Movies We've Just Watched discussion

3:10 to Yuma

Comments Showing 1-21 of 21 (21 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Tama (last edited Jan 14, 2008 02:48PM) (new)

Tama (anperneecate) This film was incredibly well done--with a cast that played ball beautifully. the cinematography was top-notch-the story-well told. Christian Bale is certainly a force to be reckoned with-we've followed his career since Newsies--and Russell Crowe is spot-on as Ben Wade.But the real kick-ass breakout star of this film was Ben Foster. Here he really gets the chance to flex muscle and he does not waste it--fantastic. i watch alot of foreign films so I can handle an ending that's not wrapped in a bow like we enjoy in the U.S.--but they bring out the ribbon and try anyway--still loved it. See it if you want to spend time on a good western.

message 2: by Ed (new)

Ed | 218 comments Mod
Did that just come out on dvd?

message 3: by Paul (new)

Paul Duncan (jpaulduncan) | 68 comments Yep. Go rent it - the ending is the best.

message 4: by Tressa (last edited Jan 20, 2008 05:15PM) (new)

Tressa  (moanalisa) I just saw this movie last night and loved it. It's a much more complicated western than most are probably used to.


At first I couldn't believe that Ben Wade (Russell Crowe), an evil, self-centered killer, could make such a sacrifice, until I started thinking about the movie long after it was over and realized that 1) it wasn't such a sacrifice and 2) there were many hints along the way that allowed one to see the possibility of goodness in him.

My favorite line is when the Peter Fonda character talked about the diseased womb Wade came from, and Wade answered him, "I've always liked you Byron, but you never know when to shut up. Even bad men love their mommas." I've got a little boy and, hey, good or bad, boys do always love their mommas.

Russell Crowe was fantastic as usual, and so was Christian Bale. I've enjoyed Bale since Empire of the Sun. These are two truly great actors.

Hope I haven't given too much away.

message 5: by Arctic (new)

Arctic Interesting and subtle western with great acting.

I need to think about this some more to decide how I feel about it. Never saw the original, so maybe I'll have to rent that before I judge.

Tressa, I don't think it was a sacrifice at all. He called his horse after him.

message 6: by Kyle (new)

Kyle (kylewilk) | 12 comments absolutely, without question (in my mind anyway) one of the best westerns of all time. right up there with unforgiven and whatever else...high noon, you name it.

message 7: by [deleted user] (new)

I quite agree. I was enthralled....

message 8: by Judith (new)

Judith (jloucks) Me, too, Kyle and Lisa! I was captivated by the acting and realism in 3:10. I thought it was better than Unforgiven!

message 9: by [deleted user] (new)

When I read the short story, after hearing they were making a movie of it with Russell Crowe, I couldn't imagine this being a movie at all. The story was driven by more dialogue than action. That they managed to make such a great movie out of it without destroying the story, says a lot not only about the director but the actors. Russell Crowe was perfect for this role! Christian Bale wasn't shabby either ;-)

message 10: by Tressa (last edited Feb 05, 2008 08:46AM) (new)

Tressa  (moanalisa) "Tressa, I don't think it was a sacrifice at all. He called his horse after him."

Yes, I agree. That's why I wrote in my post that it wasn't such a sacrifice. However, heading into the events at the end, Wade had no idea if it would all work out for him the way it did, so I still tend to see it as a sacrifice, even if it's a small one. He didn't have to do any of it.

Evans was earning integrity by taking Wade to the station. His earlier life was filled with shame and cowardice when he was shot by a military comrade when he tried to run away; he lost the respect of his family and any self-respect he had. So, Chad, I agree that he was doing it for pride and to show his son how a man should act in this world.

Wade was impressed with Evans' integrity, and you could see him closely watching the father/son relationship. I think family ties meant a lot to Wade, as was evident at how pained he was when he told the story of his mother abandoning him. You also picked up little hints along the way that Wade was choosier than made out to be about who he killed. The Peter Fonda character seemed like a good guy, but Wade announced that Fonda had killed women and children in his past.

It's a good movie and more layered than it appears to be after just one viewing.

message 11: by Don (new)

Don | 6 comments I saw the vast majority of films that were released this year and 3:10 to Yuma was the best for my money. It had terrific acting and directing, but also the story was very engaging, unpredictable (unless you saw the original)--so unlike most of the films that the critics seems to swoon over like THERE WILL BE BLOOD and NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN.

As others have mentioned, the characters had real dimension with real first class, realistic dialogue. So my question to anyone who wants to chime in is why was this movie overlooked? Do critics simply hate Russell Crowe that much?

message 12: by Meg (new)

Meg (megvt) | 362 comments OK, I loved the movie, I had to watch it 3 times.


Did you get mad when Evans didn't take the money and get out when he could, he had a family to think of. The father son-relationship was extremely well done, especially the ending.

message 13: by Tressa (new)

Tressa  (moanalisa) I didn't get mad because there was one reason Evans was doing this and that was to regain the self-worth he lost when his foot was shot off by a fellow soldier when he tried to run away from battle. His son had no respect for him and you could tell his wife had problems with the man he had become.

