MovieChat Forums > 3:10 to Yuma (2007) Discussion > [Rant] Inconsistencies and stupidities m...

[Rant] Inconsistencies and stupidities made me reconsider this movie

posted 13 years ago by seven-rchristie
74 replies | jump to latest

OK. Let me make a little confession. First time I watched it, I liked the movie. So maybe I wasn't too bright. But after reading around a bit, I agree with most of the posters, the plot holes, inconsistencies, plain stupidities made me reconsider my feelings toward this movie. This is a good story done in a very bad manner. Great concept, lousy execution. I don't just want emotions and character development (which is done incorrectly either), I want a REAL PLOT that is believable.

Here are the list of things that made me reconsider:

1) THE CAPTORS DOESN'T SEEM TO WANT TO PACIFY WADE AT ALL

They handcuffs this man hands at the front of his body, not the back. This is plain stupid. We have a man who is an infamous bandit. He robbed 21 coaches and killed lots of people. And you cuff his hands at the front so he can kill people, take a gun and aim them. There are **hundreds** of ways to pacify this guy. How stupid were the captors?

- Handcuff his hands on the back. Have him tied to the horse (face down, tummy to the saddle) and have one man take the horse with him (while also riding a horse).
- Blindfold him.
- Gag his mouth so he wouldn't speak.

After he KILLED one of the captors, are we to believe that the sheriffs at the wild west era are pansies that just hit him?

- Shoot off his fingers
- Shoot off one of his leg
- Again, cuff this guy on the back

We are to believe that law enforcement people that are SMART enough to make a stagecoach bait are not smart enough to cuff this guys hand at the back. Heck, tie ropes all around him and his legs for that matter.

2) WE HAVE A MAN WHO IS MOST DEFINITELY WANTED DEAD OR ALIVE. YES, LET'S TAKE HIM TO YUMA WHERE THERE IS GREAT CHANCE THAT HE WILL ESCAPE AND WE WILL GET KILLED BY THE BANDITS. NO DON'T KILL HIM HERE AND NOW.

We are to believe that law enforcement at wild west are all corrupt, yet one of them believes in court and the law so strongly that he doesn't execute a man on the spot. It's like the law enforcement are all modern politically correct liberal lefties somehow transported to the wild west by some time machine (no wonder all of them are pansies and can't hold a gun, let alone aim them).

At one point, the *beep* law enforcer (that burned the barn) once said 'I say we shoot him right here right now' - NO REPLIES. Yes. That's right, THERE IS NO REASON NOT TO KILL HIM RIGHT THERE RIGHT NOW.

Remember. *This* *is* *the* *wild* *west*. Ever heard of the term 'Wanted dead or alive'?

3) WE OFFER $200 DOLLARS FOR EVERYBODY THAT KILLS A LAW ENFORCEMENT GUARD. YES, $200 FOR ALL OF YOU TO BE AN OUTLAW. AND THE WHOLE CITY FALLS FOR IT (30-40 PEOPLE)

*This* *is* *the* *wild* *west*. And this is the south. Citizens have guns. They loath bandits. It wasn't a small, obscure pirate's cove. It's an effing budding town with railroads. In a time and place where citizens have to fend for themselves against bandits, the whole town chooses to be an accessory to the crime, support the bandits and kill the sheriffs. I agree with they guy that said it, this is like osama bin laden offering 30,000-100,000 dollars to new york citizens to kill a cop - GUARDING AN EFFING TERRORIST.

I'll say no more and quote this amzing post by 32Ford:

You forgot to mention the dumbest part. We are supposed to believe a gang of 7 o outlaws with prices on their heads can ride into a town and sit around in the open on their horses and threaten the town Marshall? In the real west it would have taken about 3 minutes for the towns people to shoot them off their horses and then pose smiling for photos with the bodies while they wait for the reward money to come rolling in.

On top of that,we are supposed to believe one of the gang can shout out to the town that he will pay anybody 200 dollars each for each of the guards they murder,and the people in the town start grabbing their guns to go shoot the deputies and Marshall?

I am a BIG fan of Elmore Leonard,but if he wrote this script he had to have been smoking some super weed when he wrote it because it may be the dumbest damn thing I have ever seen.

