3:10 to Yuma

When I heard they were shooting a remake of the 1957 Western 3:10 to Yuma, I had to wonder why. As the Wikipedia entry said of the original movie, “The film was well received on release and is still highly regarded today.”

On the other hand, Westerns don’t seem to be all that popular among the 16-20 and 30-39-year-olds, which are the two largest groups that go to the movies today—each group accounting for 19% (or 38% total) of the movie-going public. Attendees under 30 years of age are the dominant force in the movie-going public. And traditional Westerns just don’t lend themselves to the computerized special effects, superheroes, and car chases that age group seems to prefer.

My expectations of the remake dropped when I heard that a horse and rider were injured on the first day of filming. The rider was hospitalized and the horse euthanized. Now one thing that the original movie had was some good riders—real cowboys and rodeo riders. Go look at the video or DVD and you’ll see them making flying mounts and dismounts from galloping horses. What you won’t see is a lot of Young Guns shots of riders’ elbows flapping up and down and their butts bouncing off the saddles. Glenn Ford owned horses and rode regularly.

I’m sure Crowe and Bale will do their best in the two lead roles; by starring two New Zealanders in an American Western, perhaps the producer is going for a reverse play on Quigley Down Under which featured an American actor as a cowboy in the Outback. But I’m sure going to miss the great character actor Richard Jaeckel in the role of Charlie Prince, which Ben Foster will play. Sure gonna miss ol’ Frankie Laine belting out that theme song, too. “Taaaaaake that traaaaaaaain!”

BOY what a shocker! You? Not like a recent release? WHAaaaaAAAAaaaaaaAAAAT????

And before having even seen it. What efficiency!

Bravo.

__________________
Review: Cabin in the Woods 8/10

Wow, I mean really....wow.

I know sarcasm is like peanut butter on a cold day in Alaska to some, but, uh yeah.

Yeah ...
you go


Yeah

THAW OUT!!!!!

__________________

“The gladdest moment in human life, methinks, is a departure into unknown lands.” – Sir Richard Burton

Yep, that was sarcasm.
Any comments on what rufnek said? Or what I did?

Sry I am a girlie man I cannot answer that.

Never said it was going to be a bad picture or even unsuccessful, although from what I've read about it it got off to a rocky start and took some years to put the deal together. I just ask, why remake this particular picture, a Western, when surely there are some superhero comics and old TV sitcoms that haven't been filmed yet. My understanding is that the under-30 crowd don't go for Westerns. Am I wrong?

I'm willing to discuss the pros and cons of it, if you are.

Rufnek, I personally don't mind SOME westerns, provided that they have a decent story. I've watched a few John Wayne's with my dad, as well as others I really couldn't tell you who was in, but I don't dislike Westerns.

I think that the under 30 crowd doesn't go for westerns simply because there aren't that many made these days.

__________________
"I was walking down the street with my friend and he said, "I hear music", as if there is any other way you can take it in. You're not special, that's how I receive it too. I tried to taste it but it did not work." - Mitch Hedberg

Ask someone under 30, Tootsie Pop, I am 41. I didn't like Westerns much til my dad passed away, and then I started watching them because he had, and now I generally like them. The thing I like is that they have a classical sense of justice - something rarely seen in the Modern World and much appreciated by me.

Two reasons I can think of to remake this one:
1. I'd never heard of it and I'd imagine the same is true for many.
2. Anything with Christian Bale is a good thing. Yum.

Point One: Bale isn't a Kiwi at all.

Point Two: Crowe was only born in NZ, but was raised in Austrailia. There is a big difference.


I'll probably have more to say on this topic once my Netflix copy of the original arrives sometime in the next weel.

I've never seen the original 3:10 to Yuma and didn't realize, at first, this was a remake…
I basically like westerns though (as long as they're not full of 'Hollywood Indians') so am looking
forward to seeing it…
Why would your expectations drop because a horse and rider were injured? Don't get me
wrong, I love animals and was very sad to read the horse had to be euthanized… but from
what I understand, the rider was a professional… however, the horse had been trained to
different commands than the rider, which, unfortunately, led to the accident…

As far as Bale and Crowe in the lead roles… much of the population in the era of the westerns
were recent immigrants… so unless the movie specifically states whether or not the characters
were born in American, I would think immigrant actors would be perfect…

Anyway, I'm going to check out the original but think I'll wait until I see the remake…

__________________

As it so happens, in my fervor to catch up on many of the classic films I'd heretofore neglected, I've just recently taken in High Noon, The Searchers, and The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly all for the first time within the last week and a half.

Thus, I felt myself somewhat more primed for 3:10 to Yuma than I might have been otherwise. I saw it on Saturday, and was deeply impressed. That might betray my lack of experience with the genre, but so be it.