If he took the money and went back home with his son, the problem would always be there. He needed to make changes for himself above all else.

message 14: by Ray (new)

Ray | 55 comments I think that the actors in the movie were, every single one, including the dude named Charlie Prince! I loved almost everything Russell said in this firm, and Im not a big Russell fan. I liked that there wasn't too much action. I think the movie never dragged like some 2 hour movies can or even westerns. I think for a 2 hour movie to have a great story, cast, and plot as a western, which they don't make enough of anymore is a great feat. I think it was a movie I will buy for sure. It should've got more noticed this award season.

message 15: by Jeff (new)

Jeff | 5 comments Just saw 310 last night. Great movie except for two things.

Spoilers ahead;

First, Gretchen Mol, while nice eye-candy, played a completely unnecessary character. This really was movie that could have had a male cast only and not have suffered one whit. Her one really extended scene (the dinner) certainly all but implies that she found Crow's character mesmerizing...but it was not clear it because he flattered her? Second, while there are numerous signs that Russell Crowe is not the complete monster that claims to be, his decision to cooperate with Bale at the end makes little sense. Basically, Bale tells him a sob story about wanting respect from his son, so Crowe agrees to go to prison and possible execution. And Crowe murdering his gang in retaliation for Bale's killing seems forced as well. After all, and contrary to Crowe's description of these men as 'animals' they risked their lives to rescue him, when they could have just ridden off. Certainly, there is nothing noble about these men; but Crowe seems...well...ungrateful for their efforts.

My solution: cut out the Mol character and use that running time to further develop the relationship between Bale and Crowe, so that at the end, when Crowe could have just knocked Bale out and joined his men, is decision to not do this makes a bit more sense.

All that said, these are minor drawbacks to an otherwise magnificent movie. It is a Western in the same class as The Searchers and The Good, The Bad and The Ugly, for its complex, morally ambiguous characters and intricate and iconic story line.

message 16: by Alison (last edited Feb 18, 2008 02:17PM) (new)

Alison Jeff: I have seen this movie twice in the past two weeks because I enjoyed it so much. Here's my opinion on a few things you mentioned.

I think Daniel's wife (Mol) served to show us a little of what was at stake for Daniel (the respect of a beautiful wife) and also just how enchanting Ben Wade was. She says, "He's not what I thought he'd be"...and we as the audience start to become suspicious that there is more to him than meets the eye...more than a one-dimensional villain who kills for fun.

And I thought Ben Wade decides to save Daniel in the end because, unlike the other people he so mercilessly offs, he finds Daniel interesting. Wade's an artist, and a reader...he appreciates books as complex as The Proverbs of the Bible...therefore he can appreciate a man with depth and principles. Also, ultimately he is confident that no one will hold him why not just get on the train and let Daniel's family get the $1000 from the bank and let Daniel get a little respect for once?

Yeah, I was a little surprised when Ben shot his gang...but, what are you gonna do? It had to end somehow, and I was glad to see that main little weasel from his gang get it in the end. And of course, Daniel's son couldn't be the one to shoot him, because, we all wanted Daniel to be right when he stated that his son would be "nothing like you" (Ben Wade). I also thought it showed that Wade might have been intelligent, but suffered from being impulsive & short-tempered.

I agree...the exchanges between Bale & Crowe were the best part of the film, and I would like to have seen more of that. (Two awesome actors!)

I can't believe I wrote that much about a movie. Reading back over it, what I wrote seems a bit obvious, but anyway....The Searchers is awesome...looks great on a big TV. Also one of my favorites is High Noon...I need to check out The Good, The Bad & The's my dad's favorite & he's got great taste. Thanks for listening (if you hung in there). :)

message 17: by Paul (new)

Paul Duncan (jpaulduncan) | 68 comments The Good, The Bad & The Ugly is a GREAT (but somewhat slow compared to today's films)

Def. watch the DVD and set aside about 3 hours...


Watch "Unforgiven". It'll give you an all new appreciation for both films and Clint Eastwood.

message 18: by Shannon (new)

Shannon  (giraffe_days) I watched 3:10 to Yuma on the weekend and I have to confess, we got bored about 2/3 of the way in and didn't bother finishing it. It wasn't that it was bad, I just wasn't interested enough. I picked up my book instead.

Granted, I've hardly been watching any telly or movies lately because I've been too engrossed in books (not a bad thing surely?) and nothing can hold my attention long enough, but I wish I could get into movies again. Don't know what's wrong with me.

It also struck me as very familiar, like I'd seen it before. It's not a remake is it?

message 19: by Paul (new)

Paul Duncan (jpaulduncan) | 68 comments I don't believe it's a remake. I think I really liked it because I happen to like westerns (well, mostly Clint Eastwood ones - not so much John Wayne ones - I like my cowboys as lone killers, but I digress...)

message 20: by Alison (last edited Feb 20, 2008 12:08PM) (new)

Alison It actually is a remake...and a story by Elmore Leonard. I had never heard of the original movie. There was still a feel of familiarity to the story to me, too, though.

message 21: by Michelle (new)

Michelle | 2 comments Shannon, it's too bad you quit 2/3 of the way through, because IMHO it's that last third or so that is the best part.

And yeah, the original is actually quite a bit different. It is extremely dialogue drive and most of the in action from Bisbee to Contention is cut out. Most of the movie is set in the Bridal Suite. Still, I'm a fan of both versions.

back to top