4) WE HAVE 7 - YES -SEVEN PEOPLE DOWN BELOW, OMG WE ARE SO AFRAID. SO LET THE BANDIT GO OUT AND SPEAK TO THEM - THE MOST STUPID THING EVER IMAGINED. OH YES, AND DON'T SHOOT THE BANDITS BELOW EITHER.

How many IQs do you have to have, that you keep your prisoner's mouth stuffed rather than let him talk to his homeboys? They don't effing know for sure that he's at the motel for crying out loud.

Have you ever realized why the 7 guys waited instead of just storming inside?

1. The law enforcement guy have height and cover.
2. They are afraid of shooting because they might shoot their boss that they're trying to save. Why do you think they sit down and wait instead of going in?

And the seven guys there, in plain sight, the guys could have separated to different rooms with different vantage points, and starts shooting the below. In *the* *wild* *west* the marshal surrenders. Pathetic. You don't get to be marshals for being pansies, you get to be marshals for being tough.

5) LAW ENFORCEMENT CAN'T SHOOT.

Look, I know bandits at the *wild* *west* are tough. Marshals and sheriffs and bounty hunters and yes, even regular citizens, they are all tough too. In this movie, only bandits can shoot. The others are either afraid of shooting or have allergies with guns. Remember the holdup at the hotel. *No* *bullets* *fired*.

---

Now, the movie has an interesting concept - that the honest-to-the-core bale character could affect wade and his worldview, that they grow together as a character - but it was crudely made. If there was a change of heart in wade's character, it wasn't shown in words, expressions, or any kind of body language. Wade in this movie, let me stress this, is CONSTANTLY CONSISTENT. That's what made the sudden change of heart in the end quite unbelievable.

Many posters made interesting theories on how bale-character influence wade. I appreciate that, it shows some depth in the concept, however it's just not well made. It made this movie a disappointment.

/end rant

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] williamonthefloor 13 years ago

exactly correct. When Charlie Prince was outside the hotel with the rest of the crew, Dan Evans, who apparently is a crack shot, could have dropped his raggedy /\ss on the spot. After Wade killed that guy with the fork, he would have had his HEAD blown off. Taking him to Yuma??? Why? Been there, done that. And he's already ESCAPED TWICE! Were these "lawmen" thinking this was just some kind of dance?

And I agree with you. The townspeople suddenly revealing that the REAL reason that they don't become murderers in ordinary life ISN'T because they are at heart decent people with a sense of right and wrong but because no one's offered them any money to murder people yet.

Get real.

[–] lotsofwordz 13 years ago

Main stupidity no. 1 is to remake a classic. That's just dumb, dumb, dumb.

Main stupidity no. 2 is to make it with Russel Crowe.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] StrayCat1000 13 years ago

Main stupidity no. 2 is to make it with Russel Crowe.

Don't think it's the actors that are at fault...

[–] hza021 13 years ago

Well, the problem with this theory is that none of the people who escorted Wade to Contention were lawmen. They were all hired guns(hired by the railroad guy), or volunteers. And as was said in the movie, they didn't get paid to take him halfway. Or to kill him. Even the Marshall at the end was hired to escort him to the train.

[–] DeepFriedJello 13 years ago

I had to come to IMDB to see if others had the same thoughts as me about this film.

* We'll just leave this murderer alone in the house with the woman, so that he can charm her? Oh, come on!

* They had some sort of armored wagon with a gattling gun, but the drivers and the gun are out in the open?

* The Pinkerton guy had a bullet pulled out of his belly, and the next day is out riding?

* Wade leaps from his horse onto the Pink guy and throws him off the cliff, but you don't secure him any better?

* He kills the guy with a fork, but we still don't secure him?

* I really couldn't figure out the part when Wade goes for a pee, like he really needs to walk 50 yards into the woods, so that he doesn't embarass anyone. Then Evans turns his back to Wade and gets attacked by who? and then the bullets start flying. Evidently there are natives (indians) shooting, but then go away, and don't bother them again?

* What was with those guys tied out on the rocks? A warning from the natives?

* Where they were building the train tunnel, they would rather kill the guys torturing Wade, than let Wade suffer a bit longer?

