Ain't It Cool News: The best in movie, TV, DVD, and comic book news.

Harry boards the 3:10 TO YUMA and it's headed for Hell!!!

Yes!! by BetaRayBill07	Sep 4th, 2007 03:52:31 PM
Been waiting for a decent western since Unforgiven.
Oh Sorry, by the way... by BetaRayBill07	Sep 4th, 2007 03:56:53 PM
Nice review Harry, thanks.
Con Panel was great by powervideo	Sep 4th, 2007 03:57:46 PM
I really enjoyed the panel for this movie at ComicCon. T'waseasy to tell from the sneak preview this was indeed gonna be badassed!
First review in two months by feckdrinkarse	Sep 4th, 2007 04:06:20 PM
You are nothing if not prolific, Mr. Knowles :-)
Unforgiven? by monkeymafia	Sep 4th, 2007 04:08:20 PM
I know it's hack because every review is calling it the best western since Unforgiven but do you really have to stretch as fas back as Outlaw?
Best film of the year thus far by Liberty Valance	Sep 4th, 2007 04:11:12 PM
So say Liberty Valance. But as you may suspect, I'm a little biased towards Westerns.
Sounds great. by LoneGun	Sep 4th, 2007 04:23:51 PM
Nice to have the Western back in its raw form. I'm definitely going to catch this one, because I loved Mangold's last film (WALK THE LINE) and because Christian Bale is one of my favorite actors right now. And Russell Crowe is definitely a draw.
Russell Crowe shoots Ben Foster to save Christian Bale by Garbageman33	Sep 4th, 2007 04:28:57 PM
That's my prediction. Just seems like something James Mangold, in all his ham handedness, would do.
headed for hell??? by ketchuplover	Sep 4th, 2007 04:29:48 PM
WTF?????????
A Harry "review" by Lando Griffin	Sep 4th, 2007 04:30:02 PM
complete with A) several paragraphs long intro about unrelated story leading up to a "review" B) continuance with the Ratner/Fox/Roth jihad C) no real "review" of the actual film at all
PC America? Ruined Westerns? by Guy Gaduois	Sep 4th, 2007 04:35:32 PM
Anybody know what the carbon footprint for this movie is? Also, can anyone explain if Al Gore has inherited George Lucas' goiter neck? Though I am oft in disagreement on Harry's political views, I find his analysis quite agreeable on the pussification of the western genre. Thank you for your commentary, O Traveling One, and, From the most pussified western that ever wested (or pussified), I say of Harry and his gracing our presence once again: "If he stays, I will call him 'two-socks'."
Saw the sneak preview on sunday. by Bullet_time_Facehugger	Sep 4th, 2007 04:41:14 PM
It's not the best western since Josie Wales IMO, but its pretty darn good. Its at least a nice return to form for Crowe after some of the bullshit he's given us in the last few years.
Ben Foster Who? by Yum Yum Gibson	Sep 4th, 2007 05:11:02 PM
Shit Harry...all you had to do was watch Fast Forward to know Ben Foster is worth is weight in Awesome-Crazy-Gold.
Agree about Ben Foster by buffywrestling	Sep 4th, 2007 05:25:49 PM
He's got the crazy vibe down pat.
2 reviews in one day!!!! by Turd Furgeson	Sep 4th, 2007 06:05:23 PM
I think I need a drink... 2 good westerns in one season, sounds good to me.
I had to come back by abner pepper	Sep 4th, 2007 06:18:09 PM
I know.
I didn't even know Foster was in this by CherryValance	Sep 4th, 2007 06:25:42 PM
I still think of him as Eli from 'Freaks and Geeks'. That show's becoming the source of all things good in the world. I intend to see this as soon as possible.
how bout since Dead Man by fish tacos	Sep 4th, 2007 06:45:44 PM
yeah
You'd doubt Ben Foster? by Darkman	Sep 4th, 2007 06:58:45 PM
Rent ALPHA DOG. Don't think. Just do it. He will rock your ass and your balls in that order.
