Stupid, stupid, stupid!!! - 3:10 to Yuma (1957) Discussion

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] brucedgo 16 years ago

thanks for the post, mgtbltp.

I see your logic about saving his life. That has to be the explanation. Although it seems like if saving his life was a big deal, Wade should have shown some kind of emotional response at the time it happened. I don't think Glen Ford ever did anything in this movie except smile. Kind of weird actually.

... sawed-off shotgun tied around the prisoners neck under his chin with escorters finger on the trigger...

Wow, I was thinking of something very similar to that myself. I haven't seen that other film, though. It just occurred to me as more effective. Maybe it would also have the effect (assuming it was a touchy trigger) of explaining why Ford followed him around so closely.

That's What I'd Call the far worse Remake.

Are you saying the new version is bad?

Take care,

"The more you drive, the less intelligent you are"
-- Repo Man

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] brucedgo 16 years ago

thanks, mgtbltp. Guess I'll pass on any more of these 3:10 series
The TV previews looked all right and I like Russell Crow, but plausibility is something I pretty much need in anything except some comedies.

Take care,
Bruce

"The more you drive, the less intelligent you are"
-- Repo Man

reply

[–] Dambala 16 years ago

the remake have a bunch of unbelievable scenes just like the original, but in the new one it's made clear when and why Wade wanted to make sure Evans succeed. Also many other scenes are handled better like the scenes in the beginning when the gang was in Brisbee (particularly that whole story with the barmaid) and the ending, imo. On the other hand some parts were better or more convincing in the original like the story of Evans family's struggle to keep their ranch.
I'd suggest you watch the remake, it's different than the original in some ways.

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] DontBogartMe 15 years ago

I'll watch at least the ending of the sequel which was really botched in the original. That Hollywood "feel-good" ending had Glenn Ford voluntarily returning to territorial prison. His reason...that he escaped from prison before...is almost nonsensical. In that hellhole, you could be beaten or even worse the first night back! Also, what of Heflin's family? As the train passes their buckboard, Van waves bye-bye to them, perhaps for the last time. Didn't Van realize his family would be unprotected, at the mercy of the surviving gang members out for revenge?

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] DontBogartMe 15 years ago

Van Heflin's character never would have left town leaving his family unprotected at the mercy of Glenn Ford's gang.

reply

[–] rixrex 11 years ago

You and most of the other domwitted posters obviously don't understand this film. It's above your heads so just forget about it.

-----
The Eyes of the City are Mine! Mother Pressman / Anguish (1987)

reply

[–] dma-maillist 11 years ago

I just finished watching this on TV. I had already seen the remake but forgot about the ending. I believe the original is superior.

Someone here wrote about Glenn Ford smiling throughout the movie. I wouldn't quite call it smiling, maybe more like a self-satisfied smirk.

When the ending came with what happens just at the train, it did kind of bother me, thinking it was pretty convenient, or implausible, as some would say. But reflecting upon it, I think the ending is actually quite plausible and ironic.

For the entire film, Wade thinks he's getting away. His smirk signifies serene confidence. One by one his predictions come true. People abandon Evans. When he says he likes to do things the easy way, he's actually telling the truth. All along he had been telling Wade what was going on, trying to get Wade to just give up since it was futile. He even upped his offer from $400 (double what he was supposed to get from Butterfield) to $7,000. It was the easy thing to do and he was confident that it Evans would bend.

But, when his wife came to the hotel, Wade knew that Evans wasn't going to give in. Evans' almost fatalistic talk to his wife about the boys being proud of having a father who got Wade on the train, implying that he would be dead convinced Wade that Evans wasn't going to give up, although Wade still tried.

When Wade finally exhausted all time, he knew that if he didn't get on the train, Evans would kill him. Sure, Evans would be killed, too but what interested Wade was Wade's survival.

And that's the ironic part. All this time, he's been telling Evans to take the easy way out by letting Wade go. Evans doesn't. So, Wade took the easy way out for himself by giving up on trying to get away from Evans.

The talk on the train was just Wade being serenely confidant that he'd get out of Yuma. His talk about owing Evans for saving his life was true, but it wasn't the reason for his getting on the train. He simply got on the train because he was out of options and accepted it with the relative calm he had been displaying all along.

