bateman, but he was the protagonist in empire of the sun] & mental teenager Ben Forster).
It sounds wrong as a huge fan of once upon a time in the west, but this was quite a slow boring western too, as if it was only livened by its great moments.
To counter the great bits, the end was covered in Hollywood schmaltz, like Mr. Crowe's getting on the train (if he was Lee Van Cleef he would still have killed his henchmen, but instead rode off on his horse & told the kid his dad was a great man). And what the f**k was the whistle about- "Yeah kid, I've honoured your dad's wishes by getting on the train but I'm going to escape as if I'm in Blazing Saddles!"
If this seems a bit rambely its cos I've been drinking (I'm 26 today, hooray!).
If you use it, call me Knight In Shining Armour. Please
necessary benefit to give an insight into the new western remake 3:10 To
Yuma, which I'm sure a lot of people must be interested in just because of
Russel Crowe and Christian Bale side by side alone.
I managed to grab a free ticket for this a few weeks ago and got myself
revved up, when i found out it was an R rated western i just thought "Score,
finally some balls-out bad ass Shoot 'Em Up in the olden times films are
coming" and it pains me to say they missed every opportunity.
Now, I don't deny some of the acting was amazing, Logan Lerman and Ben
Foster were perfectly cast as the parallel characters, one trying, and
succeeding, to be a complete and utter bad ass, and the other being taken from
the coolness of being a bad guy to being the respectable citizen, and Alan
Tudyk was well relied on again to bring the funny, and some of the drama,
but unfortunately, even in the brilliant wave of these guys, the two leads
were relied on too much, and as much as Crowe wants to deliver, he never
feels bad enough, always that glint of compassion in his eyes.
Sadly Bale isn't helped out either, muttering a terrible selection of
dialogs perfect for trailers, but never get any deeper than "I lost ma leg
in the war" and "Them boys help me out, now the money's all dried up", and
that's just an attempt from me to transcribe it through the terribly muttered
Bale, which i was realy upset about, having my fingers crossed that this
could be his Oscar role, he deserves one by now, we've all seen enough of
brilliant actors overlooked for these things, look at Paul Giamatti, Edward
Norton and Peter O Toole.
The trailer somehow managed to be more exciting than the film, and that was
the one thing i was praying wouldn't be true, the trailer just was boring
and desperate to fit in drama and action, like the film itself, and if this
is the start of more westerns in the same vein, that's if it proves to be a
hit, then we can say goodbye to quality movies for a while, not like we
don't do that enough at this present moment. Rather than something
interesting, new and edgy, the makers have just done the "One man will take
the guy in a black hat and black suit to justice, and win his family's
respect" kind of style, and even with an R rating, the violence is amazingly
tame. Where was the gritty explosion of beautiful blood sweeping through the
town during the end, where was the gritty looking shootings as Crowe was
supposed to be presented as the ultimate bad guy?
The film feels so Hollywood, the aesthetic is just straight from the good
old westerns, with modern day extras, but it just doesn't hit any of the
marks, some get close, but in the end it feels like dribble that anyone
could have made, a shame from someone like James Mangold, Walk the Line
upped the standard a little too much it seems.
If I were you, I'd wait until DVD and rent it; it's sadly just not big
enough for the big screen, and the subtitles will really help you guys too.
EthanRunt
-
+ Expand All
-
a little.
-
i'm still gonna see the movie.
-
didn't seem to have much critism for the movie besides not enough blood and gore. I saw it Sunday at the pre-screening and loved it, he just sounds like he wants to find stuff to hate about it.
-
wanna bring me some?
-
its cos I've been drinking (I'm 26 today, hooray!)."
Oh brother. And why is it EVERY SINGLE FUCKING TIME someone sends in a 'review" that they say "If you use this call me____" ???
Well, ALMOST every single time. I fucking HATE THAT! -
This sounds very dull.
If it makes more than $35 million I'll be suprised. -
I'm not usually one to rant and rave about things like this but I was really looking forward to seeing this and then right at the end of the second review the total retard reviewer spoiled the ending of the film! Arrgghh!Also the first review read like a plant and the last one read like it was written like a barely literate gore-hound who didn't know what he was talking about. The reviews by the site regulars still give me hope for a good Western, though.I'm off to find something to kick.
-
Saying the Hollywood conventions were the worst parts, etc. Whereas the third said right at the top he was expecting Shoot 'Em Up in the West. It's not that, but it's sure as heck not boring, either. Yeah, I'm bashing the reviews I disagree with. Sue me.
-
doesn't mean you automatically deserve to write a review.
I will repeat what I have said in previous talkbacks. The reviews are SHIT if the person did not see the original that the movie was based upon.
Don't send in anything unless you add to the table. "Hating the movie for hating sake" doesn't work. And after a Sneak Preview showing where several hundred thousand have already seen the movie, it makes you look like a dumbass. -
What hideous hidous reviews. Was it just me, or did they get harder and harder to understand as they went on? You're 26? no excuse. You've had 5 legal years of hittin' the pub to figure out how to drink. The third fellow seemed to not like the film because it wasn't what he expected it to be. NOT A VALID REASON, dude.
-
Bring 'em on, I say. Sorry, seeing Bale & Crowe in the same flick is a no brainer. Between this and Jesse James coming later, I'm reveling in the return of dusty, fucked up masculine characters for a change. No more of this emo-Panic At The Disco inspired self loathing in lead characters. GUNS GUNS GUNS!
