A last look at The 3:10 to Yuma

I finally pulled up and viewed on pay-TV the 2007 remake of the 1957 film The 3:10 to Yuma. My initial intent was to watch the remake and then rerun the original while making notes of where and in what ways they differ. But I was only a few minutes into the remake when I decided that it’s not so much how the two films differ, but rather what has happened over the last 50 years to US society that accounts for the changes in those two films. For what it's worth, here's how I see it: (I don't think there are any real spoilers here but some might want to be cautious if knowing anything about the picture before you see it disturbs you)

One indicator came relatively early in the film when, after Russell Crow as Ben Wade is captured in Bisbee, Ben Foster as Charlie Prince gallops through town randomly and fatally shooting two people as he cries, “This town is gonna burn!” As I watched that scene, I couldn’t help thinking about a corny modern joke: “What goes clip-clop, clip-clop, bang, clip-clop, clip-clop? An Amish drive-by shooting.” Now here’s Charlie Prince doing a ride-by shooting and advocating “burn, baby, burn,” which only makes sense to a modern audience. In 1957, movie audiences knew only drive-ins, not drive-bys.

Another indicator comes later in the film in the setting with all of the Chinese workers building the railroad, when one of the Anglo supervisors remarks, “Some of their food is not too bad.” Now a line like that would have gone right past most viewers in 1957 when the very concept of Chinese food was limited to those few cities with a large enough Asian population to have a “China Town.” Chinese food had not yet spread to the Midwest, South, or even the Southwest where the movie was set in 1957. Home delivery of any, much less ethnic, foods was a rare thing back then.

There were other scenes in the remake that looked to me to be direct steals from interim films. For instance, the armored stagecoach armed with a Gatling gun obviously was inspired by the John Wayne film, The War Wagon (1967). Wayne also made use of a Gatling gun in fighting an outlaw bunch in Rooster Cogburn (1975). True, B-Western star Bill Elliott played a Texas Ranger who confronts a Gatling-gun-armed outlaw gain in a forgettable film in the 1940s. And didn’t Elvis go up against a Gatling gun (or maybe it was a cannon) in Charro! (1969)? But how does that jibe with history? In 1862 Richard Gatling demonstrated his first working model of the Gatling gun , but it wasn’t until 1865 that he overcame problems with the ammunition feed mechanism. Apparently the first Army purchase of 10 Gatlings were of the 1872 model. Gatling sold his guns only to the US and foreign armies, and the only assault on a US armory to steal weapons during the 19th century was John Brown’s unsuccessful attack at Harper’s Ferry in 1859. So there is no evidence that Gatling guns were ever in the hands of bandits, stage lines, or any private citizen during that period.

Another item is the scoped rifle used by “the Mexican sharpshooter” in the remake. I think The Beguiled (1971) starts with Clint Eastwood as a Union sharpshooter armed with a rifle with a magnifying sight. In the turn-of-the-century Joe Kidd (1972), Eastwood comes up against outlaws with modern–looking scopes on modern-looking hunting rifles. Well, it’s a historic fact that magnifying scopes were used by both Union and rebel sharpshooters in the Civil War. A rifle with a British detachable side-mounted Davidson telescopic sight is on display in the Confederate museum in Richmond, Va. But such scopes were rare and not very accurate. One internet source said it wasn’t until 1880 that a German forester managed to build the first telescopic sight “that really did work.” Other sources report that even in the 1930s, rifle scopes generally were not reliable and would lose accuracy if bumped. They also had a bad tendency to fog up with changes in heat and humidity while shooting. Until the 1990s, military use of telescopic sights was restricted to snipers because of the fragility and expense of optical components. Yet here is this sharpshooter bouncing around on horseback over the rough southwest with this delicate scope fastened to his rifle. Besides, the Mexican constable played by Burt Lancaster in Valdez Is Coming (1971) racks up an impressive score of long-distance kills against the outlaw band dogging him, though good eyesight and a Sharps rifle that was common among buffalo hunters after the Civil War.

I really liked how the horse exploded when Peter Fonda’s character shoots the bag of dynamite. Reminded me of Rio Bravo (1959) when Walter Brennan threw bundles of dynamite at the holed-up outlaws that Wayne and Dean Martin would shoot and explode. But it kinda made me wonder why outlaws would attack an armored stage armed with a Gatling gun while carrying bags of dynamite? And I also wonder if a stick of dynamite really will explode if you shoot it. When I was a kid loading blast holes for seismic crews, we used to use a screwdriver to jab holes in sticks of dynamite, stick in a blasting cap and drop it downhole while the electric lines of the blasting cap unwound. The only danger was if the ends of the wires were gapped so that static electricity of the blowing sand would cause a spark to arch between the two and set off the dynamite in the open hole you’re standing by.

