3:10 to Yuma: 1957 VS. 2009

[Wyatt Burp]

Amazingly, I've never watched the original "3:10 To Yuma" before even though it came out the same year I did. Here's my comparison. Both Glenn Ford and Russell Crowe were excellent as the charming yet sociopath killer so good at playing head trips with his captor. In both films the 2nd bad guy in charge "Charlie Prince" were great but the guy in the new one almost stole the movie. But I like the first one much better because it wasn't cluttered up with additional action and bloodshed, gunfights, fighting Indians, etc., and having the destitute Rancher's son have such a big role. The early one focused more on the anxieties building up psychological tension in Van Heflin's character and the bizarre bond between both guys in the end. And the ending was better and believable. I think the new one was spoiled by the intentional "Spaghetti western" flavor of it.
The original "3:10" trusted the intelligence of the viewer while the remake didn't, so they felt they had to cram it full of numbing and distracting action to keep peoples attention.

 

[Rustyt1953]

I cleared my mind and watched the remake with a fresh set of eyes. I was definitely entertained.

I like them both.

 

[Watchdog]

I thought the newer version was one of the worst films, western or otherwise, I've ever seen in my life.

I thought it was so bad, I gave it away in one of my Karmas on this forum (sorry, Graydon ).

 

[MRB1]

The newer version was a horrible excuse for a movie. I couldn't finish it, so I drilled a hole in the disk and hung it on the side of my tomato cage - keeps the birds away from the tomatoes , they don't seem to like bad acting either.

 

[ladder13]

Two excellent movies, I’ve seen both many times. Those dual Schofields were handled with precision.

 

[walkin jack]

I like the new version best. I've never been a fan of Van Heflin. Any movie I've ever seen him in he is the same...a whiny, wimpy looser. I think Christian Bale's performance gave the character of the farmer a lot more manliness and self respect.

The action and screen play were a lot better in the new one as well. The only remarkable thing about the original, as far as I'm concerned is Glen Ford's performance. He was one of the better actors of that time perod. Or any time period in my opinion.

 

[steveno]

I don't like remakes. the original is much better. I couldn't make it through the remake. Glenn Ford is one of my Favorite actors

 

[Absalom]

The old one tells a more straightforward story. But seen today, it has the same issues as many 1950s westerns: Everybody is too clean-shaven, short-haired, coiffed and well-dressed, looking not like the old West, but like, well, the 1950s, and that’s not a compliment.

The new one has the better look and the better music soundtrack, and the spaghetti western influences aren’t something I see as a negative. But I agree the story is too hectic and sacrifices the psychology of the old one for some unnecessary action stuff and suffers on credibility.

Neither one is really a favorite for me.

 

[Watchdog]

The newer version was a horrible excuse for a movie. I couldn't finish it, so I drilled a hole in the disk and hung it on the side of my tomato cage - keeps the birds away from the tomatoes , they don't seem to like bad acting either.

Best laugh I've had all day!

 

[6518John]

It’s funny, people whose opinion I respect HATED the new 3:10 to Yuma. I LOVED it.

“Even Bad Men Love Their Momma’s.” One of the best movie lines of all time.

 

[Watchdog]

The old one tells a more straightforward story. But seen today, it has the same issues as many 1950s westerns: Everybody is too clean-shaven, short-haired, coiffed and well-dressed, looking not like the old West, but like, well, the 1950s, and that’s not a compliment.

By today's standards, most of the classic westerns from that period look dated (to me). High Noon and Shane are two that come immediately to mind. Shane is a really good film, even with its cookie cutter plot line, but I can hardly stand to watch it now.

 

[sophie]

I liked both of the 3:10 to Yuma movies, but far and away liked the original the best. Just watched it again last night. Funny how we pick apart the acting in the older movies now when we never did before.

 

[OLDSTER]

By today's standards, most of the classic westerns from that period look dated (to me). High Noon and Shane are two that come immediately to mind. Shane is a really good film, even with its cookie cutter plot line, but I can hardly stand to watch it now.

A little off the thread, but speaking of "westerns", your avatar is from, IMO, one of the top five ever. Val Kilmer should have won an Oscar. But regarding 3:10 to Yuma, I actually like both versions.

 

[WardenRoss]

I thought the newer version was one of the worst films, western or otherwise, I've ever seen in my life.

I thought it was so bad, I gave it away in one of my Karmas on this forum (sorry, Graydon ).

Isn't giving away a bad move, bad karma?

 

[rockquarry]

The newer "3:10" surprised me. it was a good film; not quite on the level of the original, but pretty close. As for the Glenn Ford / Van Heflin version, certainly among the five best westerns ever, a cut above "Shane" and very close to or perhaps equaling "High Noon". To me, the big selling point for "High Noon" was the opening scene with the bad guys meeting up, and of course, the Tex Ritter theme song. The rest of the movie suffered a bit, but it's still a good one.

Of course a bit off topic here, but one seldom mentioned would easily be another candidate for a top five western nominee: Last Train From Gun Hill.

 

[Farmer17]

I didn't like the new movie and didn't see the old movie.

 

[Wyatt Burp]

The old one tells a more straightforward story. But seen today, it has the same issues as many 1950s westerns: Everybody is too clean-shaven, short-haired, coiffed and well-dressed, looking not like the old West, but like, well, the 1950s, and that’s not a compliment.

The new one has the better look and the better music soundtrack, and the spaghetti western influences aren’t something I see as a negative. But I agree the story is too hectic and sacrifices the psychology of the old one for some unnecessary action stuff and suffers on credibility.

Neither one is really a favorite for me.

The ‘57 version had great outdoor scenes and the town looked realistic. But I guess we’re stuck with the wardrobe you mentioned. Guys seem to dress no different than ranchers and cowboys you might see in Elko, Nevada in the 50s. Or exactly like Clark Gable in ‘The Misfits” which was very realistic. Only the actors have holsters on. Jimmy Stewart always wore plaid shirts and sometimes short denim looking jackets. And like 50s Tv westerns, those little neckerchiefs tight around their throats that served no purpose.