Home, Home on the Range by Ace of Wands	Sep 4th, 2007 07:03:55 PM
"3:10 TO YUMA by James Mangold is exactly the sort of Western I have wanted to see get made for a very long time. Just a gritty western world filled with men that’d kill ya faster than they would see ya. A Western filled with cowards and men of principle. Men with a code and men with no code." Harry, could you not bother to get of that Glutimus MAXimus of yours and watch Open Range: surely that Western is exactly the sort that you are describing with 3:10 to Yuma ( and I'm not knocking Mangold's film at all, I'm really looking forward to seeing it)just suggesting that it isn't the first attempt in a long, long time- as you seem to think- to tell a traditional Western- whatever that is anyway. I seem to remember that Ethan in The Searchers was hardly a traditional "good guy" and lets see you blame that on the US being PC.
Ben Foster was good in Alpha Dog by StreetTrash	Sep 4th, 2007 07:19:58 PM
I thought....and as a 'tard in Freaks and Geeks.
Hey Harry Knowles.... by The Real McClane	Sep 4th, 2007 07:52:13 PM
Welcome back, brother. Two really great reviews posted in one day. Ha. I absolutely love Ben Foster. I can't wait for 30 Days of Night. His teeth in that trailer are worth the price of my admission. Anyway, glad you're back, man, keep 'em coming!!!!
Credit where credit is due by Shad0wfax	Sep 4th, 2007 08:10:11 PM
Does anyone think that this resurgence of hard-bitten westerns is in any way the result of the brilliant Deadwood? While not being a runaway success in the ratings (hard for a pay-for cable show, I suppose) - it featured some of the best television performances in years, Al Swearengen is easily one of the best characters of TV history imo. Plus, it had the characterisation and production values of a Hollywood movie - so Harry, if you hadn't check that out, there's a place to look. The West is as hard and rough a place as it ever was in Deadwood. A stellar show.
Thought it was predictable by The Funketeer	Sep 4th, 2007 08:16:38 PM
You pretty much know how it's going to end from the beginning but it's a fun ride getting there. In that hands of less capable actors, this would have been a mediocre movie at best but Crowe and Bale and Foster and even Peter Fonda are all great. The Luke Wilson cameo was a little jarring though. Should have cast an unknown in that little part.
Harry, we know who Ben Foster is. by Lenny Nero	Sep 4th, 2007 09:21:38 PM
And if somebody on here doesn't, they need to rethink their AICN status.
What was wrong with Dances with Wolves? by J-Dizzle	Sep 4th, 2007 10:20:00 PM
I thought that was a pretty good western.
Was it excellent, or was I just starved? by Pabodie	Sep 4th, 2007 10:32:16 PM
The former, I think. Anyway I enjoyed the heckfire out of it. One thing we were a little puzzled by: The kid who played James Evans. Is he Christian Slater's son or nephew or something? He could be a clone of the Cube Gleamer.
Could have been better... by scrivener	Sep 4th, 2007 10:38:20 PM
While 3:10 to Yuma is easily the best western I've seen in a decade, it definitely could have been better with just a few minor tweaks. The biggest is when they burn that one guy alive. You never hear him scream... he just kind of vanishes while everyone stands outside the flaming wagon waggin' their tongues. I also thought the film could have been bloodier. As it stands, it's really a PG-13 movie no matter what the MPAA thinks. There's only one instance of "fuck" and some of the people who get shot don't even bleed. The only other nagging issue is the fact that the kid called the cavalry "the calvary." Goddammit, people - learn to pronounce your goddamn english. That's not a mistake someone in that time period would have made, either. It's purely a modern issue... like "Holloween." Jesus.
did Harry not see Hostage? by Holodigm	Sep 4th, 2007 10:49:27 PM
Foster was by far the best thing in that movie. same for Alpha Dog, though it's already been mentioned.
He was great in Alpha Dog! by Midol Boy	Sep 4th, 2007 11:06:45 PM
Christ, it seems like I've met a ton of guys like that character.
Nitpick much, scrivener? by Liberty Valance	Sep 4th, 2007 11:56:15 PM
A dying guy doesn't scream the way you feel he should and one word gets mispronounced? Seriously, those two trivial details are your biggest reservations about the film? Plus if you think this is PG-13 you're delusional. There are gallons of blood in this flick. Throats slashed and stabbed. Gut shots. A torture scene. Close-range shotgun blasts. Brutal beatings. Any more blood and it would have strayed out of the realm of reality and into the theatrically absurd.
