3:10 to Yuma (James Mangold, 2007)

Discussions of specific films and franchises.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
Jeff
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 9:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

#1 Post by Jeff » Sat Jun 16, 2007 1:38 am


User avatar
Via_Chicago
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 12:03 pm

#2 Post by Via_Chicago » Sat Jun 16, 2007 11:43 pm

I like the original, and it was obvious when the remake was announced that they were going to change the ending ("because the original is compromised"): "Just remember that it was Ben Wade who walked that man to the station when no one else would." Great... :roll:

It's too bad because the cast looks great (even if they're not quite right for the roles): Bale, Crowe, and Fonda. But, I'll give it a shot anyway because I've got nothing inherently against remakes.

User avatar
Antoine Doinel
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 1:22 pm
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Contact:

#3 Post by Antoine Doinel » Sun Jun 17, 2007 10:51 am

The piercing electric guitars during the latter quarter of the trailer was a little odd, but I'll pretty much watch anything with Christian Bale and James Mangold can be very good when he wants to be.

User avatar
colinr0380
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK

#4 Post by colinr0380 » Sat Jun 30, 2007 8:02 am

David Bordwell has posted about the film and its sound on his blog.

LeeB.Sims

#5 Post by LeeB.Sims » Tue Jul 10, 2007 5:48 pm

Antoine Doinel wrote:The piercing electric guitars during the latter quarter of the trailer was a little odd, but I'll pretty much watch anything with Christian Bale and James Mangold can be very good when he wants to be.
I agree, but I've been waiting for him to want to be good again since Copland… wish he would go back to directing his own material.

User avatar
Jeff
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 9:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

#6 Post by Jeff » Tue Jul 24, 2007 1:20 am

Last edited by Jeff on Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:56 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
margot
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 3:36 am
Location: nyc

#7 Post by margot » Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:43 am

Christian Bale is probably the best actor working in Hollywood today.

User avatar
Antoine Doinel
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 1:22 pm
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Contact:

#8 Post by Antoine Doinel » Wed Jul 25, 2007 12:07 pm

Jeff wrote:poster
The image and texture of the poster is cool, but the text randomly placed all over the place is a bit dizzying.

User avatar
Antoine Doinel
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 1:22 pm
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Contact:

#9 Post by Antoine Doinel » Sun Aug 19, 2007 11:50 am

Here's the final one-sheet which is sadly nothing more than two giant heads.

User avatar
davebert
Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 4:00 pm
Location: NY
Contact:

#10 Post by davebert » Sun Aug 19, 2007 1:05 pm

That's not the poster/ad I see all over New York, which is very simple and pleasant looking, avoiding large head syndrome. I wonder why they didn't use that?

User avatar
Via_Chicago
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 12:03 pm

#11 Post by Via_Chicago » Sun Aug 19, 2007 1:09 pm

Jeffrey Wells speculated that it's because the previous advert is too "metrosexual," and the new one-sheet is an appeal to the film's targeted "manly" audience.

User avatar
The Elegant Dandy Fop
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 3:25 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA

#12 Post by The Elegant Dandy Fop » Sun Aug 19, 2007 1:32 pm

davebert wrote:That's not the poster/ad I see all over New York, which is very simple and pleasant looking, avoiding large head syndrome. I wonder why they didn't use that?
Yeah, the one I see all of L.A. makes me want to see the movie. Just a lone gunman in the middle with the title, and credits only to the writers and director.

User avatar
Jeff
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 9:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

#13 Post by Jeff » Sun Aug 19, 2007 1:45 pm

davebert wrote:That's not the poster/ad I see all over New York, which is very simple and pleasant looking, avoiding large head syndrome. I wonder why they didn't use that?
I believe that you are describing the one I linked to a couple of posts above A.D. (the "teaser" poster), or the one shown here on an L.A. sidewalk. Yes, Jeffrey Welles finds both of these to be "gay-appealing (or at the very least flagrantly metrosexual)." I wouldn't be surprised if the "metrosexual" versions show up on the coasts and the big heads show up everywhere in between.

User avatar
davebert
Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 4:00 pm
Location: NY
Contact:

#14 Post by davebert » Sun Aug 19, 2007 1:48 pm

Yep, that's the one.

And not to derail this too far into poster talk, but I found this old CinemaBlend entry when trying to track down an image of what I'm talking about (it is indeed the one linked to in the post above), and it's particularly amusing in hindsight:
CinemaBlend wrote: Lionsgate deserves some serious credit for this one. The movie has two huge stars in Russell Crowe and Christian Bale in it, so the temptation to shove out some sort of awful floating heads poster had to be there. But not only did they avoid the whole horrible floating heads thing, they produced a poster which shows neither of their stars at all. Well at least not from the front anyway.
Don't count your chickens before they float like disembodied... uh... chicken heads...

David Ehrenstein
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2005 8:30 pm
Contact:

#15 Post by David Ehrenstein » Tue Aug 21, 2007 8:50 am

Bale is excellent, as usual, but the movie is a perfect example of what Manny Farber calls "The Parade Float."

Nary a nanosecond is allowed to evolve simply and easily. Everything on screen is there to impress .

The camera is on top of the actors from first to last -- peering though every piece fo the sets in rack focus suggesting that Sergio Leone has risen from the grave and bitten Mangold in the neck. But this "Renfield" thinks it knows better than his master. And so instead of visual choreography (which would have given us a fucking longshot once in a while for crying out loud!!!) we get fake "psychological realism" in terms of character.

In other words the leads have "sides" --but only when it suits Mangold. As a result the finale features a 180 so severe as to give one whiplash.