Once he gets out of Yuma, everything would be square with he and Evans. There'd be no revenge. After all, Evans did save his life.

This is where the original was superior. Bale never really conveyed the conviction that Heflin did so when Crowe gets on the train (I think he did, at least) it seemed more out of pity for Bale than self-preservation for Crowe.

Actually, there are many ways the original was superior to the remake but it's not important, now.

So, that's my take on this all.

reply

[–] Jason_Radley 8 years ago

Evans' almost fatalistic talk to his wife about the boys being proud of having a father who got Wade on the train...

I confess this part confused me, as it did his wife, because it struck such a discordant note straight after Dan's 'a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do' justification for going through with taking Wade in.

reply

[–] cvalance 11 years ago

By engaging in name-calling (domwitted?), you automatically lose your argument.

reply

[–] kylenbecker 16 years ago

The Company that made the film, "Relativity Media," should have been a big tip off that you would probably see some implausible sequences in the film.

That being said, I had a lot more fun with this movie suspending my disbelief and simply looking at the film from a philosophical point of view. What kind of questions does the movie raise? I'll give you some examples.

In the absence of a system of law and order, does justice become equivalent with revenge?

When the train seeks to run Dan off his land, men in town speak of the public good and specifically "sometimes a man has to be big enough to know how small he is." Without individual rights as the baseline from which law and order proceeds, a man can get crushed by such utilitarian arguments - and this is clearly injustice. What is right is that Dan has his property and a family that he seeks to love and protect. What is wrong is politically or economically expedient claims for robbing Dan of his property. This is self-evident, but perhaps unintentional.

What breaks the cycle of violence in the end? At first it seems that Wade will break the cycle of violence by accepting justice and the death penalty. But it is Dan's son refusing to kill Wade that seems to be the violence ender.

At the end, when Wade steps onto the train, can a man impose justice on himself?

The bigger picture here for me is the context of international relations. The world is "anarchic" and "self-help" just like the Old West. Can the U.S. restrain itself the way Wade restrains himself? What can break the cycle of violence? This being said, I do not assume the U.S. is the cause of all the world's problems, and I am not a left-wing pacifist, but someone who would like to see war disappear as a way men settle disputes amongst themselves.

These are but a few questions. True, the revisionist tact the film-makers take is nonsensical, but it can be interesting if one ponders the implications of WHY the film is nonsensical.

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] socom8271 16 years ago

So uhmm... you were alive back then and knew how people and lawmen thought. We have corrupt lawmen now... so ... come on.

reply

[–] jeangabin1 13 years ago

To have Wade show an emotional response at the time Dan saved his life would have diminished the surprise factor when he relented and let Dan him take him to jail.

reply

[–] willywilly 16 years ago

I vote still a bit stupid. Okay the score with Evans is believable to a degree but what about Wade's gang? How many died to come into town and save him and he just deserts them, even watching Evans shoot another one from the train as they depart.

reply

[–] jeangabin1 12 years ago

bear in mind wade shot one of his own men who was being used as a human shield during the stagecoach robbery. maybe loyalty isn't his strong suit as regards his gang.

reply

[–] dalldorfw 13 years ago

"Ganted it could have been made more clearer, and if the walk to the train was handeled more like the walk to the train in "Last Train From Gun Hill" where The guy escorting the prisoner has a sawed-off shotgun tied around the prisoners neck under his chin with escorters finger on the trigger, that would have been more believable."

But that would be missing the point. Wade WILLINGLY jumps onto the train with Evens; that's what makes the ending such a surprise and that's what makes this movie so much more memorable than 'LTFBH.'

reply

[–] weblen 16 years ago

In my opinion, the remake is nothing but gore and bad taste. It is a portrait of madmen, and the worst of them (Russel Crowe) gets the accolades. The ending is ambivalent. And the film is chock full of gory violence for nothing more than violence's sake.

If you want reality, it's in the remake. Blood and guts and madmen run amuk in it. There is no character to identify with.

The remake is a huge box office hit. This is the most disturbing thing. People find this kind of fare entertaining! I do not! Shall we revert to spectacles like throwing Christians to the lions? How about public executions? The inexperienced like this gore. Mankind has not changed in 2 millenia!