PC-fication my arse! by Steve T	Sep 5th, 2007 03:31:21 AM
The world grew up a bit and noticed that Western as it used to be was a fairy tale. Blaming PC is such a lazy answer!
the problem wasn't the PC-ification of history by gobofraggleuk	Sep 5th, 2007 09:20:06 AM
...but that people realised that Westerns were based on stories mostly written by people living in New York who'd never even been to the 'wild west'. It isn't a history where 'actions were turned into penny dreadfuls' - the stories were pure fiction, and that fiction was then treated as history by people too dumb to know the difference. And I love Elmore Leonard, but he's someone who loves 'western' fiction because he loved reading them - and wrote in that genre from his house in Detroit.
Holy shit... by PirateEmery	Sep 5th, 2007 11:01:23 AM
A review that I agree with... penned by Harry? As I look out my office window, I see the Four Horsemen coming over the horizon.
Should have been PG-13. by PirateEmery	Sep 5th, 2007 11:04:31 AM
I do agree with the Talkbacker above. There really wasn't anything in this movie spectacularly R.
Return to form? by mozman	Sep 5th, 2007 11:37:23 AM
OK, read a lot of flippant (well it IS aicn talkback) comments about 'Crowe returning to form' and all the bullshit he's churned out over the last few years. Gotta disagree. So Master and Commander was rubbish then was it? Like hell. Damn fine film, great acting. None other than Edward Norton considers it a masterclass. Cinderella Man? Probably something appreciated by and older audience than many here...but belive me it IS appreciated and has gained a lot of fans, Shawshank style, since its cinema release. That leaves A Good Year. So OK, Ridley and Russ decided to get paid for sipping wine in Provence for a couple of months. Nice work if you can get it. And a lot of people who hate on that movie never watched it and probably never will. I find it a pleasant enough way to spend an evening. Just because Crowe's films don't hit the spot with the same demograph doesn't mean his resume is patchy. It means that its varied.
And that's how I like my westerns, gobofraggleuk. by Blue_Demon	Sep 5th, 2007 11:41:27 AM
With violent over-the-top action, savage injuns and Mexicans with sombreros, bandoleros and thick accents - all written by guys in New York. It's a WESTERN man. Harry is right this time. Westerns are to America what the Samurai movies are to Japan. I want violence, six-guns, all that stuff. For those who want westerns tamer...Little House on The Prairie is probably on dvd. Enjoy.
Totally agree Shad0wfax by Swiss Trev	Sep 5th, 2007 12:34:11 PM
DeadWood was dead good - we were lucky here in the UK to have it on mainstream non-pay as you view TV....nice and gritty!
Totally agree Shad0wfax by Swiss Trev	Sep 5th, 2007 12:34:36 PM
DeadWood was dead good - we were lucky here in the UK to have it on mainstream non-pay as you view TV....nice and gritty!
hmmm...DeadWood, DeadWood.... by Swiss Trev	Sep 5th, 2007 12:35:52 PM
....so good I commmented twice! DOH.
Ben Foster by The Funketeer	Sep 5th, 2007 12:49:23 PM
Why has no one mentioned Six Feet Under where he played the creepy Russell? Or The Punisher, a movie Harry's seen, where he was Spacker Dave? Hostage? That's the best you can come up with?
Yeah, but samurais are so much cooler than by comedian_x	Sep 5th, 2007 12:57:30 PM
cowboys and homesteaders.
Double Feature by Fineus Fog	Sep 5th, 2007 04:24:34 PM
I wanna see this and Jesse James back to back I grew up watching westerns on Sunday afternoon television - I have never seen a western on the big screen Im pumped - where to I buy my ticket for the 3.10
Remake Magnificent Seven next by Raymar	Sep 5th, 2007 09:29:21 PM
with Bale, Crowe, Hugh Jackman, Eric Bana, Heath Ledger, Orlando Bloom and Karl Urban...
Raymar by Strabo	Sep 5th, 2007 10:29:24 PM
You shut your dirty fucking whore mouth. NO ONE gets to remake Seven Samurai again. NO ONE.
