I just watched the movie and hollywood had to do it again. They couldn't make a movie without them dropping the F-bomb a couple of times. That ticked me off. Other than that the movie was pretty good. It's been a long time since I've seen the original so I can't tell you how close it followed.

Just thought I would let ya'll know about it.

George

Hi George (and anyone else on here),

Thanks for posting about 3:10 to Yuma. I've been very remiss, as I've intended to post my review of this movie and never got around to it.

To start out, as they say, it's a good thing that everyone has their own opinion so that each new movie/book/song, or what-have-you, might have an audience.

My opinion of 3:10 to Yuma was different from yours, George. I will start out by telling what I liked about it. I really enjoyed the score. Great old-fashioned Western style music for the most part. A soundtrack I would probably like to have to listen to while writing. For the most part I enjoyed the outfitting and the firearms. I don't remember any huge glaring errors. And I thought the casting of Bale, his wife and son, and Peter Fonda, was pretty good, although I still enjoy the movies where people are a little better kept. Christian Bale was sweaty and dirty and probably very realistic, but it's nice to see a clean hero once in a while. Also, I'm not a huge fan of Russell Crowe and can't really envision him in a Western role.

That was pretty much the extent of what I liked about the movie. Now let me preface the rest of this by saying that the original 3:10 to Yuma, starring Van Heflin and Glenn Ford, was one of my favorite Westerns and still is. THe ending was a little too easy, but I found that too easy ending far more believable than the one they put across in the remake.

They drastically changed the original story by Elmore Leonard even more than the first movie did, and this time they did not do it justice. The ending was very unsatisfactory, whereas the first movie made you happy and satisfied. The good guy had triumphed. I won't spoil the ending, but then, when Russell Crowe began shooting everyone at the very end, I was entirely put off. I did not find this believable in the slightest. There was no reason why this man would have done this, nor any reason why he should have, after all the vast loyalty his men had shown to him.

Christian Bale, a man with one fake leg, was very unbelievable running just as fast through town as Crowe and leaping from roof to roof. I am very big on a Western's being believable, and they shot far wide of the mark on this one. Again, and maybe even more so, when the slimiest villain in the movie shot Peter Fonda's character in the gut from up close. There is no way Fonda would have survived this wound in that day and age, and certainly not to be doctored, bandaged, and riding again within three hours. This was probably the most blatant case I've ever seen in any Western of unbelievably miraculous healing. He would have been so full of infection in a matter of hours that he could not have functioned. He would have been bed-ridden, and in a matter of days or weeks he would have died from such a wound.

The number of Hollywood-style gunfights thrown into the movie, even by itself, would cause me to have no particular desire to see it again. To see a movie the caliber of last year's Miracle at Sage Creek made for probably a hundredth the price of "Yuma" but a hundred times the movie is not a very favorable comment on Hollywood in my opinion. Also, like George, I was very disappointed but not at all surprised, that Hollywood felt they needed to throw in the seemingly requisite F-word once again.

I have often heard people say, "No matter how bad it is at least it's a Western, and as such we need to support it and show Hollywood we want more." I have a very different opinion on this subject. I would much rather go back and watch a Jimmy Stewart, Clint Walker, Gregory Peck, Paul Newman or John Wayne western than watch a new movie simply because they call it a Western. THey also called Brokeback Mountain a Western. To me there is something sort of sacred about a Western, and they should honor the subject or stay out of it. I am one who would go back and watch Van Heflin and Glenn Ford a hundred times in the original 3:10 to Yuma than watch Crowe's version even one more time.

The making of a great Western movie is an art that unfortunately seems to be almost lost. Even in one of my recent favorites, Tombstone, they threw in that all-needed F-word, and Unforgiven was way too dark and vicious for my taste. (THis is another case where a movie of the same name, Burt Lancaster's The Unforgiven, was far better than the new one.) While not a Kevin Costner fan for the most part, I really enjoyed Dances with Wolves, especially the uncut version which didn't try so hard to whitewash the Sioux Indians and also showed the vicious things they sometimes did. I also enjoyed Open Range. And as far as Westerns, Lonesome Dove, while stealing much from real-life but fictionalized characters, was a tremendous work, and I think Robert Duvall is one of the best things we have going for Westerns right now.

I guess this is my treatise on the Western. I am all for making Westerns. I love realism and authenticity, but not if Hollywood is going to insist that part of that realism and authenticity is the inclusion of so much vulgarity and filth that it takes away from the movie.

By the way, this is one HUGE thing in the favor of 3:10 to Yuma. They did not stoop to the so often required sex scene and nudity, and I guess in many Westerns, even today, perhaps that is one place where we have stuck to our roots. I am a red-blooded man, and I find the female form beautiful--don't get me wrong. But I don't think there's any place for that on the screen. I feel it is far too important to bring young people into the fold of Western fans to make a movie that keeps them out of the theaters.

THat's enough from me. I hope my review doesn't offend anyone. As I started out to say, I'm glad each person has their own views, but these are simply mine. One might say I'm a bit narrow-minded. When it comes to certain things, I would say that's very true.

Kirby

Kirby,

Actually, your opinion on the movie was not all that different from mine. You did point out some things that I didn't pick up. Anyway, I'm glad you posted your review because you actually put into words what you are tinking a lot easier than me.

Let's just hope the next western is a lot better!