The remake is sick! The original, despite it's flaws, at least has one character that shows some nobility and class. You can learn something from the original. You'll learn nothing from the remake!

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] KindredSouls 16 years ago

The remake vastly improves on the ending. Dan Evans at least gets shot a couple of times before he gets killed by four bullets in the end from Charlie Prince.
And Ben Wade gets shot once too I think, because his sleeve has blood on it.
IMO the remake is heads and tails above the original.
Not everyone likes it though, to each their own.

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] dragon_x 16 years ago

PURE

reply

[–] hugh750 16 years ago

I agree even though i never saw the remake (the remakes are never as good as the originals), the original 3:10 to yuma was good.
even though it came out 9 years before i was born (1966)

reply

[–] ScarletPimpernel64 16 years ago

If you've ever read the short story the film is based on, the ending is the same.

That's part of the charm of the story.

"So what else is on your mind besides 100 proof women, 90 proof whiskey, and 14 karat gold?"

reply

[–] stephen-morton 15 years ago

Actually, the ending in the short story is NOT the same. In the story, Wade (called by a different name) does drop to the ground when Charlie tells him to, and Dan (also different name) has to shoot. He gets Charlie with the shotgun, and another with his Colt. They aren't all just standing in front of him, but some hiding behind a shed. Then he grabs Wade and digs his pistol in his side and they jump on the train.

The story's only about 20 pages long, and it starts when they get into Yuma. There aren't any background details, so the movie had to expand quite a bit, then the remake expanded on the movie. Wade does end up with a bit of respect for Dan, but definitely not enough to go to jail for him.

I agree with many of the criticisms of unbelievability. These are much worse in the remake, IMO. In that one, Wade kills several members of the posse with his bare hands, and they STILL don't even tie his hands behind his back, much less tie him to his horse or gag him. Nevertheless, I got some decent entertainment out of both movies. The remake is much bigger, longer, and more exciting, but I like the original's smallness and elegance. The original also has excellent cinematography and mise en scene, something the new one sacrifices for fast cuts and gritty close-ups. I think the old one should have had a bigger final shoot-out though--it's even bigger in the short story, and it feels a little too cheerful and simple at the end. I also was annoyed by the way Dan's wife came in near the end with really sentimental music, I thought that was just silly.

In my final opinion: The remake is far more exciting, but less coherent. The original is a better film when judged alone, but it has obvious lackings when compared to the remake. Both pretty good, but flawed movies.

reply

[–] Gheelnory 10 years ago

stephen-morton wrote:

... I also was annoyed by the way Dan's wife came in near the end with really sentimental music ...

That's my biggest problem with this movie: the score is very intrusive at times, particularly with the overly-sentimental themes played while Dan's family members are on screen. The volume and relentlessness of the score at those times seemed insultingly manipulative.

Other than that: great movie. The Elmore Leonard touch is so timeless and unmistakable.

reply

[–] Stefan____ 15 years ago

I agree, just saw it last night and was hoping for something much better.

I mean, why sit there on the bed watching the guy when they could have simply tied him to the bed??? Seems far simpler to me. Geez, they didn't even put his handcuffs behind his back? Was that done to allow him to ride a horse?
And then serving him dinner with the family, while at any minute the gang could come and kill them all. Then later, nobody thinks to check who the drunk is. I mean, lots of obvious things.

Yes, some very odd things. Even the outlaw himself stopping in town to chat up the bar maid instead of leaving promptly at th ebeginning. I guess that was to portray his self-assuredness.

There were some clever bits though, so it's too bad they didn't fix the holes.

reply

[–] Gloede_The_Saint 15 years ago

I don't see any reason why any of this is bad. It's not suspension of disbelief at all. It's how it would actually happen. If you have a problem with that I suppose I have to call you dumb. Of course Glenn Ford would run along with him, if not he would be shot, and why tie him up. How would they get anywhere? He didn't have any guns, the good guys had. The ending is a bit unbelivable but not too much. It's obvious that Ford felt compassion for Heflin and wanted him to survive and as he said himself there's no trouble breaking out of Yuma.

Anyways the remake is worse. There the bad guy actually shoots his own men for then to help the good guy onto the train. Now that was a bit silly and unbelievable IMO but both this and the remake are pretty good.