Interview with "3:10 to Yuma" co-star Logan Lerman by pacino33	Sep 5th, 2007 11:08:16 PM
You can hear an interview with "3:10 to Yuma" co-star Logan Lerman by visiting: http://blogtalkradio.com/hostp age.aspx?show_id=48569
Ben Foster has been an underappreciated actor for YEARS by ShiftyEyedDog2	Sep 6th, 2007 03:31:52 PM
He was great in everythig from Alpha Dog to Big Trouble to Hostage to Phone Booth... and even the fun guilty pleasure Get Over It. It's about time he got some props!! I was glad he got the part in X-Men until I saw how completely wasted he was in that pointless tacked-on role.
scrivener by jfp2007	Sep 7th, 2007 06:21:35 AM
Does the person who made the mispronunciation speak with a Southern accent? If so, there's your answer. In the South, we don't say "cavalry" we most definitely say "calvary." I do, and I don't give a shit.
hell yeah by cahcat	Sep 7th, 2007 12:55:45 PM
I saw the film this week followed by a Q&A with James Mangold and Cathy Konrad, they truly loved this story and made a fantastic film. It's among the top of the list of favorite westerns.
I didn't get the same vibe that you did by CherryValance	Sep 7th, 2007 03:54:34 PM
I didn't see it in black and white terms. Good and evil and all that stuff. It almost seems like we didn't see the same movie. What you're describing sounds much more action oriented or intense and I thought it was more subtle. I did like it though, especially that sequence when they're running to the station with the music and everything. I thought that was perfect. But yeah, I just saw it as more real and less cartoony than most classic westerns are, even the good ones. I think that has everything to do with the lead actors. They were great together.
I was with this movie guys..buttttttttt..((SPOILER!! ) by Rich Malone	Sep 8th, 2007 02:31:03 AM
Ok, so I'm like every body else on AICN. Fellow movie buffs who grew up off of their dad's collection, who balk at remakes of classic movies from our pre-teenage years, complain at overly-pampered stars, etc.....which basically means that I trust that we all know what we're talking about when we discuss quality films(I always laugh when people who don't know shit about real movies chime in about what's good/bad..I always think about the AICN community...we KNOW movies, real movies, not popcorn flicks) So I anticipated '3:10 to Yuma' like the rest of you, knowing that the film itself(never seen the original), Mangold, Russell, Foster, & Bale would deliver a great thinking man's western. This would be one of the 3% of good films out of 97% bullshit in a year. And then it let me down tremendously in the last 20min, and I'll explain, at least for myself, why. SPOILER*****SPOILER*HEY DUMMY, SPOILER ALERT, I TOLD YA SO!***** So I understand Bale's Dan's setup. He is a loser & cripple in the eyes of his family, especially his son, and along comes Ben, a charming outlaw that his son relates to. Driven by the $200 reward, as well as to gain his sons(and his own) respect, decides to uphold the law/deliver Crowe to Yuma, showing his son that being good is an admirable trait, . Okay, got it. Then we got Crowe's Ben who is charming, cunning, calculating, and as we see, capable of compassion, almost toying with the idea of being prisoner just so that he might have a little fun. And please believe, his gang's coming for him. Here's where the movie started to make my eyebrow go "Huh!?"........ So Ben offers Dan triple the amount to let him go free, freeing him and his son of the dangers of facing the angry posse (sorry, Ben Foster hates 'posse's'). And Dan replies with common sense, saying that he will be viewed as a traitor and liar for coming home $1000 richer with Crowe still at large. And I was STILL on board, because it would be against Dan's honor to not deliver Ben to the train. He also needed his son to see and understand that men like Ben deserved to go to Yuma. Yup. I get the underlying points, we're movie buffs, so I was still with the film. But then something totally unexpected happens. As Dan and Ben are trying to escape while being pursued relentlessly and without care by the rest of the gang, and Ben still in Dan's custody, Ben gets the upper hand on Dan, telling him he's gonna escape, and that it's over, also giving him yet another chance to not die. As Dan tries to physically stop him again(unsuccessfully) , he basically tells Ben how he lost his leg by friendly fire, and that deliveringhim to the train gives him honor in completing his task, and looks good for his son. And then CROWE ALLOWS DAN TO DELIVER HIM TO THE TRAIN STATION AS HIS