3:10 to Yuma [Blu-ray] Reviews

• Great Remake With New Twists

  
  By A1U360OMVQRPUB on 2007-11-26
  Although many say the Western is dead, in books as well as movies, it continues to rear its head and make itself known every so often. There's something inherently noble and visceral about the artform and the subject matter, the calm delineation between good and evil, that stubbornly continues to attract an audience.
  
  In 2007, the Western showed back up at the box office in a trio of films that came out roughly at the same time. 3:10 TO YUMA was the first out of the gate, but it was followed in quick order by THE ASSASSINATION OF JESSE JAMES BY THE COWARD ROBERT FORD and NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN.
  
  The movie had been made fifty years ago, and much of the plot in that version made it into the remake. Both movies were based on a short story by Elmore Leonard, who has had several of his Western and crime novels made into films.
  
  Christian Bale stars as Dan Evans, a one-legged, down-on-his-luck rancher struggling to keep a home together for his wife and two kids. Russell Crowe plays Ben Wade, an intelligent and heartless outlaw who's leading one of the blood-thirstiest gangs to ever take up the owlhoot trail.
  
  Both stars take turns stealing scenes. Bale has the hard-edged look of coarse rawhide. Crowe possesses some of the deadest eyes ever shown in movies.
  
  One of the best portrayals in the movie was a surprise to me, though. It took me a minute to recognize Peter Fonda as professional bounty hunter turned Pinkerton agent Byron McElroy. Fonda reminded me a lot of his father Henry, but part of that is because Fonda has aged. He also delivers a quality of acting and honesty in the character that is just amazing, and he was content to carry the supporting character role and didn't try to upstage anyone.
  
  Logan Lerman was another surprise. He stared as William Evans, Dan's 14-year-old son. I'd thought Lerman was much older, but as it turned out he was 14 when the movie was made. He was likeable and intense.
  
  When it came to truly cold-blooded villains, though, Ben Foster as Charlie Prince totally blew me away. The hair on the back of my neck went up as soon as he stepped on stage, and within a minute I hated him.
  
  The story is simple. Dan is struggling to make ends meet and bumps into Wade during an armored wagon job. Later, after taking Byron McElroy into town for medical attention, Dan confronts Hollander, the man who's trying to run him off his land. When Hollander won't give him an extension on his loan, Dan finds Wade and helps take him captive. Then he agrees to help transport him to Yuma for $200.
  
  The movie quickly spins out into the action of the violent road trip. In addition to being one of the fastest gunmen around, Wade is also a skilled psychological warrior, constantly taunting his captors and seeking out their weaknesses.
  
  The action involves traveling through hostile Indian lands, meeting up with a team of killers working the railroad coming through the area, and a final showdown in Yuma that is one of the most exciting I've ever seen in a Western.
  
  For two hours, I sat marveling at the characters, then tensely awaiting the outcome of the latest danger they were all facing. Even then, the twists and turns of the characters, the back stories they were all hiding till the very last moment, were awesome. No one was quite who I thought they were.
  
  Westerns succeed best by having good men with a history of bad violence and bad men who haven't completely gone over to the dark side. 3:10 TO YUMA is one of those.
  
  One caveat I will offer to people who have seen the original movie starring Glenn Ford and Van Heflin, this version does NOT follow the same paths or end up the same way. Expect to be surprised and shocked at how things turn out. And you'll be tense nearly the whole way through.
  
  
  

• This is a handsomely photographed, well-acted turkey

  
  By AS558SNWF1DXG on 2007-09-17
  This is one of the least convincing Westerns I've ever seen and certainly one of the least satisfying.
  
  It's getting decent reviews now but I think a lot of critics will want to adjust their opinions later, or after a second viewing.
  
  It's mostly the fault of the script and direction -- the final reel of the movie is one of the most nonsensical wrap-ups to a major motion picture that I've seen in ages. It's almost like the filmmakers just decided to forget logic and narrative and turn the climax into a shoot-out that defies all sense.
  
  And I realize that not every situation in a movie is supposed to be the product of divine intelligence, but after enough characters do enough stupid things, you start to doubt the movie as a whole. Here are some examples....
  
  DON'T READ ANY FURTHER IF YOU DON'T WANT TO READ PROBLEMS WITH THE PLOT POINTS:
  
  1) You cannot get shot in the belly (as Peter Fonda does early on in the film) and have the slug removed and then keep walking around like nothing happened. Especially not in the dirty, gritty, unsanitary Old West.
  
  2) You cannot shoot a bag full of dynamite 15 feet away and have it explode without exploding you, too. The amount of TNT shown being shot would seriously injured if not killed the shooter.
  
  3) Here's a thought: If you're going to lock yourself in a stagecoach as bait for a gang of desperados ... maybe you ought to think about packing more than just a single six-shooter. A scattergun, perhaps? Hell, why not two scatterguns? What's to lose?
  