* Then as the OP mentioned, the whole deal with Charlie prancing into town, and none of the marshals or townfolk popping them.

* Wade looked like he really wanted to get to the train. What was his motivation? He knew that Evan's wouldn't shoot him, or treat him poorly.

* At the end, Wade is in the train behind bars, but then gets out?

* For being a poor dirt farmer/rancher, Evans sure had a fine home.

6 stars is plenty.

I really want to see the original to see if it's this wacky.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] seven-rchristie 13 years ago

> That was a pretty shallow wound.

You don't get shallow wounds from pistols. This has been done in another thread already.

> You can't tie his legs together and expect him to ride. And let's deal with the nonsense of cuffing his hands behind his back. You can't expect him to ride like that either-if the horse put a foot wrong or shied at a rattlesnake, the prisoner could be thrown and killed.

Oh yes, it is really unfortunate that the lawmen were so stupid that they are not acquainted with this invention called 'rope'. If they do, they could just tie him to the horse.

> As was pointed out a time or two, the pay was not for bringing in a dead man.

And this is when it's ridiculous. Wade is a superstar criminal that incurred great financial losses while also a cold blooded killer. In western world, this criminal should be wanted dead or alive, no? I guess politically correct marshals exists at those days too. *Oh noes, wanted dead or alive is too cruel!*

> And there is the problem of calls of nature-you'd either have to uncuff him to let him relieve himself, handle things yourself, or let him mess himself. Sitting in excrement on the horse would cause saddle sores and infection and probably kill the prisoner pretty quickly and again, no pay.

It was a three or four days ride. Do you think 4 days of sitting in your own excrement will kill you? Wade must have been a really weak man then. "Yes, let's just have him freely killing our friends, and possibly killing ourselves - I'd rather die than help that man poop or pee." What wonderful logic you and the marshals have!

> Not sure which movie this was but it wasn't 3:10 to Yuma

Yes it's this movie.

> Any particular reason the good guys should act like savages?

Because it's not the 21st century and it's the wild west? Because politically correct politicians and people don't exist yet? Because he should be wanted dead or alive? Because he will kill you the first chance he got? Because he is a cold blooded murderer? And no, killing a cold blooded murderer is not savage act. What's savage is letting him unsecured (still able to use his both hands) and indirectly letting him kill your friends.

> That's a problem, but it is one that has been exploited in numerous Westerns. Before I could respect this criticism, I really would have to hear a reason why this particular film should be held to a different standard than all the other Westerns which had cowardly townsfolk and lawmen, yet are hailed as great Westerns. High Noon, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence, and The Magnificent Seven come to mind but of course there are many others. 3:10 to Yuma should not, in fact, be criticized on this point when other Westerns are not.

That the marshals go popping frankly still quite believable. That none of the marshals have balls in the movie is not. The most unbelievable part is where citizens (not just one, mind you, pretty much all of them) turn into murderers and assists a criminal the moment Charlie offered money. As I've already said, this is pretty much like Bin Laden offering $200,000 for NY people to kill the cops, guarding a *beep* terrorist, so that the terrorist will be free to terrorize people more.

> Ben's motivation is ambiguous, but it's not that hard to figure out for someone who paid attention to what was going on between him and Dan, instead of looking for plot holes. Ben had a soft spot for Dan and had already saved his life, and Dan had saved him. He also knew he could probably escape from the prison, since he had done it twice before, so he wasn't all that worried about getting on the train.

If Ben's motivation is ambiguous, how could you spell it out in one paragraph? It's your theory, that's all. No character growth from both Ben and Evans along the way at all. The change of heart is too sudden to be believable.

Also, Ben in this movie is not thankful he saved him, you must have gotten that idea by watching the original. He tried to kill Evans at one scene, saying that 'he doesn't want to do this anymore'.

[–] gerrywos 13 years ago

<i>Sitting in excrement on the horse would cause saddle sores and infection and probably kill the prisoner pretty quickly and again, no pay.<i>

LOL are you seriou?death by horse excrement!! I think you are the one talking too much excrement!

[–] lathe-of-heaven 11 years ago

That was a seriously crappy thing to say...