PRISONER, WILLINGLY, AGAIN!!!! ) HU?!! I know Crowe's Ben has a moment of clarity, or a revelation, but he has it for Dan's sake? And to compromise all that he knows to allow himself to be brought to justice doesn't quite add up. True, I'm sure Crowe didn't want to see Dan and his son get hurt, he saw honor in them. But what, or when was his moment of clarity? When he sat drawing Dan's picture in the bible? Possibly. When Dan told Ben that he lied to his son about gettiing his leg blown off, and it so convinced Ben that his pillaging, robbing, & murdering ways were bad? More likely. But the Ben character is a KILLER!!! He would not have helped to deliver himself to justice while risking being shot at. We don't get too much explanation why he has this sudden morality hit. I don't buy it based soley on his repect for Dan, cause even it has it's limitations. Outlaws are outlaws, like he himself said, "I couldn't run this crew if I wasn't a bastard myself" Which made me anticipate a differnt ending(haven't seen the original), where Crowe and Bale are about to get to the train, and Ben Foster's character corners them both, accuses Crowe of going soft, and decidess to kill him as well as Bale for not being ruthless anymore, Bale's son intervenes and shoots Foster, and Crowe gets on the train, respecting Bale, and also more than capable of escaping(would be # 3) before Yuma. Meanwhile, Bale still completes his task. But when Crowe goes so far as to kill his OWN gang?? After all the dirt he did and expected them to do? While you could say there's an honor to Crowe doing that because he found redemption in Bale and his son's courage is contradictory, not visibly apparent to the audience, and a cop-out. There's an honor amoungst thieves, too(i.e. 'The Wild Bunch), and for Crowes character to turn on his gang, the same one that he's murdered & plundered with, is cowardly. They did EXACTLY what he was supposed to do. His second in command Ben Foster's death was wrong on top of wrong! He idolized Crowe's character, and wanted to save him even when naysayer's said no...and Crowe kills him???!!!..and then puts another slug in him and looks at him with hate as he does it???WTF???I damn near walked out. And then Crowe 'delivers' himself into the train's cell with a content look on his face? How could a short story/adapted screenplay/original film/re-make turn on it's head and lose itself like that? It almost ruins the film for me, even though I'm aware that the son now has a better idea of what path in life to take cause of his fathers death So I liked it, but had a lot of issues with the film. All that aside, it was good movie, beatifully scored, patient, and smart. And Ben Foster and Joseph Gordon-Levitt should really be household names by now, too. What do you guys think?
gaps in logic by alcester	Sep 9th, 2007 09:48:44 AM
i could not believe the way they let this dangerous man be contained. handcuffed in front and not behind back? allowed to eat at dinner table with knives and forks? gimme a break!
I remember Ben Foster in Freaks and Geeks by JOHNRCASHFAN	Sep 9th, 2007 07:46:46 PM
Foster had a small recurring role in Freaks and Geeks as a "slow" high school student that was teased by some of the other kids. I thought at the time they had actually found an mentally challenged actor to play the part. He is very good in whatever role he plays.
PC my ass...it's called the truth. by Bronx Cheer	Sep 9th, 2007 08:43:08 PM
It's inconvenient when the stories we got force fed turn out to be bullshit, including a lot of what they used to teach as "history" back in the day, but the fact is that one of the reasons westerns have sucked of late is because it's been difficult for filmmakers to tell those stories without looking like idiots. Another reason why westerns have gone out of favor is due to the lack of an attention span amongst modern audiences. Things move slow in westerns. There are no car crashes or speeding motorcycles or martial arts battles. Horses, dust, cows, dust, breasts, dust, and then some dust. Men who don't have much to say because they are illiterate. Women are scarce. Try to convince the suits that finance movies that a western is a safe bet...but Shad0wfax above mentioned Deadwood, and that's a great point. At least for a while we might get lucky and see a brief return of the western to the theaters. And give some respect to Dead Man. That is one of the great westerns--def in the top five. While Foster was good in 3:10, his character is a typical movie psycho. A good actor can have fun with a role like that, but see it for what it is.
