no gossip, no scandals.
movie reviews ... and more
movie reviews ... and more
3 10 to Yuma - Wogma Readers Reviews
3 10 to Yuma
quick review:
Gritty, realistic action movie, set in the Wild West. A glorious film, embodying the best of a genre that has nearly vanished from the screens.
![[Poster for 3 10 to Yuma]](http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2559/4117205326_85a253f431_m.jpg)
1 readers have given 3 10 to Yuma
an average rating of 5/5.0
1 yays
0 nays
0 so-so
3 10 to Yuma - Movie Details
- Director: James Mangold
- Lead Cast: Russel Crowe, Christian Bale
- Supporting Cast: Logan Lerman, Dallas Roberts, Ben Foster, Peter Fonda, Vinessa Shaw, Alan Tudyk, Luce Rains, Gretchen Mol, Lennie Loftin, Rio Alexander
- Screenplay: Halsted Welles, Michael Brandt
- Cinematography: Phedon Papamichael
- Editor: Michael McCusker
- Running time: 122 minutes
- Reviewer: Anand S
- Categories: Hollywood
- Genres: Action, Western
3 10 to Yuma - Trailer
3 10 to Yuma - All reviews summary
Browse
Recent Comments
Gurudatt on 'Kaksparsh'
After a gap, here is a marathi movie that will move you, litrally take you ... ...more
viagra on 'The Blind Side'
It is remarkable, rather valuable message viagra ...more
acquista zithromax on 'The Blind Side'
Very amusing message comprare zithromax senza prescrizione ...more
Comments (10)
Dear Anand, It seems you have not seen 3:10 to Yuma (1957) by director Delmer Daves. I'm sure after watching that, you will not like this one. If you are comparing this movie with hindi movies yes then you are right, its worth watching, coz in Hindi anyways we see crap. Sorry to be so forthright, but this version lacked one big thing and that is logic. With the same storyline the old one was much much much well told. Anyways, if this one was made in Hindi, I would love to see Salman Khan in Ben Wade's role and Hritik in Christian Bale's role. If only they work this hard. Thanks, Anand Sachdev
Hi, No I have not seen the original one but given the time period it was situated in, it would have been difficult for the director to have woven in the "revisionist" aspect of this film, in terms of its take on morality and the role of commerce in the West. This is my understanding based on the full synopsis of the original as given on imdb. The original also had a much happier ending, here it is much grimmer. High Noon, itself did not go down too well with viewers of that time period because of its allegorical nature. Well, yes, the plot has lots of holes in it for sure, but then which Western was logical? They in most part either acted as a sort of morality play or else propagated the myth of the true American hero. Maybe the original was much better told no doubt, but here I have highlighted the work of the director as well as the actors, which I found quite good.
Anand Sachdev, that's my issue with comparisons. Because the 'original' was done well doesn't make the remake bad in itself. I understand comparisons are inevitable if you've seen both but if you leave it out, you've enjoyed two movies - if they are reasonably well made that is. Comparing 3.10 to Yuma to Hindi films is just...well extremely weird. How many Hindi 'westerns' are there? And if you compare across genres then there'll only be 1 great film for each person. In comparison to that one, no other film will be as enjoyable. I loved 3.10 to Yuma. After a really long time I've seen a western that was so well captured. Though I had my issues with how quickly the conflict took resolution, but I loved the way the characters built towards the climax.
Hi Anand, Meetu, Thanks for your responses and explanation. I do agree that this one is a good one when it comes to action, storyline, performances, & cinematography. And as a movie based on western this is one of the best movies made in long time. I had seen this movie with great expectations. Unfortunately when remakes are made they tend to make subtle changes to the original script, these changes instead of adding some value to the movie, spoil it all. When one is watching a remake, the minimum expectation is it would be as good, if not better than the original. Here, the changes made to the script are not just that the original has a happy ending and this one didn't. (contd.below)
(contd. from above) They are too many for me to mention here and enough to spoil my joy of watching a great movie. for eg. the transition of Russels character was not justified enough, at the end why would he himself kill his men who were only trying to save him. I mean he could have just asked them to meet at Yuma from where anyway he was confident he would runaway. Ben wade's transition was gradual in the original and that is the crux of the entire story. Also Christian Bale’s character in the original was much well defined. If you get a chance see the original and then my friends you can decide for yourself if this one deserved a rating of - Must see - on the big screen. Thanks & Regards Anand Sachdev
Hi, I have absolutely no issues with your opinion, and the fact that you did not very much like this one. Even after seeing the "original" we can keep arguing till the cows come home, in this case till the horses come home! For me the important point is that, each film when made embodies a particular spirit of the times as well as the director's understanding of the story and characters. Well, this film seems to have Mangold's point of view; there is no "gold standard" whereby one can compare and say that this objectively better or not. And if you were happy with the first one so be it. Cheers.
Hi Anand, You're points are quite valid, and the remake is indeed watchable, but not, in my opinion a truly great film. I would disagree with the realistic tag you've given the film. The makers themselves admit in the DVD commentary that this movie is anything but realistic. Horses wouldn't be able to pull a stagecoach with a machine gun that large at the start of the movie. Also, bullets being shot into wooden scaffolding in the gunfight toward the end of the movie wouldn't make a zinging noise. I of course agree with your other opinions.
Yes, possibly it is not a truly great film, I agree, but it is indeed pretty good. And by "realistic" I meant, the aspects of exploitation and greed, and how it debunks some of the myths of the American dream. I was not referring to the points you made, those are left to better qualified people than me. Usually imdb has a long list of goofs for each movie, but as a movie goer I prefer to believe in what is shown! We all know that movies are fantasy, aren't they, but like all fables they speak to us of of some things that are relevant in our lives.
To add, "realistic" was meant for the characters too.
I love your review and this movie. I watched this with my dad when he saw a preview and was convinced it was gold; I'm not particular to westerns at all but this one was great.
Leave a new comment