Talk:3:10 to Yuma (1957 film)

Redirect
3:10 to Yuma should go directly to the 2007 film. Major critics have lauded the film as being better than the 1957 version. Moreover, the 1957 version was a not-so-familiar western with little hype until the recent version kicked off. The acting list in the 2007 version by itself propels the recent version into more importance. This is not a case of "recentism." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Infinity529 (talk • contribs) 02:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't talk such utter twaddle. 81.144.212.67 12:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with "infinity". The original is a classic and is well-recognized. Glenn Ford and Van Heflin are HUGE movie greats, and I think any film historian would put their influence, talent and memorable performances, including in this picture, far above _anyone_ in the recent version.

Russell Crowe and Christian Bale may be wonderful actors, but they do not begin to approach Ford and Heflin. And the fact that most modern movies (like this one) stack b, c and d list stars in supporting roles does not automatically make the movie worthy. In my humble opinion, the days when great character actors were utilized instead of fading leading men (Peter Fonda) or flavor of the week young heart-throbs (Ben Foster).

I would further compare Delmer Daves superb resume to the execrable hack James Mangold.

The new version also becomes rather silly after the anti-hero "agrees" to let himself be taken in and in fact he becomes the hero and Bale becomes a bit of a pathetic clown and the entire plot, for both the lawmen and the gang chasing, becomes an exercise in futility. I think its very weak writing after that point, when everyone's motivation becomes comically ridiculous and the story degenerates into farce. I cannot disagree more with infinity about the relative merits of the 2 versions.

According to Wiki's own description of the older film: The film was well received on release and is still highly regarded today. ... When first released in the summer of 1957, the film became popular among audiences and critics alike for its suspenseful nature and sharp black and white cinematography. Ford received particular notice for his against-type villainous performance. The following year, 3:10 to Yuma was nominated for the British Academy of Film and Television Arts award for Best Film. Since its release, the film has become a staple of cable television and has gained an audience of several generations.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.1.7 (talk) 02:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, Unsigned, you are certainly entitled to your opinions. However, this is not the place to discuss them.  Wikipedia isn't a forum for your personal likes and dislikes. -CaptainJae 12:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Well excuse me, but I was rebutting the comment above mine, which does just what you are condemning. Further, your own oomment is nothing but your own opinion. That's all any comment is. That's all any discussion is. You are not endowed with empirical truth in all matters, "captain". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.1.7 (talk) 04:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The town of Bisbee in the film was actually a set built in Sedona Arizona, home of some great westerns including actors like John Wayne —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.164.197.143 (talk) 20:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

psychology
The plot summary quite overlooks the psychology of the characters, particularly Ben Wade's, which is what the story is really about. Bed Wade can be a charming seducer, which we see in his treatment of the barmaid (whom he beds). That he and Evans are holed up in the hotel's honeymoon suite (!!!) can be taken as a sly wink at the audience. (I assume this was taken from Elmore Leonard's short story.) A modern remake might very well suggest that Wade "swings both ways", and that his attempt to seduce Evans is as much motivated by sex as it is by the desire to regain his freedom.

Regardless, the plot summary misses the most-important element of the film -- the characters' motivations.

After writing the preceding, I read the short story. It is startlingly thin and dull. Elmore Leonard criticized the film for showing "how Hollywood can screw up a simple story", but the story is much too simple. The screenwriter did a great job of expanding the story -- and the characters -- in interesting ways. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 20:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)