The remake also seems to steal from A Fistful of Dollars (1967) with both the odd-looking, oddly dressed members of the outlaw gang. I couldn’t determine if Ben Foster as Charlie Prince is actually wearing eyeliner and mascara or not, but what is it with that tight-fitting double-buttoned jacket of what looks like lacquered leather? A gunman needs loose clothing that lets him move, but Foster looks like he’s encased in cement. That collar and abbreviated tails look something like the Spanish uniforms in an old Zorro film. Crowe looked good in his little stingy-brimmed almost-Derby hat, but it’s not very practical for riding through the sun-baked Southwest where you need a hat brim big enough to shade your head and shoulders. Looked like they also copied the Italian westerns with Crowe’s ultra-ultra-ultra quick draw that allows him to pull his pistol and shoot 5 bad guys before they get their guns out. And what’s with that on the train, off the train, on the train, and whistle for his horse to follow scene? Reminds me of something Roy Rogers and Trigger would do.

Probably the biggest difference in the tone of the original and the remake, however, is two very different statements by the oldest son in each movie. In the remake, the oldest boy is really down on his dad through much of the first part of the movie climaxing in this interchange:
Dan Evans: “Someday, William... you walk in my shoes, you might understand.”
Logan Lerman as William Evans: “I ain't ever walking in your shoes.”

Man, that’s cold to a crippled father who came West because his kid had health problems.

But there’s a very different exchange early in the original film when the two brothers are talking:
9-year-old Jerry Hartleben as Mark Evans: “$200 is a lot of money.”
Barry Curtis as the oldest boy Matthew Evans: “Not if pa doesn’t come back.” (It’s interesting too that Matthew Evans in the original movie becomes William Evans in the remake. Wonder what that is about?)

In the original film, the family is depicted as all working together to try to save the family ranch. That’s why Dan Evans takes the dangerous job for $200 in hopes that money will take him through the drought. In the original, Evans tries to get an extension on a loan from the local banker who is also a member of the posse guarding Ben Wade. The banker regrets turning him down, saying that everyone has been pushed to the wall by the drought. The remake opens with the banker’s thugs burning Evans barn. What’s the point of that if the banker is just weeks away from foreclosure that will give him the land and any improvements on it? How is burning the barn going to make it any more difficult for Evans to raise the money he needs? Is this scene there to reflect modern views of bankers and “big business” because of the savings & loan bailouts in the 1980s? Is it there to feed the son’s hatred of his father as part of the generation gap that started with hippies in the 1960s. Today children are expected to rebel against and even vilify their parents. But that still wasn’t quite the norm back in 1957.

So what did you thiink of the movie? I just rewatched the original for the second time this year (and probably my eighth time overall).

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

I've got to watch the original.

I liked the latest version but some things in it bugged me.

One of the main things is toward the end when the outlaws ride into town and leave themselves wide open. From all I've read about the Old West, the lawmen would've just opened up on the outlaws and mowed them down.

No way the outlaws offer $200 to anyone who wants to kill for them either.

Does this happen in the original. I have to watch it. I'll be checking tonight to see if the original is going to be on and I'll be sure to sick TiVo on it.

Great analysis of the film Rufnek... lots to think about there...

__________________
Top 10 Summer Movies (2008):

http://truemoviereview.com/top-10s/t...is-summer-2008

Congratulations, Chaiwriter, you put your finger right on the main criticism that John Wayne and many others had of the 1952 Western classic, High Noon. Wayne and others claim there is no way Gary Cooper couldn't have raised a posse to take on the 4 returned gunmen. Same could be said of both the 1957 and 2007 versions of 3:10 to Yuma. And history supports that claim. On Sept. 7, 1876, the James-Younger gang--the most successful and most rightly feared of all the outlaw gangs, attempted to hold up the First National Bank of Northfield, Minn. There were at least 8, maybe 9 members of the gang, who had cut their teeth on bloody guerilla raids in Missouri and Kansas during the Civil War and had continued raiding banks and trains ever since. Yet they were no match for local citizens who met them in the street with gunfire. Only Frank and Jesse James were unwounded and only they escaped without a penny. The 4 Younger brothers were wounded, captured and went to prison, and I think only Cole Younger lived to be released as an old man. The other 2 or 3 (I think 3) unrelated gang members were killed in the shootout, one by a medical student home on vacation from college who claimed the body of his victim, boiled it down to the bones and used him as a medical skeleton in his practice for many years.

On Oct. 5, 1892, the Dalton gang attempted to rob two banks at once in Coffeyville, Kan. Problem was, the Dalton boys had lived in that neighborhood and were recognized despite their false beards. Seems one of the boys had a distinctive way of sitting his horse due to an old injury. Anyway, the town opened up on them before they robbed even one bank and all but 1 of the 5 outlaws were shot dead in the streets. The survivor was near death from multiple wounds but lived to go to prison for several years.

If small frontier towns could bring down the famous James, Youngers and Daltons, then a place as big as Contention would have shot hell out of this fancy-pants bunch.