-
Do you even like films? You're not really suggesting serious Westerns are automatically boring films are you?I happened to catch Sam Raimi's ridiculous and somewhat amusing The Quick and the Dead last night on TV, maybe that's more your thing?
-
to "avoid distraction" watching the remake?!?!?
What the hell is this...BIZARRO WORLD?!?! -
...the age of consent for buying and drinking booze unsupervised in the UK is 18 (and I was getting served at 17 with little fuss or difficulty), so it's actually eight years. And you're bang on about the third 'review'.
-
Usually, I would agree. But this movie really is an alternate take to that original.
At least, AFTER you see this one, promise to go see the original. -
Understand now.
-
Those reviews were awful. I thought the movie was a greaty, gritty Western. Can't wait to see it again.
-
Actually, I thought that there was a high likelyhood of the UK being more reasonable about booze, but wasn't sure. Thanks for the clarification. Not that it elevates my opinion of "EthanRunt" any...
-
Greatest. Western. Ever. In a comical sense.
-
... the town to blow up in a fountain of blood? That's realistic...
Idiot. -
It was good, but it was definitely very Hollywoody. Certainly nothing innovative or anything particularly original. Way too much comic relief to be considered dark. Also, like that last reviewer said, really not all that violent. It's a by-the-numbers western, though it is executed well. It didn't seem all that special to me, though I did just finish reading Blood Meridian, which may have affected my opinion.
-
That movie was just standard, paint by numbers Hollywood biopic material, done serviceably well, nothing more.
-
"Ray" stunk it up too while we're talking about biopics. God, I hate Jamie Fuxx.
-
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the Western genre a direct product of Hollywood?
-
Just more realism than small patches on clothes like the older ones, but less than some of the more crazy moments.
-
Wake up.
-
before I read the second review. I saw the word "end" and skipped the rest!this SERIOUSLY needs a spoiler box if the guy actually gives away the ending!!
-
Sounds less gritty. I don't like grit. True or Otherwise. It gets in my teeth.
-
???? perhaps I'm missing some kinda other nod to Glenn Ford...
-
I say if its based on a book, then it's an a new adaptation of the book, not a remake of an earlier film adaptation of the book. So there . . .
-
if it's based on a book then it can't be called a remake! It's an adaption. And as for the ending being too hollywood, while it's been a while since I've read Elmore Leonard's story 3:10-Yuma but I believe that is how he ended it, so calling the ending too "Hollywood" is stupid. If they hadn't ended it the same way Leonard did then there would be people screaming about how they raped the story's ending.if you didn't know it was based on a book it's somewhat forgiveable, but not entirly because usually in the opening credits there is a "based on the short sotry/book/play" etc credit, you know one of those WGA thingies
-
As much as I like Bale, these dudes look way too clean and so does the cinematography to get me interested in checking this out in the theatre. The Proposition this is not.
-
arguably stands as one of the best western films that still holds up today...umm, call me stupid, but I never heard of this until the "remake" was announced. Back in the '50s, there was a new western every other week, so pardon me if this one escapes me. And one of the best Westerns that stand up today? Against what? Late Ford, Leone, ..as far as a Leonard remake, I think Hombre would've been a better choice...
-
Which disappoints me, who does this guy think he is, making entire complex paragraphs with no punctuation but commas, not just a couple phrases put together but entire run on sentences strung together haphazardly like a fucking Pollock painting and just because he puts a comma in he thinks it makes it a legitimate sentence, because this one time last week when he was huffing glue he coulda sworn the archangel Gabriel flew down to tell him, hey, bra, God doesn't want us to use periods, ever, no not even women, the end.
-
Sep 05, 2007 8:02:04 PM CDT
Merrick you didn't get an invite cuz everyone hates you
by carmillavondoom
Hey now! Just kidding! ;) You've been taking a lot of heat in these tbs lately! I was gonna skip this movie til I learned it was by Elmore Leonard...now I am all over it. 'Out of Sight' was one of the best movies of the 1990's imo.
-
You can hear an interview with "3:10 to Yuma" co-star Logan Lerman by visiting:
http://blogtalkradio.com/hostpage.aspx?show_id=48569 -
I'm your Huckleberry.
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- UPDATED!!! A Six-Pack Of New Character Posters For THE DARK KNIGHT RISES Forecast A Lot Of Gotham Rain And Snow!! -- 188 total posts 188 posts
- Tom Cruise Saddles Up For A Remake Of THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN!! -- 126 total posts 124 posts
- A Fire Definitely Rises In The New DARK KNIGHT RISES One Sheet!! -- 215 total posts 109 posts
- Baz's THE GREAT GATSBY explodes with one helluva dazzling trailer! -- 122 total posts 108 posts
- Mark Millar Offers Some Interesting Insight Into The KICK-ASS Movie Sequel!! -- 106 total posts 106 posts
- Quint sees some DJANGO UNCHAINED footage at CANNES!!! -- 325 total posts 94 posts
- SPOILER ALERT! AICN COMICS/POPTARDS PODCAST: JUSTICE LEAGUE! DANCER! INCREDIBLE HULK! HARDCORE! NEW CRUSADERS! INVINCIBLE IRON MAN! DANGER CLUB! -- 69 total posts 69 posts
- When there’s no more room in Hell The Behind the Scenes Pic of the Day will walk the earth. -- 69 total posts 69 posts
- Stay Away From The Creepy Girl Alone In The Parking Lot For THE POSSESSION's Poster!! -- 41 total posts 39 posts
- Zach Galifianakis Is Ignatius J. Reilly? -- 35 total posts 35 posts