I have over 4000 films, many of them very rare and OOP. I LOVE to trade. PLEASE ASK!

[–] jpkwolf 12 years ago

Very well written post rockingmule. I agree with you. Only plothole I see is Wade getting out after the man in the train already took him in. Atleast it wasn't shown what Wade did to get out again..

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] StrayCat1000 13 years ago

* The Pinkerton guy had a bullet pulled out of his belly, and the next day is out riding?

this one made me laugh... the guy was in his 60s or 70s, got ambushed, attacked, thrown off his ride, landed on the dirt, beat up, shot in the gut, and then out and about the same day!!!

the wild west sure makes senior citizens tough old dudes! lol

[–] dikayakoshka 11 years ago

<<For being a dirt farmer/rancher, Evans sure had a fine home.>>

Just for the record, My grandpa was a dirt poor farmer back in the early 1900s. He built his home (Virginia) with a handsaw and hammer, all by himself. My mother took me back to see it when I was a teenager, and I was surprised after hearing all the stories about how poor they were. The house was beautiful. Two stories, all wood, beautiful front and back porch. It only had two bedrooms and a loft, but I'd love to have that house. The only thing that had been added was a bathroom--maybe an extra bathroom, and they did have one back then. I really don't remember. It's still standing, BTW. Point is, being dirt poor back then didn't mean you had to have a crappy house. Especially if you lived outside of town, and could build it yourself.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] seven-rchristie 13 years ago

> Excellent post, Hza. Even Peter Fonda's character wasn't a lawman-he was a bounty hunter. They all joined up for the money, and there wasn't going to be any money unless they put Ben on the train.

Have you ever heard the term 'wanted: dead or alive'?

[–] riddlebox1789 12 years ago

Have you ever heard of the term "you're sounding like a broken record"?

Wade wasn't wanted dead or alive, he was wanted alive, the dialogue in the movie makes it pretty clear that there's no reward for putting a corpse on the train, your "ever heard of wanted dead or alive?" argument is overused and irrelevant.

Especially considering not everyone back then was wanted dead or alive, some were either wanted both, or one of them, and in some cases, the reward was only given if they were brought in alive.

[–] Zanza8 12 years ago

Have you ever heard of the term "you're sounding like a broken record"? Wade wasn't wanted dead or alive, he was wanted alive, the dialogue in the movie makes it pretty clear that there's no reward for putting a corpse on the train, your "ever heard of wanted dead or alive?" argument is overused and irrelevant.

Well put. This whole dead-or-alive thing is just some fantasy by posters who want something else to complain about in this movie. Since Wade was wanted alive, it has no place on this forum.

http://thinkingoutloud-descartes.blogspot.com/

[–] mgtbltp 12 years ago

Not well put, this whole wanted Alive thing is just some screenwriter fantasy supported by posters who think this was a good remake.

[–] iresheen 11 years ago

Let me get this little point straight. You keep saying "Ever heard of the saying 'Wanted Dead or Alive'?"

This means one of two things:

1. You think that the existence of the saying proves that SOME people were wanted dead or alive. That's fine, but it's a little bit pathetic to therefore assume that this particular Bandit was wanted dead or alive. Just because some people, or even most were wanted dead or alive, it doesn't mean that it applied to every case - and it is therefore an irrelevant thing to bring up with regards to this movie.

2. You think that it did apply to every case. If it applied to every criminal... why would the saying exist? Nobody would feel the need to say "Dead or Alive," if it was always the case. They would just say "Wanted." The fact that the saying exists (which, the existence of the saying seems to be your argument here) is itself proof that the "Dead or alive thing," didn't apply in every case.

[–] pyrotektek 11 years ago

seven-rchristie asks,

Have you ever heard the term 'wanted: dead or alive'?

I'm sure a lot of us have, but here's a quote from Butterfield, the railroad guy, when Wade is first captured:

Twenty-two robberies. Over four hundred thousand dollars in losses. More in delays. The Southern Pacific will have Ben Wade convicted in a federal court. Hanged in public. An example made. And we will pay to make it happen.

Sounds to me like "dead" isn't an option.

Have you ever heard the term "pay attention to the movie"?