A similar point: The highly complicated and convaluted attack on the armored stagecoach at the start of the film also reminded me of William S. Hart's criticism of the Indian attack on the stagecoach in Stagecoach, the 1939 classic that made John Wayne a star. Hart (1864-1946) was one of the first if not THE first super star and hero of Western films. But Hart was a stickler for realism, and his films were noted for authentic constumes and props. When he saw the Indians chasing the stagecoach for miles and miles, much as the outlaws do in the 2007 remake of 3:10 to Yuma, he scoffed that real Indians would have downed one of the two lead horses pulling the stage, which would have brought down the running horses behind them and dumped over the stage with a horrendous crash. Ben Wade's bunch could have done the same in the remake (there was no stage chase in the original) by having their "Mexican sharpshooter" bring down one of the lead team from a distance and then ride casually up to the wreck.

That's another way our society has changed in the last 50 years--our embrace of situation ethics. In other words, give a person reason enough to do wrong and he or she will abandon their ethics and do the wrong thing--even kill someone for $200. Don't get me wrong--there were people in the Old West who could--and did--kill people for the pearl buttons on a child's shoes. But they never pretended to be anything else but animalistic killers. But the idea that an outlaw gang could ride, post $200 on someone's head and half the town would start blasting just doesn't ring true. Besides what's the chances of collecting the $200 when the gang just shot down five unarmed men after telling them they could walk away if they dropped their weapons? That whole thing is a stupid premise that brings down the quality of the movie.

By the same token, Peter Fonda's role as a bounty hunter "under contract" to the Pinkerton's made no sense, since the Pinkertons were essentially bounty hunters themselves--a private detective agency that tracked down outlaws for the price on their heads. They lost several agents trying to bring down the James gang and Texas gunman John Westley Hardin. But it was the Pinkertons who invented the "Rogues Gallery" books of photos of outlaws and suspects still used by modern police. A Pinkerton agent spotted in the window of a New York photographer's shop that famous photo of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid and the rest of the gang all duded up in Eastern duds. Widespread circulation of that photo among law enforcement officers made it so hot for Butch and Sundance in the West that they fled to South America with fatal results.

No, those scenes didn't happen in the original movie. The five private citizens hired by Butterfield walk out as soon as the gang comes to town without anyone firing a shot.

Mark, I really tried to approach the remake with an open mind, but the thing is so overly busy and so needlessly violent that I was almost instantly confused. While the original opens with a fairly normal stickup of an ordinary stage, the remake begins with nightriders attacking Evans and burning his barn. What's this? Who are they? Well turns out its the banker and his hirelings who hold the mortgage on Evans farm. But if the banker is just a few weeks from the next missed payment when he can reposses the farm, why ride out in the middle of the night to burn the barn? Whether the barn burns or not, it's not going to influence whether Evans can pay the note. Even if the banker is just going to sell the land to the railroad, he's still missing an extra profit from tearing down the house and barn and selling the lumber in a desert area where trees are scarce and lumber is expensive. So right from the get-go, I'm confronted with an irrational banker, needless violence, a one-legged Evans, and a snot-nose mouthy kid who needs a good whack across the mouth.

In the original, Van Heflin's Evans is losing a fight with the drought but his wife, kids, and even the banker treat him with respect. All of the family is involved in the fight to save the ranch instead of everyone blaming the old man as in the remake. So right away, the whole plot is taking a different but not necessarily an improved direction.

Then there are so many derivative plot elements -- the armored coach armed with a Gatling gun from The War Wagon, the motley characters and the fast-draw who can gun five men before they slap leather from A Fistful of Dollars, the soldier with the shameful wound sustained during an act of cowardice from The Red Badge of Courage.

I really had to laugh at the Ben Foster/Charlie Prince "clippity-clop, bang" ride-by shooting. That was so silly it was funny, as was the throw-away line about "some of the Chinese food is pretty good." I got the feeling that the Chinese railroad work crew was only included so they could slip in that line about Chinese food. Of course the Chinese and the Indians both served to restate the politically correct view of the dominant whites exploiting other races during the 19th Century. The point is made that the hostile Indians in the dangerous canyon are the fighting members of the tribe who were left behind after the more cowardly members were moved onto reservations. However, I had to question how tough those Indians could be when they couldn't nail a bunch of whites huddled around a bonfire while the Indians were shooting from the dark. I thought it was stretching things even further when Russell Crow's Ben Wade can crawl out and sneak up on Indians in the dark. Now what part of his outlaw career trained him for tracking and fighting in the dark when his livlihood is made by jumping aboard trains and sticking up banks?