Russell Crowe is a truly terrible actor. Others have held his baroque hamminess in check to some degree in the past. Mangold encourages it.
It's F. Murray Abraham on steroids.

Dallas Roberts, Vinisa Shaw, Gretchen Moll, and a spry Peter Fonda are wasted in this excruciating mess.

If the western is indeed dead,such zombified necrophilia won't revive it.

User avatar
Awesome Welles
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 6:02 am
Location: London

#16 Post by Awesome Welles » Tue Aug 21, 2007 9:30 am

David Ehrenstein wrote:Russell Crowe is a truly terrible actor.
I swear, maybe it's just me, but I don't hear this enough. I've only seen the trailer, but he stinks it up so much. I just don't get, with his public behaviour and his films (mainstream audiences must see this?) becoming stinkier by the minute, how Crowe is still making such high profile movies.

User avatar
exte
~_~
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 4:27 pm
Location: NJ

#17 Post by exte » Tue Aug 21, 2007 12:36 pm

David, it's a remake, what were you hoping for? An Eastwood masterpiece?

User avatar
Antoine Doinel
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 1:22 pm
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Contact:

#18 Post by Antoine Doinel » Tue Aug 21, 2007 12:50 pm

FSimeoni wrote:I just don't get, with his public behaviour and his films (mainstream audiences must see this?) becoming stinkier by the minute, how Crowe is still making such high profile movies.
Because he (inexplicably) puts women's asses in the seats. Despite his PR issues, a large portion of the female population still consider him some sort of awe-inspiring representation of all things masculine.

I guess they just haven't heard of Clive Owen yet.

David Ehrenstein
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2005 8:30 pm
Contact:

#19 Post by David Ehrenstein » Tue Aug 21, 2007 1:33 pm

"David, it's a remake, what were you hoping for? An Eastwood masterpiece?"
I'd have been happy with Charles Marquis Warren compared to this.

rs98762001
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 6:04 pm

#20 Post by rs98762001 » Tue Aug 21, 2007 1:41 pm

Antoine Doinel wrote:Because he (inexplicably) puts women's asses in the seats. Despite his PR issues, a large portion of the female population still consider him some sort of awe-inspiring representation of all things masculine.
But Crowe hasn't put anyone in the seats for a long time. I can't even remember the last time he had a hit.

Calling him a terrible actor is a little unfair though. He gave great performances in Romper Stomper, LA Confidential, and The Insider. Subsequently he's been mostly lousy, mannered and pompous, both on and offscreen.

User avatar
flyonthewall2983
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Contact:

#21 Post by flyonthewall2983 » Tue Aug 21, 2007 1:49 pm

rs98762001 wrote:Calling him a terrible actor is a little unfair though. He gave great performances in Romper Stomper, LA Confidential, and The Insider. Subsequently he's been mostly lousy, mannered and pompous, both on and offscreen.
I agree with the above, although I haven't seen Romper Stomper yet. But I thought he was quite good in Gladiator and A Beautiful Mind as well. I think whatever critical bashing he'll get for this he'll hopefully make up for when American Gangster comes out.

User avatar
exte
~_~
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 4:27 pm
Location: NJ

#22 Post by exte » Tue Aug 21, 2007 7:03 pm

flyonthewall2983 wrote:
rs98762001 wrote:Calling him a terrible actor is a little unfair though. He gave great performances in Romper Stomper, LA Confidential, and The Insider. Subsequently he's been mostly lousy, mannered and pompous, both on and offscreen.
I agree with the above, although I haven't seen Romper Stomper yet. But I thought he was quite good in Gladiator and A Beautiful Mind as well. I think whatever critical bashing he'll get for this he'll hopefully make up for when American Gangster comes out.
Exactly. He loves working with Ridley, who's great at creating worlds, and I think he has made an effort to look different, rather than here, where he just looks like Russel Crowe. I see the trailer for this, and think to myself it was just another paycheck, that's all. And for someone of his stature, at this point in his career, why not? He has nothing more to prove - he's broken through every ceiling in his field - $20+ million A-list actor who's won the Academy Award... (Not that that gives him the right to throw a phone at a hotel clerk, though I would've loved to have been that guy - easiest payday of his life!) Anyway, I have yet to see the extended edition of Gladiator, but I hope to soon...

User avatar
flyonthewall2983
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Contact:

#23 Post by flyonthewall2983 » Tue Aug 21, 2007 8:43 pm

I'm actually a little disappointed that Russell isn't set for Ridley's Western.

User avatar
GringoTex
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 5:57 am

#24 Post by GringoTex » Tue Aug 21, 2007 10:29 pm

David Ehrenstein wrote:Bale is excellent, as usual, but the movie is a perfect example of what Manny Farber calls "The Parade Float."
How did this version handle the bar scene where Wade seduces Emmy? (the original's, of course, being one of my all-time favorite scenes)

Roger_Thornhill
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 10:35 pm

#25 Post by Roger_Thornhill » Wed Aug 22, 2007 12:18 am

Antoine Doinel wrote:
FSimeoni wrote:I just don't get, with his public behaviour and his films (mainstream audiences must see this?) becoming stinkier by the minute, how Crowe is still making such high profile movies.
Because he (inexplicably) puts women's asses in the seats. Despite his PR issues, a large portion of the female population still consider him some sort of awe-inspiring representation of all things masculine.

I guess they just haven't heard of Clive Owen yet.
Maybe I'm alone in this on here, but I think Crowe is great in Romper Stomper, LA Confidential, The Insider, and Master & Commander: The Far Side of the World. I don't care for most of his projects but I think he's a good actor and a good leading man.

Post Reply