  4) Never give yourself up to a villain who promises to go easy on you. Everybody knows that. Except the sheriff of Contention.
  
  5) If a villain is in the street just below your window, and he's holding up a wad of money and offering it to the townspeople in exchange for them killing you? If you shoot him, the townspeople can take the money for doing nothing and won't want to kill you anymore. Now why wouldn't any sane Western hero realize this? Because then there wouldn't be a big shootout.
  
  6) A villain helping the hero because he *feels sorry for the hero* violates all the rules of most Westerns. It's also lame and unsatisfying.
  
  7) What exactly is Crowe's plan at the end of the movie? To get on the train to validate Bale's efforts and then ... escape?
  
  8) Where was Crowe's horse hanging out at the end during all that noisy shooting, if it wasn't tied to a rail?
  
  9) Wouldn't the guards standing watch over a Western fort notice a gang setting fire to stagecoach if it happened in their backyard? Wouldn't they send some people to do something about it?
  
  10) Who were those men Bale was watching through his spyglass? They couldn't have been Ben Foster and his posse? The time and the chronology don't add up.
  
  11) It's cheating for a writer, who is examing concepts of extreme good and evil, to have a villain only kill characters we have been set up to dislike.
  
  Anyway, that may seem like nitpicking, but trust me you don't want me to go into all the other things I hated about this film. You don't have the time.
  
  

• Good and Evil

  
  By A1TJPMB7N776WS on 2007-09-08
  The Western film: a truly American invention and in this new millennium a rare commodity. "Unforgiven" comes to mind and that was 10 years or so ago. There are others, of course but they are few and far between. There are Westerns that glamorize the Old West: "She Wore a Yellow Ribbon" and those that don't: "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance."
  "3:10 to Yuma" is somewhere in between the two mentioned above and it is about the eternal struggle between good and evil, between the have and the have nots, between those that would uphold the family and those that would demolish it and those who would preserve the peace and those that would let chaos rule.
  James Mangold ("I Walked the Line") has chosen to remake, revise, re-invent the 1957 Glenn Ford starring "3:10 to Yuma" with a sterling cast of Russell Crowe (as outlaw, train robber, Ben Wade), Christian Bale (erstwhile Batman as Dan Evans: everyman, ranch owner-going broke) whose life is turned upside down when he accidentally comes in contact with Wade while Wade is in the process of robbing a Pinkerton protected stage of all of it's loot.
  Crowe dominates the screen as Wade. His Wade is mercurial, slimy, sexy, brutal...seemingly willing to do anything for the thrill of stealing and killing. Crowe plays Wade quietly even sympathetically but always in control even when he physically isn't. Crowe dominates, both physically and cosmically, every scene that he is in: he sucks the oxygen out of a room upon entering and, in the one sex scene of the film, his "prey" has no choice, nor does she struggle by the way, but to comply with his wishes. In fact, she wants it as much as he does.
  Bale's Evans is downtrodden, desperate as well as desperately poor. He is days away from losing his farm and more importantly losing the respect of his family: the more important of the two in the world of "3:10." For in this world you are nothing without family and property and less than nothing if you lose it.
  On many levels Wade and Evans connect: they look at each other and their expressive eyes tell us something akin to "there but for the grace of God go I." But way down deep inside each man, inside their cores, they are brothers who have merely taken different roads.
  There is lots of violence, murder and even a little sex in "3:10" and perhaps it is even a bit long by 20 minutes but ultimately Mangold pulls all the various pieces together into a cohesive whole. But the real magic of this film comes from the premiere acting jobs of Russell Crowe, Christian Bale and a terrific Ben Foster ("6 Feet Under") as Charles Prince: a grotesque killing machine, more "Mad Max" than Jesse James who, against all odds plots to save Wade from destruction.
  
  
  

• The classic Old West is Back

  
  By A2Y3CWITEF9JGY on 2007-12-08
  The Western genre is pretty rare nowadays--the Hollywood of today usually prefers other kinds of films (we feel you Clint Eastwood). Fortunately for the die-hard fans of the classic Spaghetti Western, the waiting is over. 3:10 to Yuma is one of the best Western film in years and probably one of the best films of 2007 overall. Not only we get excellent performances by Crowe and Bale, but the film captures the Western film traditions from the past--everything from a compelling story with a sense of justice and great gun action. Read on and I tell you, even if you're not a fan of Western, why you have to watch this extraordinary film.
  
  Brief Intro Story:
  The Old West is hard place to live, not only you have to deal with criminals and desert weather, but also with creditors who can be just as dangerous.
  