I also was confused by the unnecessary new characters who were introduced. Obviously Peter Fonda's character was shot but rescued simply as a setup for the doctor's joke about "Nice to be able to talk to a patient for a change." What other purpose does he serve? Nothing else happens with his character until Crow/Wade effortlessly throws him off the cliff. Meanwhile, he strains the credibility of the plot by being gut shot and then having the bullet removed without any painkiller and climbing back in the saddle the next day for a long ride. At that moment, my memory flashed back to the TV series The Westerners that Sam Peckenpah did in the 1950s. In one show, a cowboy is talking about being shot. He raises the front of his shirt to reveal a bullet-size hole where the bullent went in. He then raises the back of his shirt to show the bigger-than-a-fist scar where it came out. He talks then about that wound putting him on his back for several months and how after that he lost all interest in shooting at anyone or being shot at. Now that was a more realistic and believeable approach by a better director.

The only point of having the vet/doctor is also that one joke; after that, he's just another expendable cast member waiting to die.

I also was put off by the skyrocketing body count. In the 1957 film, Glenn Ford as Ben Wade kills only two people in the film--the stagecoach driver and the gang member that the driver is holding in front of him. And he only takes two shots to do it--not three and a farewell speech as in the remake. Other fatalities include two gang members shot from rooftops (and maybe they're only woundedl; we don't know for sure), and the town drunk who was helping Evans, and finally Richard Jaeckel as Charlie Prince who is the last to go down. So about 6 deaths, tops.

In the remake, more than that die in the stage robbery alone. That then sets up the toast scene:
Charlie Prince: [giving a toast] Here's to the four we lost in battle. And here's to the boss, who had to say goodbye to Tommy Darden today. And that's too bad.
Ben Wade: Proverbs 13:3. "He that keepeth his mouth, keepeth his life. He that opens his lips too wide shall bring on his own destruction".
Charlie Prince: Amen.
Ben Wade: Tommy was weak. Tommy was stupid. Tommy is dead.

In the original, the toast was simplier:
Richard Jaeckel/Charlie Prince --"Here's to the boss. He had to say goodbye to one of us today or else it would have been goodbye for more of us." (no response)

In the remake, Wade kills at least 2 people during the robbery, maybe more, two posse members on the way to Contention (including, I think, one expendable cast member just to show why he stole the fork at dinner), and the two attacking Indians--as many as were killed in the whole original film. I think the escalation in bullets, bodies, and blood is another indication of how society and movies have changed in the last 50 years. Just as television coverage of combat in Vietnam was used to explain the escalation of blood and bodies in films like A Fistful of Dollars, continued coverage of wars and terrorism and of violent video games have increased movie-goers' appetites for blood and mayhem. There were no "slasher" movies back in 1957; but the 2007 remake of 3:10 to Yuma is more about present-day Boyz in the Hood with automatic weapons, indiscriminate shooting, and growing body counts than about the outlaw gangs of the 1800s.

They did try to give Ben Wade some substitute for character. He was a gifted amateur artist and he read the Bible after his mother abandoned him. Kinda like in My Darling Clementine, when Victor Mature as Doc Holiday is portrayed as a gifted surgeon from a fine old Southern family gone bad. Rather meaningless in both cases.

There were two elements that the remake introduced but never developed: One is Crowe/Wade's pistol with a small cross attached to the handle and one reference to it as "the Hand of God." Maybe that was left over from that other awful western in which Crowe played a gunfighter turned priest. However, if anyone ever tried to shoot that pistol, they'd soon see why images are carved into the hand grips instead of screwed onto them. That little cross has so many right angles and sharp corners that just trying to draw it barehanded would have scratched and cut one's palm, much less shooting it.

The other thing is the final scene of Crow/Wade's big black stallion running after the train on Wade's whistle. Did outlaws really train their horses like Roy Rogers and Gene Autry, or did they just ride to death whatever they could steal? And if that was Wade's horse that was captured with him in Bisbee, did they then take the horse to Evan's ranch so Wade could ride his own horse? And if Wade did ride his horse to Contention, how did it get sadled and bridled from the intown stables to the railroad station where it was waiting for Wade's whistle?

The funnest thing about the remake is that the new Evans was so fixated on getting Wade on that train that he forgot there was still an outlaw band standing behind him wanting to get Wade off the train. So he just stands there like he had a target painted on his back! Duh! I think that war wound must have recochet up from his foot and shot out part of his brain.

In the original film, Ford gets on the train because Heflin saved him from being gunned down by the stagedriver's vengeful brother and because Ford is likely to get killed by gunfire standing between Heflin and his gang, so he jumps for the moving freight car. In the remake, Crowe gets on, gets off, gets on again because--why? What's his motivation, especially since Evans and his whole gang is kaput?

Only three of the Younger brothers, Cole, Jim, and Bob, went to Northfield. John, the second oldest brother, had been killed by Pinkerton agents several years earlier. The youngest brother, Bob, died in prison… but Cole and Jim were both released before their (life) sentences were served.

Cole and Bob were both wounded in Northfield but I don't ever remember reading any mention of Jim being shot there. He was, however, wounded during the shootout that led to their capture.

And if memory serves, Frank James was also wounded at Northfield.... Jesse was the only one who made it out of Minnesota without being shot.