My review can be found here:

• Review of 3:10 to Yuma

Not meaning to sound harsh or big headed, but did notice that. I've seen a few Westerns and every single unit at A-Level and UnderGrad use the genre (along with noir) compulsively so do have a respect and moderate understanding (when i can be bothered to remember it all lol)>

__________________

I'm not sure I follow; are you saying that people who haven't seen many Westerns tend to be impressed with whatever few they have?

From your review i got the impression you hadn't seen many Westerns and was pointing out, that from being taught, it's a very deep and important genre in terms of studying film and unless it's pointed out as such, it's easy to see as a simple genre.

I don't really have any trouble believing that (and I'm not at all offended by you saying it), though I don't think my description of "sometimes black-and-white morals" should be taken as any broader than it is. Some of the classic Westerns I've had the privilege to see recently have very straightforward themes; this doesn't mean that all (or even most) do, or that they're not great films, anyway. Just that some of them, whatever else their virtues, are straightforward morality plays. Not to title-drop a film I've just seen, but High Noon certainly comes to mind.

Anyway, none of this is meant as a commentary on the technical aspects of the genre, which strike me as anything but simple. I'm no filmmaker, but the more Westerns, I see, the more it seems like it would be very hard to shoot one.

I agree with you on the black and whites, and simple morality etc. But the genre as a whole and it's cultural significance was what i was suggesting had more depth. High Noon has some strong themes of Mcarthyism, so i'd say it's far more than a straightforward morality play. Think a lot of Westerns post 40/50s have some form of social commentary.

Pt. 1 Sorry--article I saw about them remaking this movie said both of the guys were from New Zealand, which I thought was an odd coincidence. Don't know anything about their personal lives so I accepted it as true. So where does Bale hail from?

Pt. 2 There's "a big difference" between Australia and New Zealand? Really? Besides their relative size?

I got no problem with people from other countries playing cowboys in the movies. Errol Flynn did it for years. I was just commenting on the fact that ol' Tom played a cowboy in Austrailia and now Crowe is returning the compliment by playing a cowboy in the Americas.

Like you said, lots of people from lots of countries settled the old west. Texas had a big German population starting about 1840. A good size portion of the real cowboys were Mexican or African-American. Something like 25% or better; more than that in southwestern states like Texas. How many black cowboys have you ever seen in the movies?

As for the rider accident on the first day of shooting the remake--go get you a copy of the original picture and just look at the riders on horseback. Some of those playing the outlaw gang with no speaking parts were former cowboys and stuntmen who worked a lot of western movies back in the 1950s-1960s. They're very familar to me, having seen them in film after film, and like Ben Johnson and some others who rose from those ranks, they are experienced horsemen who were comfortable aboard a galloping horse. Even the star, Glenn Ford, was an accomplished rider. The fact that the remake has a major accident involving a horse and rider on the very first first day of shooting makes me wonder how experienced the cast and crew are with horses. Yes, they said it was a mixup in commands. And maybe it was. On the other hand, what kind of horseman gets on a strange horse and immediately tries a tricky maneuver without first checking out how the horse performs? And remember too, they killed an expensive specially trained horse in the process. Sounds amateurish to me. Puts me in mind of The Young Guns with Emilio and the boys riding in slow motion with elbows flapping and butts bouncing clear of the saddles.

I wasn't trying to poll the under 30 crowd. Thought one of you movie experts out there from 19 to 95 might have read the same demographics I did, or different ones that disagreed.

I'm surprised that so many of you movie buffs are unaware of the original film, especially since I've seen it playing several times in recent months on the Western cable channel and The Movie Channel.

Tootsie Pop??????

Read your review, a good one, and apparently the remake differs from the original on 2 main points. You say the rancher (played by Van Heflin in the original and Bale in the remake) reveals his real reason for taking the outlaw in later in the film. In the original, he's right up front: there's a drought and his cattle are dying; the bank won't give him a loan, and he's about to lose the ranch. He and his sons witnessed the holdup and killings, and the rancher later assisted in the capture of the outlaw, primarily by diverting his attention while the posse sneaks up on him. But he has no real interest in the badman's incarceration until the owner of the stage line offers a reward, $200 as I recall. The rancher is in it for the money to save his ranch. But there's also a second volunteer, the town drunk hoping to do something right for once in his life.

The original relies more on dialogue than action, primarily discussions between the outlaw and the rancher while holed up in a hotel room waiting for the train. The outlaw does most of the talking, trying to buy his release. Glenn Ford played him as a fun-loving adventurer, out for easy money and a good time, but ready to kill anyone to get it. (Something like the real Billy the Kid.) The outlaw gets a brief look at the rancher's home life with a devoted wife and two boys who look up to their dad. He tries to use that to persuade the rancher to take a bribe to let him go, but he also envies the rancher's quite life compared with life on the run. In the end, the rancher proves true to his principles, but he's also aided by the brutal death of the drunk at the hands of the outlaws. He can't walk away from something another man died for.

It's a basic morality tale of good and evil that the Westerns did so well. Without the explosions and overturned coaches and people leaping from roof to roof that ads show for the remake. No special effects at all, which must be the third main difference.