MovieChat Forums > 3:10 to Yuma (2007) Discussion > so sloooooooow

so sloooooooow

posted 13 years ago by trog-oz
10 replies | jump to latest

The superior 1957 version tells the story in 92 mins, while this version is 30 mins longer. This is yet another film in need of more time on the editing machine.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] LittleMissDysthymia 13 years ago

Oh no! The movie was a whole two hours long! How can anyone countenance such an abomination of time? Two hours? It just makes me want to vomit! Herp derp.

Witty closing remarks have been replaced by massive head trauma and severe hemorrhaging.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Hancock_the_Superb 13 years ago

If the OP likes the original 3:10, with its slow pace and near-lack of action, he's immune from such a troglodytic dismissal.

"Shooting... that's how people get shot."

[–] Chiffmonkey 13 years ago

And Shawshank redemption is 162mins for even less plot.

[–] metallikato 13 years ago

Then again, most westerns take a slow pace to begin with. If they all leapt into the action and threw you all over the place for cheap thrills, westerns would be just like other action movies.

They wouldn't be westerns.

--------------------------
metallikato.deviantart.com
--------------------------

[–] pmo1983 13 years ago

This movie went for 2 hours. God forbid.

I didn't think it was slow at all- especially for a western.
The pace was obviously made for modern tastes and yet there are still people who complain.

[–] DC-Tiki 13 years ago

Wow, totally don't agree with that assessment - do all movies really need rapid-cut editing and the Michael Bay treatment to keep people in their seats?? Try out Sergio Leone's Once Upon a time in the West for a slow movie in this genre. If you can't deal with the pace of this film I really doubt you'll get through the first sequence of that classic western.