posted
It looks much better than I thought it would be just from hearing the radio version of the theme song from the original. OK, that was convoluted.
See, I used to live in Yuma. It amused me that a British pop group from the sixties had a song called "3:10 to Yuma," which I later learned was a remake of a western movie's theme song (bonus points to anyone who knows the name of the British group). The lyrics made the movie seem pretty dumb:
quote:I want to ride again on the 3.10 to yuma That's where I saw my love The girl with the golden hair Not a word between us was spoken No the silence never was broken But before she left her eyes said a sad goodbye Sad am I sad am I To think of the chance that I missed I could cry to think of the lips left unkissed
But reading the reviews and plot synopsis of this new version of the movie made me wonder how the song was even related to the original movie! It turns out that the lyrics were drastically changed for a radio version of the song, and the original lyrics went like this (first verse):
quote:There is a lonely train called the 3:10 to Yuma. The pounding of the wheels is more like a mournful sigh. There's a legend and there's a rumor When you take the 3:10 to Yuma You can see the ghosts of outlaws go riding by (riding by) In the sky. (in the sky)
Which, I understand, still doesn't have all that much to do with the movie, but at least it sets the right atmosphere.
So, long story short, I want to watch this movie. Whether I will be able to or not in the theater depends on how long it stays available, unfortunately.
posted
I just finished watching it less than an hour ago and I thought it was really good. Thats a high complement coming from someone who normally doesn't like westerns Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
Bonus points for them not trying to romanticize the cold, brutal, lethal nature of violence...despite this being a "mythic" Old West movie, don't expect any of the gunplay to be glorified.
And don't get too attached to any of the characters.
Heck, I knew that going in...and still ended up misty-eyed.
Perfect performances by Bale, Crowe, and Tudyk. Near perfect performances by everyone else. Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't see Luke listed at the IMDB entry for the film. Who did he play? (Or was he just uncredited?)
Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Puffy Treat: Huh. That was him? Wonder why he wasn't credited.
It's essentially a cameo and hardly worth crediting (though I'm sure he would've been credited if he wanted to.)
Posts: 722 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Except there is a great deal of shooting. I was prepared for it - I knew it was coming... - but I still freaked out a little. Fantasy violence I'm just fine with, but gun violence is very real to me and it makes me want to hide.
Wash was awesome in this. Everyone was. Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just got back from seeing this. I thought it was a fantastic movie. Bale and Crowe did very well indeed. The kid who played Bale's son did a good job I think, but the intensity in his gaze to the quivering in his hand when he held the gun on Crowe, I think he was extremely convincing.
It was at least as good as your average western, though I have to say it probably had the most realistic looking bullet hits I've seen in a western, they didn't pull any punches.
Frankly, I think the most surprising performance of the movie was Ben Foster as Charlie Prince. The last two things I saw him in were Flash Forward and Hostel. Flash Forward has him as this awkward skinny kid, Hostage has him as a greasy, very, VERY disturbed psycho (and he died btw in that movie in what I'd call the best imitation of a classic Hollywood scene I've seen in quite some time, watch it to see what I mean). And of course he was Archangel in X-Men, but that was more of a cameo really. But he was totally different in this. Ruthless and cunning, and very much graduated from the kid he usually plays, he was one of the best villains I've seen in quite some time. I really got into it, and I think without that character, the movie wouldn't have been half of what it was. He was the counterweight to the conflict going on between Bale and Crowe, who while good, really didn't do anything new. Bale did what Bale does, he speaks softly, slowly, very little, and he stares a lot. And Crowe I think played the role he generally plays too. Also speaking somewhat softly, clever, a little alluring though not necessarily in a romantic way. Kudos to all of them, but most of all to Foster, as his performance was a surprise.
Spoiler ahead
Tudyk had a very good performance. I was almost hoping to see him play a gunslinger rather than the role he played. I like to see actors try new things (it's why I like Viggo Mortensen so much), and frankly I thought he played what Wash would have been if he'd been alive in the 1860's. He was a doctor, but more, he was the voice of reason and morality, the counterweight to the baser human instincts towards violence. And it was a bit sad to see him die almost the same way he died in Serenity. "I'm a leaf on the wind, watch how I-" BAM! and "Did you guys see how I hit that guy with a shovel back-" BAM!
A little intentional tugging on our heartstrings, and I suppose his character had to die, didn't he? But frankly I don't even know why the hell he was still there. The doctor never wanted to go to begin with, he only went because what's his name, the Pinkerton that Crowe tossed off the cliff went, and he was injured. But once the Pinkerton got tossed off the cliff, wouldn't the doctor have gone back to town? He wasn't a gunhand, for heaven's sake, they proved that when he was doing his best to shoot the brush to pieces outside Bale's house. But it still worked as it was, and Tudyk was of course, great, so I can't really complain.
Luke Wilson was a big surprise when. I recognized him immediately, and thought his scene was a great chance for Bale to, if not bond, certainly flex his moral muscle when he freed Crowe with the others. You could tell it wasn't JUST about the money for him.
Overall great movie, I'm glad I went to see it.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, Ben Foster was fascinating. His character was the closest thing to a true monster in the movie...and yet, one couldn't quite dismiss him. In his own way, he was doing what to his twisted, shriveled heart seemed right.
Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I want to see this. Our local reviewer shredded it, but he seems the the type who's more interested in how clever his writing sounds than the actual quality of a movie.
I haven't been disappointed by a Bale movie yet. I'm purposely avoiding American Psycho for that reason. Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I like how they kept word for word all of the best lines from the original version with Glenn Ford from 1959. They made many changes fromt he original, most for the better. Has anyone read the original short story? I'm curious about which film version better tracks the original source material. The new movie did a better job of showing/explaining Wade's (the Russel Crowe character) transformation. This is an excellent movie.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Frankly, I think the most surprising performance of the movie was Ben Foster as Charlie Prince. The last two things I saw him in were Flash Forward and Hostel.
The only thing I know Ben Foster from is playing Eli the mentally handicapped kid in Freaks and Geeks. Seeing Lindsay Wier's sweet little prom date murdering all those people in cold blood was surprisingly disturbing.
posted
I absolutely loved this movie. Russell Crowe is not a favorite actor of mine, but the onscreen chemistry between him and Christian Bale was undeniable, and so I enjoyed his performance immensely (and Christian Bale is my favorite actor, so no problems there...) Ben Foster also made an incredible performance. No complaints here about this one - I highly recommend it.
Posts: 1225 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I saw this a few months ago in theaters and well, maybe I'm just not a fan of Western.
I thought that casting was brilliant and the characters were interesting, though oddly I kept wanting to dig deeper into each of them while I sat there bemoaning the length of the movie. The plot was just incredibly boring and I haven't checked my watch that much during a movie since Star Wars Ep3.
Posts: 1733 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