Somebody here has been drinking and I'm sad to say it ain't me - Allan Francis Doyle

reply

[–] Foot_Freakin_Master 15 years ago

gloede I pretty much agree with you. I liked both. I liked the original better. I liked the music, the atmosphere, the degree of subtlety. Maybe the ending, and another scene are too stretch believability. Then again, I have lived 50 years and have seen unbelievability. I think the original was a good psychological western. The remake added some more violence, etc. It lost some of the atmosphere and subtly.

Hey, if Wade was willing ot shoot one of his own men, he probably would have accepted Dan defending himself.

reply

[–] DontBogartMe 15 years ago

No one, particularly Glenn Ford's character, is going to return voluntarily to jail, particularly Yuma prison. Plenty of things can happen to someone in stir, none of them good, before the big break out. Particularly if he has the reputation for breaking out of jail!

reply

[–] freakyfelix 15 years ago

This was a really good western.
I had not much problem with the logic. The stuff about owing Evans for saving his life is just one part of it.

There's a bigger reason, I think.

At the end, Wade sort gains a bigger respect for Evans because he displays he's got some guts and is not a coward. That's the main reason he agrees to go with him and get on the train. Also, he kind of has a soft spot for Evans and his family, seeing as they treated him nice at the dinner even though he was a captive. He doesn't want to make the wife a widow and the kids fatherless. He's not such a bad sort, after all. Great flick.

reply

[–] cvalance 15 years ago

That's not near enough reason to go to prison.

How much did Van Heflin think about his family by leaving town with Glenn Ford? He's safe on the train with his defenseless wife and kids left behind at the mercy of Ford's gang who weren't in a very good mood after being shot up.
Fine movie, dumb ending.

reply

[–] freakyfelix 15 years ago

I see what you're saying, but it didn't bother me. The ending was downright uplifting with the music swelling and the rain coming down. Really those little details didn't bug me.

reply

[–] cvalance 15 years ago

The rain coming down at the end is a minor detail. (It's also kind of funny Hefflin's family stopped their buckboard in the only tiny area where it was raining! You could tell, had they moved 20 feet either way, they would have been bone dry!)

reply

[–] freakyfelix 14 years ago

I still loved the ending. I was the best part of the film, very moving. It's one of the best endings ever, in my humble opinion.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] fredfromsj 9 years ago

Wade demonstrated his own sense of right and wrong through out the movie. Wade shot his own man so he can shoot the driver in order to prevent escalating bloodshed, possibly hurting the passengers and his men. After Wade shot the driver, he asked Butterfield where the driver was from so he can be buried in his home town. Wade held off Evans and his boys from entering the robbery zone, or getting involve after the robbery by taking their horses. He and his gang could have simply eliminate all witnesses. The ending may be surprising but it is definitely not out of bound.

reply

[–] JellyFish19 10 years ago

It had some stupid moments, I found the ending to be extremely corny in particular, with the wife smiling, the protagonist and antagonist waving to her, and to top it all off it starts to rain .

But all in all this is a fine old western, really draws on the suspense. Haven't seen the remake, so I can't compare it, but I heard it's considered better.

reply

[–] marilynnewman 9 years ago

Well, I've not seen either movie, I don't know how I missed Glenn Ford, but I read the book. Basically it showed both men had the same motivation, to make money. Just Glenn was a little more free wheeling. No family was mentioned, and they learned to respect each other at the end.

reply

[–] mdonln 9 years ago

From the start much of the movie seemed completely unrealistic but the end just put it over the top.

It makes no sense Wade's guys rode into town to report the hold up. Did they need a drink that badly? Why wouldn't they just get as far away as possible? By the time the word got out they'd be long gone. For a time I thought maybe they wanted all the men to leave town so they could rob the bank, the saloon, or the train but when it was just to stop there, it made no sense.

While I might buy the idea of Wade deciding to go to Yuma without a struggle, I found it hard to believe he'd let his own men get shot and possibly killed in order to save Dan; especially when the alternative is freedom. I know Dan saved his life but I didn't think any bond had formed between them. If there was, it wasn't well depicted in the movie.

Woman, man! That's the way it should be Tarzan. [Tarzan and his mate]

reply

[–] clement_1 10 years ago

What a FREAKIN ignoramus you are.

reply