@rich malone by at0mic-r0ach	Sep 9th, 2007 11:03:53 PM
What your forgetting is when evans tells him how he got injured wade tells evans hes been to yuma twice and escaped both times. Wade knows there efforts are for nothing in the first place as the prison wont hold him. That ontop of the fact at the begining wade shoots his own man because he unnecessarily endangered there lives. The way i took it is that he kills prince and his gang for killing someone who didnt need to be killed. They were killing just for killings sake, which is something Wade doesnt support(he mentions the only men hes ever killed deserved it and were assholes). You also dont mention that when he gets on the train hes calls his horse, he only gets on so evans wont lose respect even in death. I also dont recall Charlie Prince deciding to kill wade as well, He was shooting at Dan while they were heading for the train when the son lets the herd go that tramples him, Prince then shoots Dan and say "Damn for a one-legged rancher he sure was a tough son of a bitch" they then hand Wade his guns and he shoots them all down.
Two Thirds Classic, One Third Heavily Flawed by Roboteer	Sep 11th, 2007 07:44:45 AM
I agree with all the kudos for most of the movie, but was staggered by just about as ridiculous an ending seen not just this year, but in many years. SPOILER. This vicious killer makes this 180 degree transformation based on what.... that he drew a picture of his sodbuster captor? Yeah, I know, it's supposed to be the message to this flick, about who the real tough guy hero is. But shouldn't it have been integrated into the story a lot better? Nothing much that goes before does anything to prepare for an ending that can only be described as laughably silly both in premise and execution. There's no use being all realistic and such, developing all these badass hombres, only to go off into a fairy land finale. The thing is, with some competent writing, more purposeful dialogue, it could have been made to look at least possible, if never plausible. Was there ever really anything believable that would make Wade go entirely against character? One that didn't require the audience to extrapolate an entire missing reel? Was there even an inkling that Wade was becoming disgusted with the increasing atrocities his gang was committing in his name? And this is a timeless example of the 'stupid premise' movie, that could logically have been ended at any time simply by killing Wade, especially when things looked hopeless. No, UNFORGIVEN has nothing to worry about. Far from being a classic, this one will be quickly forgotten despite possibly nomination worthy work from its leads. Definitely a missed opportunity to re*ignite the genre. Opposable digits down. PS Sorry Herrmeister, despite the shower, your life still isn't interesting enough to spend half your review digressing upon in detail.
Great Performances Overcome Lame Ending by Dresh	Sep 11th, 2007 04:35:48 PM
Let's face it, the last 10 minutes of the film are absurd and utterly unconvincing. The Ben Wade character would never allow himself be taken to prison like that or kill his entire gang, regardless of the respect he may have felt for Dan. This was plain silly and undermined the strong first two acts in favor of 'unpredicability'. But i'd still recommend 3:10 TO Yuma based on the strength of the lead performances. Crowe is THE leading man of our time and Bale is simply a great actor. These two guys are a pleasure to watch for two hours and their acting styles blend beautifully. I hope they make more films together. Too bad they couldn't sell the thouroughly unconvincing finale. Nobody could.
Agree with Rich Malone by tcbonline	Sep 11th, 2007 04:41:04 PM
I agree with everything in Rich Malone's post. I had a real hard time accepting the character motivations throughout this movie. I also had a hard time with the ending and I couldn't buy the fact that they just let this killer eat and socialize with them like that. Made no sense. Nice gritty western and entertaining overall, but the above mentioned deficiencies keep me from giving it an A+.
Gosh, Harry... by theJackalope	Sep 11th, 2007 05:44:59 PM
Whatever happened to PRINCESS OF MARS?
Showers by neptunesblood	Sep 11th, 2007 11:31:28 PM
"each took showers then passed way the hell out" What, you dont shower together????????
3:10 to Yuma is flawed but still very good by Rupee88	Sep 12th, 2007 03:23:48 PM
Yeah, they were idiots not to tie Ben Wade up better and parts of it didn't makes sense, but it was still a badass movie. I'd give it a 7.5 out of 10...would have been an 8 or 9 without the script's flaws.
Not regrettable, but not great by strosmer	Sep 12th, 2007 07:59:21 PM
Saw it last night and was entertained, but couldn't quite buy into all of it. Nice to see some quality Westerns still being made. The genre has as much room to grow and last as horror in my opinion. I see no reason why it should ever die out lest the imaginations of filmmakers just all go numb. It may not seem like there is much left to do in Western, but there lies a rich and fascinating period of American history - one that has gone largely unexplored on film when you think about it. A lot to play with thematically, it truly has a lot yet to offer. Seraphim Falls (a better film), came and went virtually unnoticed, but it showed there are still unique approaches to take to the genre. Existentialism in a Western? Why not? And Westerns are the premier setting for man vs. landscape. It's hard to tire of the image of a man lone on horseback against a vast, virgin landscape under an open sky. Is there something gay there? Fine, go ahead and do your worst.