Anyway, I liked 3:10 to Yuma.... even though I knew some of it was a bit over the top....

__________________

When I was talking about the Northfield raid, I was speaking in terms of the actual battle in town, plus the subsequent chase, shootout and capture. I also was recounting off the top of my head, always a dangerous practice when communicating with a knowledgeable audience. So I bow to your much better knowledge of the event. I knew that only Frank and Jesse had escaped and for certain that Jesse had not been wounded. Had an image in my mind of Frank also escaping injury, but that was probably a scene from The Great Northfield Raid and not actual history!

Anyway, I truly would be interested in your elaboration about what you liked about the 3:10 remake, what you considered over the top, and what effect that had on your enjoyment of the film.

Rufnek, I hope you don't mind me jumping in here since 3:10 to Yuma was one of the my favorite films of the year. You really know your westerns! Its one of my favorite genres and that's probably why I loved the film -- we don't get many new ones to watch. The last western I really enjoyed was Open Range.

You bring up some great points and it is obvious that the film strains for credibility here and there, but my feeling was that the filmmakers knew it and didn't care. When Wade and Evans are running at the end, I was like giddy with joy (the music is wonderful). I felt like a child again -- I think the film calls for a suspension of belief in service to the characters. The "hand of god" pistol is merely a symbol of Wade's bitter childhood and reading the Bible from cover to cover. Wade getting on the train at the end is another symbolic gesture -- he has decided that he will honor Evan's last wish and the whistle symbolizes that he has no intention of staying in jail; just that he will go there. If he had walked away in front of Evans' son, he wouldn't have been honoring the father.

I thought the Fonda character was an interesting counterpoint to Wade. Wade's diatribe against him before he kills him showed that he does have some sense of morality. I feel that a really valid criticism of the film is that Wade's villiany is rather muted -- he seems to only go after people that seem to "deserve" it. But Crowe's charm and sheer magnetism makes up for it. I had so much fun watching him. I can't take my eyes off him every minute he's on the screen. And the hat ruled.

I think this is just a plain ol' enjoyable western film. Westerns are nothing more than mythology and character studies anyway; I don't think it's supposed to make too much sense when one looks at all the details.

I really enjoy your posts, btw. You bring a lot of history and insight.

Nice post. I just watch all movies and try to find their art and their entertainment. Occasionally, I come across a film which is just totally ridiculous, and yes, I believe I know a lot about this world, but in general, I try not to put up too many roadblocks in the way of my enjoying something. That's what makes me a film buff. (Thank you, God.)

I havent gotten to see the original, but the remake is one of the best movie of 07 IMO

Don't mind at all! Glad to find someone willing to discuss a movie instead of just saying, "Well, I liked it!"

Good choice! But just think about the slow development of the story line in Open Range, all of the conversatons and interplay that developed the characters and built suspense to the one final shootout vs. the odd gimmicks like the Gatling gun and the "Hand of God" pistol and the "disposable" cast members like the bounty hunter, the doc and guy-stabbed-with-fork that clutter 3:10
in place of true character development via plot and performance. I liked the slow-moving Open Range and original 3:10 to Yuma made by people who know the Western genre from an MTV music video.

I also got the feeling that the filmmakers didn't care, but why didn't they care? When did not caring become something good? I could understand it if they were trying for something new or daring, but I see no evidence of that. The run to the train station was like modern shootouts in "The Gauntlet" or humpteen other modern cops and robbers chaise films with an unlimited number of people with unlimited firepower and ammunition turning buildings into matchsticks.

I knew that the film was nominated for an oscar for best score or something like that and therefore was disappointed that the music at times almost drown out dialogue instead of being in the background.

That's part of the problem, in my opinion. The film "calls for"--in fact it damn right demands--suspension of belief to bridge over the gaps in the plot. I can go along with suspension of belief if the film wins me over and gets me to work with it to enhance the mood. But first it has to have a heck of a story that carries me along. I didn't get that from this remake.

I get the feeling that the gun and the trained horse that responds to whistles both had a bigger part in the first draft of the remake but most of it got left on the cutting room floor. First we get a brief reference to a gun called "The Hand of God." Then much later in the movie we get a brief glimpse of the pistol with a very bright and untarnished cross screwed onto the surface of the pistol's handgrip. "Hand of God. Cross. Hmm, this must be the gun." But what is important about it?
I've read a lot of history about the West and gunfighters. HickoK carried his pistols stuck inside a silk sash around his waist. Earp had a waxed leather pocket in a overcoat that served as a holster for a pistol. John Wesley Hardin wore two shoulder-holsters under his coat. Some filed off the end sight so it wouldn't catch as they pulled it out. Some sawed off part of the pistol's barrel so they could pull it faster or hide it in a pocket. Some wired back the trigger so all they had to do was to thumb back the hammer and let it drop on the shell. I've heard of gunmen doing all sorts of things to improve the quckness of their draws, but I never ever heard of anyone screwing something into the handgrip--especially something that might cut or scratch the gunman's hand or otherwise interfere with his hold on the gun.