Inconsistencies and stupidities didn't make you reconsider this movie. You're a sheep who relies on other people to tell you what you should think. That's what made you reconsider this movie.

--Douche Nozzle tormentor since 1867--

[–] mgtbltp 11 years ago

I did pay attention and it was ridiculous with implausible action and reaction. I did give it a 7/10 on imdb for effort and that was a bit generous.

A gang attacking from behind a Gatling gun defended stagecoach, a Gatling gun which field of fire is only from behind. That was just brilliant. Next that same Gatling gun can't hit the broad side of a barn, another brilliant touch to dovetail with the first absurdity, that whole sequence is only included for the mindless action it provides. I have nothing against action but I like smart action.

The Pinkerton gut shot at point blank range bullet @ 900 + or - ft/sec where the bullet should go clean on through, has said bullet removed as if it was a splinter and then he recovers enough to ride a horse, ridiculous.

The fact that they didn't handcuff a dangerous man from behind, ok if the guy is peaceful let it slide (like in the original version) but to not do so (even after he killed one of their members) is absurd, the whole Apache attack at night, the dead eye sharpshooter at the coach robbery who can't hit the the broadside of a barn in the town is inconsistent.

The sequence in Contention where the posse with the advantage of height doesn't just blow the gang out of the saddle before Prince opens up his mouth, is stupid. Compound that with when they do let him speak he offers the townsfolk $200 dollars and they fall all over themselves to become accomplices to murder is also brilliantly stupid.

A great Western should hit on all cylinders, this one doesn't.

[–] WiiD_nugz420 13 years ago

i will never understand you people that sit here and pick a part every single detail of a movie instead of just sitting back and enjoying it...the movie is entertaining enough and it doesn't deserve you amateur's sitting here and discussing every little detail of it.

"yeah...they said that would happen in health class"

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] seven-rchristie 13 years ago

> I thought it was a great movie, dOpEneSS87. I don't understand the people who are making it a personal crusade to attack this movie, and personally, I don't think it's appropriate to come to a forum just to spew venom all over a film and the people who enjoyed it. You'd think those of us who liked the movie could have a little peaceful discussion about it without getting bullied by those who hated it. I mean, there are movies I hate, but I wouldn't waste my time or try to offend people by going to those forums to spread hatred. I just like to talk about the things I enjoyed.

You are not entitled to decide what people can, or can't discuss. Not even if it offends you. If you are uncomfortable reading this thread, why read it at all?

No, it's not a personal crusade, we just wanted to discuss the inconsistencies and plot holes of this movie because we think they're too much to bear.

Also, getting bullied, really? Are you crying now? It is very unfortunate that your sense of self worth came from this movie that you liked. I am criticizing the movie, I am not criticizing *you*, also, they're all valid criticisms.

> I liked this movie-I thought all the actors did a great job in it and that it was a very good script that told an interesting story. I liked it better than the original 3:10 to Yuma, although that was a good movie too.

If you are allowed to like the movie, why aren't we allowed to dislike the movie? Because you're offended if we do that? Are you going to set everybody's preferences now?

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] seven-rchristie 13 years ago

Most people write threads on either things they like or things that they didn't like, I think this is normal behavior, because if you don't dislike or like a movie, you are being indifferent to it. Also, if you read the original post, you'll see that I'm disappointed on this movie. I feel that it could be a great movie, unfortunately although the concept was good, it wasn't executed well. It really could be something good.

If I 100% disliked this movie I wouldn't even open this movie's iMDB board.

[–] seven-rchristie 13 years ago

Sure, let's just forget all the plot holes and inconsistencies. Also, let's just leave our brains outside when we are watching the movie, or maybe allow someone to perform lobotomy at us when we're watching. Inconsistencies with reality happens all the time in every movie, but there is a line that this movie crossed that made it utterly ridiculous.

> it doesn't deserve you amateur's sitting here and discussing every little detail of it.

We don't deserve to discuss this movie, really? We need to be professionals to discuss and criticize? Next time you want to discuss your politicians, the food you were given, the game you played, the story you read, the joke you were told, the hotel service you were given, the telephone service you have, the plumber you just hired, your gardener, your kid's school administration - remember this, by the fruits of your own logic, you don't deserve to discuss and criticize them, because you are not a professional politician, cook, game designer, author, comedian, hotelier, engineer, plumber, gardener, educator. Oh, and when you want to criticize your wife for cheating on you, don't - because you're not a professional slut.