Too bad! by MaxDembo1	Sep 13th, 2007 03:09:58 AM
That ending was some pussy ass bullshit. Mangold was so close to making a great movie and then he gives us an ending that makes no sense and betrays everything that came before it.
Garbageman33 is a fuking kunt by Bishop6	Sep 13th, 2007 09:55:25 AM
eom
the ending makes total sense by CherryValance	Sep 13th, 2007 10:43:14 PM
(spoilers)Ben decides to get on the train for Dan's sake, right? So as they're going to the station everything is fine. He's going to get on the train, Dan will get the money, no problem. But then at the last minute not only does his gang ruin that but Prince kills Dan. Now Dan's family will end up with no dad and no money, which is exactly what happened to Ben's family remember? His dad left and then his mom dumped at a train station making him into who he became. Well, Ben doesn't want that to happen because he liked Dan and saw that Dan wanted to take care of his family, which is what his own dad didn't do. So he has to kill his gang in order to get on that train so the kid can get home safe with the money since the dude with the money (Dallas Roberts) was watching the whole thing. If Ben had escaped with his gang, he wouldn't have paid. Ben knew he was going to be on the train for like 3 minutes and then escape again, that's why he called his horse. He was always going to escape. He knew it, the horse knew it and before he died, Dan knew it. Everything that happened in the last 10 minutes was to get the money for Dan's family.
Strangest. Cameo. Ever. by WYLD STALLYNS RULES	Sep 14th, 2007 12:58:35 AM
We're chugging right along, and then, waaaa? Luke Wilson? OK, now he's dead, chugging right along.
I'm sorry, I also had major problems with the ending. by Daddylonghead	Sep 15th, 2007 02:14:58 AM
SPOILER ENDING DISCUSSION, BEWARE Was there some other ending originally filmed, and then the studio made them go change it around? Seriously, it didn't make sense. It didn't follow. I loved the rest of the movie (minor nit-picks aside), but Wade spontaneously slaughtering his entire gang? Why? What the fuck? Those dudes are how he makes his living, and they're like family to him! He needs them, and depends on them! Why would he spontaneously mow them all down?? I think they really dropped the ball with that ending. Great movie otherwise, still definitely worth seeing, but jeez.
Question about Ebert's review. by Daddylonghead	Sep 15th, 2007 02:22:28 AM
I just read Ebert's review of this. At the end of his review, Ebert says "Attend well to Ben Wade's last words in this movie, and who he says them to, and why." Maybe I'm retarded, but I can't remember exactly what Wade says. I know he doesn't address anyone in his gang; I thought that was weird at the time. Doesn't he say something like "let's get going" to the guy inside the train car? That can't be what Ebert means. Anyone else have a better short-term memory?