Plus there was no tarnish to the brash cross, no wear at all, nothing to indicate it had been held even once, much less numerous times. And how do we jump from Mama abandons him in a train station (or whereever) reading the Bible to a pistol called the Hand of God? Who has ever named a pistol anyway? (And if his mommy abandoned him so carelessly, why does he later tell Peter Fonda "Even badmen love their mothers"? There are just too many gimmicks bouncing around in this remake.

Here's where we differ most profoundly, I think. Evans's whole goal is to get Wade on the train. That's all he's being paid for. Doesn't even have to go to Yuma with him; just put him on the 3:10. If Wade steps aboard that train, Evans has earned his money even if Wade cross the aisle and steps off the train on the other side. Unfortunately Evans forgot that his other important personal chore is surviving to spend the money he's just earned. So Wade steps on the train and Evans apparently thinks the job is over, forgetting about Wade's gang who then proceeds to shoot him in the back. If Evans ever made a last request of Wade, I must have forgotten it. In the original film, when they get to the train, Evans is standing behind Wade with a sawed off shotgun and they're both facing Charlie and the rest of the gang. If the shooting starts, Wade's in a crossfire, so it's in his best interest to get on that train, even if it means saving Evans in the process. Besides, in the 1957 original, Evans saves Wade from the brother of the stagecoach driver who breaks into the hotel room and tries to shoot Wade, so in the code of the West, Wade owes a life for a life. In the remake, Wade saves the posse from the Indians, so there's no obligation to Evans, and no reason for Wade to like him or his kid, who he had already told that, if Wade had a gun in the railroad tunnel, he'd have killed them all. So why would Wade feel obligated to do something for Evans, who's deader than a mackrel, or care if he "honors" the boy's father or not? Doesn't ring true to me. It's like you've been watching Wade as a snake and in the last minute of the show he turns into a cute widdle bunny!

I understand that the whistled horse following the train means Wade plans to escape from the train before he even gets to Yuma--or before he even gets too far from Contention--how long can a horse running on rough ground keep up with a steam engine without tiring or falling and breaking a leg? So does it make a difference if Wade jumps on the horse say a mile from town instead of just getting off the train and onto the horse there at Contention?

But what really bothers me is how did the horse get there in the first place? I'm assuming the horse was Wade's all along, else how would Wade know it would come when he whistled? So the horse must have been in Bisbee when Wade is caught. And Wade is then taken out of town on the stage. So who get's Wade's horse? Do the guys going out to Evans' ranch ride their own horses? Or does the guy who will take Wade's place in the coach ride Wade's horse, just so Wade will have his own comfortable horse on the ride to Contention? Mighty thoughtful of the guy toward such a multiple killer! Does anyone remember what color horse Wade was riding on the road to Contention? And then there's that part where Wade escapes Evans only to get caught by the evil lawman at the railroad tunnel. Again, what happens to Wade's horse while they're beating up on him? Do they keep it there handy for his eventual escape? And is that the horse that Wade escapes on? Finally, they get to Contention. Again, what happens to Wade's horse? Do they put all of the horses in a barn near the hotel, sort of like valet parking at modern hotels? Or does some take it all the way down to the railroad station and tie it to the hitching rack there and then that person walks back to the hotel? But if he's tied to the hitching rack, how does he get free to follow the train? Just another piece of business thrown in helter-skelter. Leaving it out wouldn't have hurt the film; throwing it in is just another artificial item to underline that Wade won't get to Yuma.

You know, I didn't even recognize Peter Fonda until they ran the closing credits.Larwd, time sure hasn't been good to him! They should have gotten Dennis Hopper instead--Hopper would have upstaged the whole outlaw gang and posse! But I still say the only point of that character was to sit up the doctor's joke about finally having a patient he could talk to After that, all that was left was for Crowe to dispose of him by dropping him off a cliff like a used kleenex. We don't know anything about him other than he's a bounty hunter "under contract" to the Pinkerton Private Detective agnecy (a strange concept for a Western) and he and Wade knew each other in the past. As for Wade, we know he's a talented amateur artist; his father was killed in a confrontation over a drink of whiskey; his mother gave him a Bible to read when she abandoned him; and he claims to be the worst member of the gang or else he couldn't control them. There's just too little there for point-counterpoint.

I agree with you that Wade's violence is awfully random. Did killing his own gang make any sense to you? I mean, if he formed some loyalty to Evans while a prisoner in such a short period, wouldn't he have an even stronger bond with the rest of the gang who he had known much longer and who had put their lives on the line to try to rescue him? Killing them when supposedly on his way to prison just made no sense to me.

I too thought Crowe's hat was "cute" but it would never work in the Texas sun and I sure wouldn't wear it to a rodeo.