  Things are not going well financially for the crippled family guy Dan Evans (Christian Bale) who has to support his wife Alice and two sons--he didn't pay the bills and his creditors burned his barn. As he is going back to town with his kids to complain about what happened, they see the famous outlaw Ben Wade (Russell Crowe) with his vicious gang who just busted a wagon full of cash (killing almost everybody). The gang members see Evans and his kids, but Wade (the boss of the gang) decides to only take their horses and leaves them standing there, but the gang makes a mistake--they left one wounded man. The gang goes to town and while Wade is alone and having fun with a local girl, he gets captured by the authorities while he is talking to Evans--who made it to town anyways. But they need extra help to transport him to catch a train that will take him to prison, and that's where Evans volunteers to help--for $200 dollars. He doesn't know that transporting this infamous bandit will turn his life around.
  
  Review:
  Director James Mangold (Walk the Line) has created an instant Western classic in almost every aspect. Here we find two cowboys, who are on different sides of the law, but at the same time, there is a sense of fellowship, loyalty and understanding between them--Not only their acting is impressive, there is so much chemistry on screen. In one hand, we have the outlaw Ben Wade who is a casual guy, a bit of a playboy, but he can be vicious if you push his buttons. despite all the immorality and his cockiness; he is a likeable character nevertheless. Then we have Evans who is a serious man of integrity, a loving father that will do everything he can to support his family righteously. There is a point in the film where his loyalty is put to the test, as well as the will to continue with the mission--this is the point of no return when it's not even about the money anymore. The two characters blend towards the end, they finally understand each other and create one of the best endings in recent memory.
  
  Technically speaking, 3:10 to Yuma is a marvel to behold. We get the classic look and feel of the Old West with excellent cinematography, intense gun battle sequences and good costume design. Perhaps for many, the first act might be a bit slow, but after Wade gets captured, the film picks up with great drama and suspense. With all these great sequences, we also get excellent sound effects--which reminds me a bit of Kevin Costner's Open Range. Some of these sounds effects creates even melancholia--listen carefully, specially during the final battle.
  
  The Verdict:
  We didn't know taking the train could be so difficult back in the Old West. 3:10 to Yuma will not disappoint fans of the genre. It follows the classic Western formula with great performances by Russell Crowe and Christian Bale. Do I see a nomination for any of these vanguard actors? I'd say yes.
  
  

• Understanding why Westerns are a National Treasure

  
  By A328S9RN3U5M68 on 2008-01-09
  If there is a truly unique American contribution to film making then that contribution has to be the Western. Though not as popular a theme these days as it was in past decades, it only takes a powerhouse film such as 3:10 TO YUMA to remind us just how pungent storytelling of this type can be. Yes, the story itself (based on a short story by Elmore Leonard) is rather simple: desperate farmer needs money to save his failing farm and family and signs on to escort a powerful outlaw to the train that will take him to prison. But in this screen adaptation by Halsted Welles, Michael Brandt, and Derek Haas the story is fleshed out by sharing with the audience the essence of the pioneer spirit and the sequelae of the Civil War on the minds of the dispossessed who turned to crime against the ruling order - the railroads and the banks represented the conquering North - and the film becomes one of profound understanding about man's plight in the pioneer West.
  
  The landscape and atmosphere of Arizona is captured with dusty accuracy by cinematographer Phedon Papamichael and sets the stage for director James Mangold ('Girl, Interrupted', 'Walk the Line', 'Identity', 'Kate and Leopold', 'Cop Land') to work with his talented cast to give a realistic view of life in the hard times of the old West. Russell Crowe is the notorious outlaw Ben Wade whose gang includes such actors as Ben Foster and Rio Alexander and once he is captured during a robbery, the local sheriff promises to pay $200. to destitute, crippled farmer Dan Evans to escort the prisoner to Contention, AZ for catching a ride to the 3:10 to Yuma and prison. The connection between the two disparate men - Wade and Evans - is the message of the story and is beautifully enhanced by allowing the audience to understand both sides of 'the law'. The co-stars of the film include Gretchen Mol as Evans' wife and young Logan Lerman as Evans' impressionable son William, Dallas Roberts as the head of the bank investment at risk, Peter Fonda, Alan Tudyk, Vinessa Shaw and a large cast of the people who interplay in the drama.
  
  Both Crowe and Bale give superlative performances, acting so cohesively that it would be difficult to single out either for the Oscar: this is ensemble acting at its finest. For once the added features enhance our appreciation of the tales from the Old West and how they became legends and the comments by the director, producers and cast actually make sense! The film will doubtless become a classic: it deserves the honor. Grady Harp, January 08
  
  
• Superb Western plus some special features on the DVD (noted in this review)
  By A1ER5AYS3FQ9O3 on 2008-01-24
  There have been many attempts to revisit the Western genre. Happily, this one works and I think the sparse, but exquisite use of language and the vivid setting (which, thank goodness, was filmed outside and not on a studio lot) adds much to the movie. There were some key sentences that jumped out of this film and I've noted them below. If you see the film, try to listen for them and see if they resonate as strongly for you.
  