Well I was always partial to... by Big Dan	Sep 15th, 2007 10:13:39 AM
Pale Rider
Explaining The Ending (Heavy Spoilers!) by Cranston-Is-The-Shadow	Sep 15th, 2007 10:08:16 PM
Last week I saw 3:10 to Yuma. I loved the film and I'm glad to read that many here felt the same. There is some confusion as to why Ben Wade kills his gang and reboards the train to Yuma. The following is how I saw it so beware of spoilers! . . . . . By the time Dan Evans and Ben Wade arrive in the town of Contention they have developed respect for each other. Dan respects Ben for saving him and his son Will from the Apaches, and for his proclivity for violence. Ben respects Dan for keeping his word, raising a family, and for standing up to him on the trail. In Contention, Ben tries to bribe Dan to set him free. Ben does this because he doesn't want Dan or Will to be killed by his approaching gang. Dan almost takes the offer, but refuses after saying the townsfolk back home would know he was bribed to let Ben escape. Just before leaving the hotel, Dan bids a emotional farewell to Will and tells him that "You can always tell people that your old man put Ben Wade on the Yuma Prison train when no one else would." He also secures money from the railroad to support his family should he not make it back. After Dan leads Ben through the first gunfight, Ben attacks Dan and begins to strangle him. Ben says Dan's boy isn't watching anymore so now the gloves are off. Ben doesn't want to kill Dan, he just needed the keys to the handcuffs. At this point Dan tells Ben the truth behind his war injury and demands that Ben not make him a liar to his son again. Ben relents and the two run for the station under a hail of gunfire. Dan and Ben barricade themselves in the station and Ben confesses that he's escaped from Yuma twice. Dan also confesses his family needs to stay in the territory because of his younger son's tuberculosis. Once the train arrives Dan succeeds in getting Ben aboard. Sadly, Charlie Prince guns Dan down before he can climb aboard or run for cover. Ben immediately jumps off the train and stares down at the dying farmer. When Prince tosses Ben his gun, he kills Prince and the remaining gangmembers to avenge Dan. Ben looks down at Dan one last time before reboarding the train as a gesture of respect. The train pulls out and Ben whistles for his horse, which runs alongside. So Ben has no intention of walking into Yuma Prison, but his intention is for Dan's last words to his son to come true: Dan Evans put Ben Wade on the Yuma Prison train when no one else would.
Big Fat Homosexual Movie Nerds Gush Over Christian Bale by Bill Maher	Sep 16th, 2007 10:47:15 AM
This movie sucks. Remakes of great films always suck. The original was a classic in glorious black and white. This is just a wanked-out remake and sucks.
Thank you, CherryValance by one9deuce	Sep 21st, 2007 06:15:15 PM
Your post is almost exactly what I was planning on writing as I scrolled though the talkback and saw that so many people didn't understand the ending.
Just saw it a moment ago by StarBlitzer	Sep 24th, 2007 11:50:33 PM
First?
Daddylonghead by Proevad	Sep 27th, 2007 07:46:24 PM
Ebert hit on what cherryvalance said. Wade's last words were about how he had already escaped from the prison twice. In my opinion this completely explains the motivation of the character.
The mysterious ending explained by MattmanReturns	Sep 28th, 2007 01:30:10 AM
Crowe kills his gang because he has no respect for them, and they've killed the one man he's learned to respect. He kills them out of disgust, and boards the train out of respect for Bale. Is that really so hard to figure out?
And Crowe's last line in the movie by MattmanReturns	Sep 28th, 2007 01:38:29 AM
Is NOT about how he escaped from Yuma prison twice. It's more along the lines of, "Well, you did it Dan! NO!"
That's what I thought, MattmannReurns by Daddylonghead	Sep 29th, 2007 11:23:21 AM
still a good movie, but I remain unconvinced about the left-field ending. And honestly, I am a Crowe fan, but I thought his was a lazy performance throughout, just coasting on charm.
There was a big clue in the beginning by MattmanReturns	Sep 29th, 2007 04:56:16 PM
about Crowe's feelings toward his gang. When one of them gets held hostage, he simply shoots him because he was careless. At another point Ben Foster tells him that they'll be waiting for him, and looks at him like a dog lovingly looking at his master. Crowe simply replies, "Alright." I don't think he ever respected or even liked his gang. They were a means to an end, and he was much smarter than all of them. I will agree what he does in the end requires some suspension of disbelief, but I think the clues are there throughout the film. I think the ending would've been easier to swallow if perhaps Crowe only killed Foster.
3:10 to Yuma and breach and Clayton by emeraldboy	Oct 1st, 2007 12:03:44 PM
were the higlights of My summer. Really well acted movies. especially by Crowe and the ending had me on the edge of my seat. Cant wait to Ratatouilee, over the coming weeks. The winter looks like it is going to be much better than the lousy summer. But seeing as I enjoy Big dumb action films as well as small well made ones. It doesnt matter. Because unlike some talkbackers who hate movies and use excuses. I genuienly like movies.
A REAL WESTERN! by williamD	Oct 20th, 2007 06:54:10 PM
3-10 TO YUMA is one of the best pictures of 2007. james Mangold has become very good!

Talkbacks

Harry boards the 3:10 TO YUMA and it's headed for Hell!!!

User login

Quick Talkback

Talkbacks