So elaborate all ready! What did you like best about the movie? I'm not going to attack your opinion--you're in the majority; I think most of the folks in this forum liked that movie. I'm just interested in finding out why. What was it about this movie that really spoke to you, as it were, or that you found most entertaining. And what kind of films do you like, anyway, that made this "one of the best of 2007"? What are your other choices for the year. Like I said, I think it reflects changes in society over the last 50 years--drive-by shootings, car chases, urban warfare, fast-moving with all the action of a MTV-music video. Whatcha think?

You'll probably laugh, but I think of myself as a film buff, too! The main difference is that I'm probably much more picky about things than you or most other people. I don't mind a film being totally ridiculous if it works that way. But I think really good films are very rare compared to all of the Porky's and slasher films and car-chases that Hollywood runs out of its assembly line. That doesn't make me right and you wrong, however. Maybe you see something in the 3:10 remake that just blew past me.

Since you're one of the apparently few people in this forum who has seen both versions, how would you compare them? What do you think were the strong points and weak points of each? On what do you and I disagree or, perhaps, agree?

My picks for best movies of 2007 were No Country for Old Men, The Bourne Ultimatum, and 3:10 To Yuma. I'm not sure what it is exactly that i liked so much, i guess it was the great story of a man trying to win the respect of his son, and an outlaw coming to terms with him self. That as well as great acting over what i thought was the best score of the year as well made for a movie i really enjoyed.

As for what kind of films i like, there's a wide variety. I love well written but not too sappy dramas, i love action movies with mindless violence for an hour and a half, i love action movies with a good theme them (ala First Blood), i love brainless dirty comedies (Clerks and similar movies), and i love movies that really make you think, especially Blade Runner. (which is my favourite movie of all time) I'm also a Coen Brothers fan, and right now i really love "spaghetti" westerns. As you can see im very diverse :P

I enjoyed the movie overall.
Here are some random comments.

• I love trains. I enjoyed the smoke and the sounds the train made.
• The clothes the actors wore, and the sets and accoutrement's all seemed very accurate to the Old West.
• The film was extremely violent. I enjoy watching war movies, but this film was to me, beyond Private Ryan. Whew.
• I felt stress when the bad guys chased after the wagon that had the money in it, and was defended by the Gatling gun.
• The movie reminded me that life can be very difficult and violent.
• Would I watch it again? Yes.

__________________
"If you can't be funny be interesting."
Harold Ross

Okay, you like spaghetti westerns, and there are a couple of steals from spaghetti westerns. One in the strange looking, strangely dressed outlaw gang; I always thought Italian producers must scour the country to dredge up the ugliest or just plain strange looking people for their films; always thought that was among the most interesting aspects of their films. You see that in A Fistful of Dollars, For a Few Dollars More, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. And to a lesser extent in Once Upon a Time in the West, Duck You Sucker, and the 3:10 remake. All of those films also include a scene where the hero faces 4-5 antagonists, yet is able to pull his gun and shoot them all before any of them can fire a single shot. So there's a couple of elements that you probably like about the remake that are totally missing from the original.

You like action movies with mindless violence or with a good theme. Well, they remade 3:10 into an action movie. The trip from Bisbee to Contention is scarcely shown in the orginal: They leave Evans house at night and in the next scene they're riding into Contention at dawn before anyone is up. I haven't clocked it, but I'd guess that 75-80% of the original is played indoors at (1) the Bisbee bar (2) Evan's house and (3) the Contention hotel. Only 6-7 people shot in the whole original; more than that go down in the stagecoach holdup that opens the remake.

As for "the great story of a man trying to win the respect of his son, and an outlaw coming to terms with him self" I just didn't see that. Doesn't mean you didn't see it but I simply have a different viewpoint. For instance, in both the original and the remake, I don't see a single clue that Wade has had some sort of spiritual awakening and decided to give up his evil ways. In the original, his last line is something like, "I've broken out of Yuma before." He can't tell Evans why he made the jump that helped get them both aboard the moving train without getting shot because I suspect he doesn't really know why he would help anyone. Personally, I think he figures he'd be safer aboard the train than trapped in the middle of a gunfight between Evans and the gang. Of course, in the original, Evans always has the respect of his two sons and his wife, so he has nothing to prove to them. In the remake, the son comes across as a much more adult 14-year-old than the kid in the original, certainly much more cynical. Also, I think the concept of a father having to earn a son's respect is something that is accepted more in modern society than it was in 1957 when the original was filmed. Just so happens that I turned 14 in 1957. My dad was only a little older than that when he dropped out of school to go to work in the Texas oil fields during the Great Depression and then enlisted in the Army Air Corps just a few weeks after the attack on Pearl Harbor. He was very much a part of what we now call The Great Generation. All I had done by age 14 was complete junior high and earn a few Boy Scout badges. Evans is a wounded veteran of the Civil War, in which more Americans died than in all of the wars this country fought before or since. What's his snot-nosed kid done to make it necessary for the father to earn his respect?