You came off very similar to the average twilight diehard fans (the so called "twitards"), since this is *exactly* the thing that they would say to defend it. Because they don't have any decent rebuttals or arguments to throw, they just tell the people they disagree with to shut up, oh they also called people pejorative names too while there at it, like you. Did you happen to love twilight too?

[–] StrayCat1000 13 years ago

by WiiD_nugz420 (Sun Jul 31 2011 10:10:18)
i will never understand you people that sit here and pick a part every single detail of a movie instead of just sitting back and enjoying it...the movie is entertaining enough and it doesn't deserve you amateur's sitting here and discussing every little detail of it.

uhhh... isn't that the point behind a movie DISCUSSION board? So you "sit back and enjoy" EVERY movie you see and come here and say lovey dovey stuff about each and every one of them? lol

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] apjooz 12 years ago

Movie critics often bash movies on the pages of popular magazines, how rude is that? Answer: it isn't.

-----------------------------------

RIP Terminator franchise 1984-1991

[–] stairway2heaven 12 years ago

Every time this movie is on for some reason I sit and watch it, even though it doesn't make any sense whatsoever. It should have been better! Maximus and Batman in an old west movie should equal awesome. But it just didn't I'm sorry. Everyone has their opinions and I'm the first one to say that's great, but for some reason some movies I can overlook when a character does something no one on earth would do, but this movie no one, and I repeat no one, acted rationally. A friend of mine told me the movie would make complete sense if the main purpose for people in life was to get killed or die and that about sums it up! I agree with the op but I think you left off the most unforgiving thing in the movie and that's when Dan during a shootout with SEVEN men calmly turns his back to chat with Ben Wade on the train after Wade gets inside only to then be shocked that he is then shot to pieces from behind... I mean you can't make stuff like that up, you just can't!

[–] manofsteel4455 12 years ago

I can't stand Liberals like Mule.

You want to play the game, you'd better know the rules, love.
-Harry Callahan

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] manofsteel4455 12 years ago

Because you stick up for a cold-blooded ruthless,sick killer like Wade!

You want to play the game, you'd better know the rules, love.
-Harry Callahan

[–] ryankirkpatrick25 12 years ago

Amen...

I absolutely loved the movie. Incredibly captivating and entertaining.

I don't think anyone saw this as being up for Oscars for screenplay or best picture... It's a fun, exciting Western movie with a great "villain" (in quotations because the jury is still out on him) with a great hero who does everything he can to keep his honor.

If you didn't enjoy the movie, you missed the point.

[–] newfrontier45 11 years ago

It makes the wannabe critics feel good to pick apart the work of others. Makes me wonder what they've accomplished in their miserable lives.

[–] BB-15 12 years ago

I liked the movie and gave it a 7/10 rating for the acting and the story of the Christian Bale character dealing with his sons and wife. And Crowe was decent considering the lines he was given.

I don't want to nitpick but there were a few complaints in this thread I'd have to agree with because the story problems are very obvious.

1. Wade should have had handcuffs behind his back and his legs tied with rope. There is no excuse for that not being done.
- People in the West were experts at using rope to tie up animals for branding and capturing strays. Every rodeo has a calf roping event. Here is a description on wikipedia about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calf_roping

Wade would have been tied up so he could not get away or kill someone.

2. The final shoot out in the town was pretty strange.
- The outlaws pay $200 for people to join them and then all the men in the town join up and suddenly become outlaws so they can kill all the law enforcement in the town. Ridiculous. Maybe 2 or 3 would join but that would be it.
- Then when Evans escorts Wade out of the hotel and the two make their way across town, then the towns people start shooting at them. But now the head outlaw Charlie tells the townspeople to stop shooting at the "black hat" which is Wade. But the townspeople don't stop shooting. So, then outlaw Charlie starts killing townspeople but the folks in the town still don't stop attacking Evans and Wade.
- Christian Bale/Evans is surrounded by bad guys and he makes it to the train station? Didn't Charlie and his boys stop an armored stagecoach and now they can't kill one rancher?

