Badmovies.org Forum

Dan Evans (Christian Bale) is a Civil War veteran and amputee who is trying desperately to make a living as a rancher.  He is behind in his mortgage and the land lord wants to foreclose on him so he can sell the land to the railroad.  His eldest son thinks he's a coward and even his wife seems to look on him as a failure.

After the landlord burns his barn and runs his cattle off, Dan and his two boys witness a brutal stage robbery while rounding up the cows.  When the robbers see them on the ridge, they are confronted by the infamous Ben Wade (Russell Crowe).  When Dan tells Wade that he only wants his cattle back, Wade lets them go but takes their horses promising to leave them on the road to town.

Later Dan goes to town to confront the landlord only to run into Wade in the saloon.  Wade is captured and the railroad offers $200 for anyone who will help take Wade to the town of Contention to catch the 3:10 train to the Yuma Federal Prison.

Dan volunteers and is joined by the local vet Doc Potter (Alan Tudyk), a bounty hunter named Byron McElroy (Peter Fonda) who was shot during the stage robbery, and the railroad man Mr. Butterfield (Dallas Roberts). They brave indians, Wade's gang, and vengeance seeking railroad men.

Crowe plays Wade as a real charmer, but at the same time is a ruthless killer. Bale is downtrodden and bitter as Dan Evans and sees this as his last chance for redemption in the eyes of his family .  He sums his condition up good when his wife tries to talk him out of the trip.  "I've been standing on one leg for the last three years waiting for God to do me a favor, and he ain't listening."


Like the original version with Van Heflin and Glenn Ford the story ends in a hotel room in Contention waiting on the train.  This is where they come to understand each other.


Look for Ben Foster as Wade's cold blooded second in command Charlie Prince (played in the original by Richard Jaeckel).  In this version he's pretty much a psycho.

If you're familiar with the original and know the ending, this one is a quite a bit more of a surprise.  Let's just say director Jame Mangold didn't cop out on it.

 

You beat me to the draw Trek Geezer. Saw it last night and it's a good Western. Wasn't sure if Russell Crowe could do the Western thing, but he was outstanding as was the "psycho" partner he had. Christian Bale also did ok and the whole story though stretching real human type persona's is never the less a cool encounter between two different people. Crowes character really out does them psychologically even though Bale is wise to it. Didn't realise Peter Fonda played the bounty hunter. (8 out of 10 Stars)  :thumbup: :thumbup:

(http://www.blogdecine.com/images/2007/04/bale%20en%20310%20to%20yuma.jpg)

I too really enjoyed this.  I've never seen the original adaptation, but I don't imagine it being any better than this.  A lot of sequences very thrilling and sometimes a bit intense, and the dynamics between the characters are well done.  It's not at the top of the Western pile by any means, but it's very good and shows that the genre can and should endure.

The main difference in this movie and the original is the trip to Contention. In the original they left to take Wade there and the next scene they were arriving in there.

Here's some of the other differences

Butterfield owned the stage coach line that Wade was robbing

Potter (played by Henry Jones) was the town drunk

Evans son didn't follow them, but his wife shows up near the end of the movie

I won't give away the ending, but I will say I was quite surprised at the way the new one ended

You must not have see The Quick and the Dead, the Sam Raimi western.  It's a lot of fun...

I only recall Gene Hackman, Dicaprio, and Sharon Stone. Didn't know the other guy was Russell Crowe at the time.

No surprise.  He was an unknown at that point. 

***MILD SPOILERS***




Anyway, I enjoyed 3:10 to Yuma.  At first, I was a little confused about Ben Wade's change of personality.  And even after some thought and reading on the subject, I'm still not sure I entirely believe it.  Maybe I'm too used to movies handing it to me on a silver platter.  But after some thought, it does make more sense.  I also thought it was nice to see a movie that doesn't cop out on the ending, as others have mentioned.

Also, while they were entertaining, I couldn't help but be a bit let down by the action scenes.  After seeing the only other major theatrical western lately, Open Range, I was hoping they could beat its climactic shootout - which is one of the best Western shootouts ever put to film.  Didn't quite make it there, but I shouldn't be too surprised as Mangold isn't quite as good with action as Kevin Costner is.  It's hard not to compare this to Open Range, even though they're actually quite different films.  Still, I did like Open Range more overall - though I must say, 3:10 to Yuma has a better ending and better developed lead characters.  Well, perhaps not BETTER....  Maybe more changed over the course of film in an intriguing way.



**END**



Overall, a very solid film.

On a side note, did anyone else see Seraphim Falls just got a DVD release?  I was still waiting for a theatrical release!  What the hell?  I'm going to go rent it tonight...

I'll have to agree that OPEN RANGE was a tad better than 3:10 TO YUMA, but then again they are different stories. Both well worth viewing on the big screen.

I had seen Romper Stomper before The Quick and the Dead so I was kind of bemused to see Hando as a preacher/gunfighter in Dead.  If you haven't seen Romper Stomper, you should check it out because of it's unique and disturbing subject matter (skinheads in Australia) and to see a young Russell Crowe chew scenery.

Back on topic...I wanted to see 3:10 but it got so-so reviews.  I was expecting better with a pretty much All Star cast...I'll probably rent it when it comes out.

others (http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north566.html) were less taken.  aah, what does he know.  frikkin economist, comparisons to Ed Wood are a compliment around here!

Rented this last night and watched it.
It was pretty good!

Right from the beginning it draws you in and you care about most of the characters.
The TV ads say it's the next best western after Unforgiven and I agree with that.

One thing about Crowe's character Wade...
I couldn't really understand why he had the change of heart that he did at the end of the film.
It made much more sense to me after going back near the beginning and listening to James Mangold's commentary.
He explains that Wade just wants to be done with this life of crime he's been living.
Wade would love nothing more than to get out of town and settle down...probably with that woman bartender.

And another thing...
Half of their problems with Wade wouldn't have happened if they had just cuffed his hands behind his back instead of in front. 
Especially after he stabs that guy repeatedly in the neck with a fork.

I rate it 3.5 stars out of 4.
If you're looking for a solid western with great acting, go rent 3:10 To Yuma.   :thumbup:

I finally got around to watching this last night and I really enjoyed it.  The body count was high and there was plenty of action.  It got out of hand towards the end, but who cares, its a western!