I'm glad you enjoyed the movie even though it didn't chime my bells all that much. Crowe can be a good actor: I liked him in Cinderella Man. I didn't dislike him in 3:10. My problems were more with all the extra stuff they tried to cram into what was originally a very simple movie. I must say, however, I wasn't impressed with the guy who played Evans. In the original, when Wade tries to bribe Evans, you can see Van Heflin (as Evans) really thinking about it--you can see the temptation in his eyes. Unfortunately, I never believed a word the new Evans said in the remake and he seemed so emotionless.
I know the remake was nominated for its score, but the only time I noticed the music was when it was drowning out some of the dialogue (the new Evans' weak voice, no doubt! ) in a couple of scenes.
I'd love to have you watch the original and get back to me with your thoughts on that. One of the biggest pluses in the original was the theme song sung by Frankie Lane.

Trains are cool, and one of my favorite scenes in the original is of Charlie Prince and the gang moving through a cloud of steam from the engine toward Wade and Evans, yelling, "Drop, boss, and I'll kill him!" The last scene in the original is of the train moving along a ridge in the rain, with Wade and Evans standing in the open door of a boxcar. You actually see much more of the train in the original.

Except for the cross on the pistol grip and the Gatling gun that I've already fussed about. I still think Wade made a bad choice in hat-wear, but if he wants to risk suntroke, so be it. I had something of a problem with the town sets, too. Both Bisbee and Contention were much smaller with fewer people in the original. It's been a long time since I was last through that area, but isn't that strip of Arizona from Contention to Yuma much more flat than mountainous and therefore less like to need a railroad tunnel? I could be wrong about that, of course.

I agree, Slug. I don't think I've ever before seen a Western movie in which they shot houses to pieces!

after reading this i'm more inclined to see it.

See the remake? The original? Or both? It's great that this debate is stirring up interest in the films--that's what film discussions are supposed to do.

C'mon, Mark--I'm determined to get you back into this conversation. I've talked about so many societal changes that we have today that seemed to affect the 3:10 remake, but then I got to thinking this morning about what the world was like back in 1957 when I first saw the original and how the society of that day was packaged by Hollywood into that film.

Okay, 1957--the men and women who enlisted or were drafted in their late teens and early 20s to fight the Axis back in 1941-1945 were mostly in their 30s in 1957 with a shared history of a period in which it was important for every citizen to do his duty for his community. On top of that, there were people who were drafted to fight the Korean War in 1950-1953. So practically every family in the US in 1957 had one or more family members who who had fought in at least one of those two wars or who had since been drafted to serve in the "Peace Time" military standing guard on the frontiers of freedom all around the world. So like I said, people generally accepted more readily back then the idea that it's a person's duty to protect society, so it didn't seem at all odd when Van Heflin says the town drunk died trying to bring Ben Wade to justice so it's up to him to finish the job. Plus in 1957, America had never been defeated in war (although a lot of folks weren't sure what happened in Korea), there were no Miranda warnings to criminals, not so many or such long delays before execution of sentences--in short, not so many society-inflicted self-doubts or self-analysis or self-hatred for getting your heel shot off by friendly fire.

Also in 1957, people still went to movies as a family--dad, mom, and their 2.6 kids. Films still were made for the whole family back then rather than targeting males ages 16-26 (or whatever demographic they use.) Back then, the movie industry's biggest competion was from TV; personal computers and video games were unheard of, as was their generated demand for more action. 1957 was a slower period of time before space travel and that too is reflected in the fewer shootouts or chases in the original, and more of two men talking to each other.

So it was almost a completely different mind-set back then, before Vietnam, before protests and mass marches, before the return of an all-volunteer military service that protected most US citizens against the danger of dying in uniform in some foreign country. I'm not saying this country was perfect or even a better place back in the 1950s (look at segregation!), but it was different, especially to the degree that people were more inclined, if necessary, to take armed action to protect society. Today we march for a better environment, write a check to support the cause and maybe even plant a tree--not much that really puts us at risk.

Is it possible, too, that right or wrong we had a more uniform sense of identity back in 1957? Certainly the '50s are remembered as a period of conformity for most US residents living in the cookie-cutter housing of suburbia. Post-war trauma was likely just as bad or worse after WWII as after Vietnam, but it was swept under the rug with excuses like "Uncle George started drinking when he was in the Army" like it was a bad habit picked up away from home, not that what happened to him in the Army caused him to start drinking. It's possible that ex-solders felt guilty about their wounds or lack of frontline participation in WWII and the Civil War, but in 1957, there was less talk of trying to do something to erase that guilt as motivates Evans in the remake.

I think it's interesting to look at the original and the remake in terms of the society of the times in which each film was made. I'm no expert of course, so I may be 100% wrong, but I'd like to get your and others' takes on the differences in the two movies. Having grown up in the '50s, I see that era differently from those of you who have been born since then, and the younger movie fans I'm sure have a different perspective toward the remake.