George

Dear Friends and KIRBY FANS,
I wanted to make a few comments about the NEW WESTERNS and I have copied Kirby’s post just to make it easier to add stuff. Kirby I hope that is okay with you……. DELL

To start out, as they say, it's a good thing that everyone has their own opinion so that each new movie/book/song, or what-have-you, might have an audience. And I agree wholehearted.

Since I have not been to see the new version of 3:10 to Yuma, I can’t comment on this movie.

Now let me preface the rest of this by saying that the original 3:10 to Yuma, starring Van Heflin and Glenn Ford, was one of my favorite Westerns and still is.

I agree with Kirby about the original. It was/is a great WESTERN.



Christian Bale, a man with one fake leg, was very unbelievable running just as fast through town as Crowe and leaping from roof to roof. I am very big on a Western's being believable, and they shot far wide of the mark on this one. Again, and maybe even more so, when the slimiest villain in the movie shot Peter Fonda's character in the gut from up close. There is no way Fonda would have survived this wound in that day and age, and certainly not to be doctored, bandaged, and riding again within three hours. This was probably the most blatant case I've ever seen in any Western of unbelievably miraculous healing. He would have been so full of infection in a matter of hours that he could not have functioned. He would have been bed-ridden, and in a matter of days or weeks he would have died from such a wound.

AND I’ll venture that anyone shot that way today and immediately put in hospital under a doctors care with all the sterile equipment and antibiotics wouldn’t be up and traveling even in three days, let alone three hours.

The number of Hollywood-style gunfights thrown into the movie, even by itself, would cause me to have no particular desire to see it again. To see a movie the caliber of last year's Miracle at Sage Creek made for probably a hundredth the price of "Yuma" but a hundred times the movie is not a very favorable comment on Hollywood in my opinion. Also, like George, I was very disappointed but not at all surprised, that Hollywood felt they needed to throw in the seemingly requisite F-word once again.

AND WESTERNS are not the only movies that are ruined by adding the F-word.

BY the way……….. Anybody out there know when the F-word became a word used in daily life? What I mean is was it used during the 1800’s? As I grew up in the late 1940’s and through the 1950’s I didn’t hear it used except just as a way to impress “friends” that we knew it. But didn’t dare use it around older folks. And I didn't hear my folks friends use it much either.

I have often heard people say, "No matter how bad it is at least it's a Western, and as such we need to support it and show Hollywood we want more." I have a very different opinion on this subject. I would much rather go back and watch a Jimmy Stewart, Clint Walker, Gregory Peck, Paul Newman or John Wayne western than watch a new movie simply because they call it a Western. They also called Broke back Mountain a Western. To me there is something sort of sacred about a Western, and they should honor the subject or stay out of it. I am one who would go back and watch Van Heflin and Glenn Ford a hundred times in the original 3:10 to Yuma than watch Crowe's version even one more time.

And since I haven’t seen the new one I’ll have to take George and Kirby’s word that it is not as good as the original. I still like the old BLACK and WHITE ½ hour westerns that I grew up with as a teenager. Broke Back Mountain might have been filmed in the west and even had Horses, cows and sheep in it but to me it was not a western.

The making of a great Western movie is an art that unfortunately seems to be almost lost. Even in one of my recent favorites, Tombstone, they threw in that all-needed F-word, and Unforgiven was way too dark and vicious for my taste. (This is another case where a movie of the same name, Burt Lancaster's The Unforgiven, was far better than the new one.)

Unforgiven was indeed a dark movie. It was almost hard to follow the plot in a place or two.

While not a Kevin Costner fan for the most part, I really enjoyed Dances with Wolves, especially the uncut version which didn't try so hard to whitewash the Sioux Indians and also showed the vicious things they sometimes did.

I also like Dances with Wolves.

I also enjoyed Open Range. And as far as Westerns, Lonesome Dove, while stealing much from real-life but fictionalized characters, was a tremendous work, and I think Robert Duvall is one of the best things we have going for Westerns right now.

Yes I think Robert Duval has been a good thing for WESTERNS. One thing that always bothers me in westerns, is the “BIG STAMPEDE” from the horse corral or the stock pens.
Most of the time, unless it was just a temporary thing, Horse corrals were built: Horse high, Bull tough, and Hog tight. Same way with stock pens. Those ranchers that took the time to build them didn’t want to have to redo the work. And they didn’t want to take a chance of being a foot if the horses got out or having to resort the cows. But Hollywood needed some action I suppose.

I guess this is my treatise on the Western. I am all for making Westerns. I love realism and authenticity, but not if Hollywood is going to insist that part of that realism and authenticity is the inclusion of so much vulgarity and filth that it takes away from the movie.

Now we all know that SEX was a part of the old west. But I don’t need to know every detail about what the hero did with his sweetheart. Or the Villain did with the women they are holding for ransom. Why not treat it similar to what the Sundance Kid did in the Movie Butch Cassidy and the Sundance kid?

By the way, this is one HUGE thing in the favor of 3:10 to Yuma. They did not stoop to the so often required sex scene and nudity, and I guess in many Westerns, even today, perhaps that is one place where we have stuck to our roots. I am a red-blooded man, and I find the female form beautiful--don't get me wrong. But I don't think there's any place for that on the screen. I feel it is far too important to bring young people into the fold of Western fans to make a movie that keeps them out of the theaters.