This just looked like a typical silly action movie scene rather than what we see in a good western.

3. Finally Wade is on the train and supposedly locked up in a cage. But then he whistles for his horse and it seems that once more he can just get out of his restraints and get off the train.

* Again, I liked the movie. But parts of it just left me shaking my head.

BB ;-)

it's just in my opinion - imo -

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] MysticYoYo 11 years ago

The outlaws pay $200 for people to join them and then all the men in the town join up and suddenly become outlaws so they can kill all the law enforcement in the town. Ridiculous. Maybe 2 or 3 would join but that would be it.

$200 would be a veritable fortune at that time. And now that there's only one "lawman" left for them to gun down, the odds are better, so it makes sense that there are many more men in the town stepping forward to claim the $200.

----------
"I miss Dwight. Congratulations, Universe. You win."

[–] Zanza8 11 years ago

Exactly, Denise. Very good post.

http://thinkingoutloud-descartes.blogspot.com/

[–] alveolate 11 years ago

if so, why not shoot the outlaws and take the cash off of them?

i wasn't so much bothered that the citizens took up arms; i was more annoyed that they'd rather trust some bandits to "reward" them for shooting marshalls instead of just shooting the damned bandits and taking the money off them (c'mon they were friggin' waving the cash in the open). why would a bunch of hardened murderers, who just shot a bunch of unarmed, surrendered marshalls, suddenly play nice and say "yep i saw that your bullet hit the cripple, here's $200 for your services!" i wouldn't spend one bullet serving those highwaymen for a million bucks -- simply cos i wouldn't trust their word.

as for why Ben decided to get on the train, and complaints that Ben and Dan didn't have enough "exchange" or "build up"... i wonder if you guys watched the same movie... easily all the best lines and best delivered dialogue were of the exchanges between those two leads. Ben attempting to illustrate moral greyness, Dan attempting to strive for his own code of honour in spite of the world. Ben attempting to claim his rottenness is a given, and that it exists in every man; Dan showing the hidden strength of an individual's righteousness via his own personal struggles. if you needed an EXPLICIT line to show that Ben was softening and seeing Dan's point... i think this show completely flew over you. at the end, Ben got on the train simply as a way to honour Ben's dedication, the whole "redemption" angle of it. regardless, Ben is still Ben, and he summons his horse, so he may still worm out of it when the train reaches Yuma. Ben has come to respect, even adore, Dan and his true integrity, which he has read so much about in the Bible, yet failed to see in any other man so far in his life. whether he truly finds redemption by submitting to the corrupt legal system (as he sees it) or decides to use his freedom to find his own brand of redemption... that's all in the ambiguous ending.

as the film is written for a generation so far removed from *the *wild *west, the scriptwriters took certain liberties to portray the lawmen as "liberal pansies". or taken in another way, they were simply lesser men than the two leads. it may come across as lacking realism, but it is a technique in writing to emphasise (even exaggerate) the values and charisma of the leads. in this sense, i think we can absolve the writers for the jarringly inaccurate portrayal on the grounds of artistic license. i don't think portraying cowboys in a more "modern" sense for the sake of the modern audience is necessarily bad writing.

[–] spacemouse 12 years ago

Watched this film last night on TV for the second time (I thought I loved it the first time) and was so frustrated by the end.

Everything is this post is valid.

I would also add that after Bales character actually gets the crook on the train he just stands there looking daft while the gang...shoot him to death!

Very inconsitent plot, very frustrating.

[–] GIANTFRAGGLE 12 years ago

Did anyone mention the fact that at the end Dan is running all over the place through town with no trouble. Even though he has no leg. Or a fake one anyway.

[–] Zanza8 12 years ago

Seeing as how he was getting along just fine for the rest of the movie with his fake leg, what is your point?

http://thinkingoutloud-descartes.blogspot.com/

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Zanza8 12 years ago

I liked it. I just don't get why the trolls have to pick on this movie as being something that has to be perfect, when there isn't a movie anywhere that doesn't have tons of plot holes and unrealistic things in it.

http://thinkingoutloud-descartes.blogspot.com/