  I found 3:10 to Yuma to be primarily a character-driven movie, although there is no denying that there is plenty of action as well. To my mind, this is Christian Bale's strongest, most mature and multi-faceted performance to date, although fans of his other roles might find that point debatable. If so, I'll concede the point since I'm wavering on that position anyway. Still, if I had to choose right now - today - I'd say this is his seminal film, if only for the way he manages to convey the ambivalence at the heart of a world-weary man, trying to find the energy to pull off one last desperate move.
  
  The basic plot of the movie is simple. Dan Evans (played by Bale) is a rancher who is having a hard time making ends meet. He is at a pivotal point in history, just before trains were commonplace everywhere. Evans is hoping to take a renowned criminal, Ben Wade, to the Yuma train (the 3:10 to Yuma, hence the title) and collect a $200 reward for his efforts. Russell Crowe brings Wade to life, quite skillfully.
  
  Both Russell Crowe and Christian Bale are well-matched, each playing off the other perfectly. Director James Mangold made the choice to use a lot of close-ups and this works well to emphasize the character studies in this film. Pay special heed to Bale's portrayal of a tormented man whose facial expressions are just as important as his words. The pivotal words of his? To me, they are these: "I"ve been standing on one leg for three damn years waiting for God to do me a favor - and he ain't listening." Still, he wants to be a good man, wants his wife and sons to respect him and see him as honorable. That is a key element of his life. He is also more drawn to the dark side of things than he cares to admit.
  
  Russell Crowe has a particularly risky role because he has to play "the bad guy", but not as a simplistic one-dimensional criminal. He has to make the part his own. That he did so still amazes me. His key words won't make sense till you see the film but they are: "I read the Bible from cover to cover. It took me three days. She never came back."
  
  Before moving on to the special features available on the DVD, I'd like to give a nod to Peter Fonda's strong performance in this film as well as other actors who I don't have time to describe in detail here.
  
  The theme of the movie revolves around the complicated and very difficult path to righteousness and all the ways that one can veer away from that path - as well as muddy the waters. It is a very slippery slope, a point driven home by this movie.
  
  Okay, the special features: I have to say that even if this movie had been terrible, I'd have considered buying it for the features alone because of the historical information contained in them.
  
  After making a western which often gives sway to the mythological, even fanciful aspects of history, the features focus on the truth behind the fiction. The whole Western genre is explored as well as such famous outlaws as James Younger and his gang and Black Bart. Particularly noteworthy was the detailed information about how Western outlaws and Civil War veterans connected, particularly those who'd fought for the South.
  
  This one is absolutely jam-packed with special features, including a look at how the film was made. The section on the actors and their connection to the horses was intriguing. While two of the actors loved being on horses and riding, one did not. I won't spoil the suspense of finding out which actor in this film said that he hated riding. It was amusing. Also fascinating? Describing how they got a train on location.
  
  One of the best films I've seen in awhile, highly recommended, although typically bloody and gritty, as you might expect. After seeing this, go have a look at the original movie and think about what this one says about our contemporary culture, based on the aspects of morality and other issues explored in the remake.
  
  
• The First Great Western of the 21st Century
  By A1J03J0HZ7KU5T on 2007-11-07
  Russell Crowe and Christian Bale are well-matched in director James Mangold's inspired remake of the 1957 western classic. Mangold has a terrific flair for the genre - revitalizing the traditional narrative with added emotional depth and cinematic skill. The result is the finest western since Clint Eastwood's "Unforgiven." Peter Fonda and Ben Foster are standouts in an excellent supporting cast. Hopefully, the critical and commercial success of "3:10 to Yuma" will encourage Hollywood to produce more sagebrush sagas.
  
  
• 4 1/2 - One of the best movies of the year
  By A3M2WW0PO34B94 on 2007-11-05
  Dan Evans (Christian Bale), a Civil War veteran, is having a tough time of it running his family's ranch in the Arizona desert. Dan owes money to Hollander, a rich landowner who sets Dan's barn on fire to run him off. The land is worth more to the landowner who wants to sell it to the railroad. The next morning, Dan and his two sons, William (Logan Lerman) and Mark (Benjamin Petry) set out to round up their cattle. Their path will lead them across Ben Wade (Russell Crowe), a notorious bandit, and his crew of heartless thieves, including Charlie Prince (Ben Foster, HBO's "Six Feet Under", "X-Men: The Last Stand"). Ben and his team have just robbed the latest stagecoach carrying cash for the railroad and killed all of the Pinkerton agents guarding the shipment, save one, sparing the life of Byron McElroy (Peter Fonda). Wade takes Dan's horses, but leaves them alive, so he and his men can ride into the nearby town. There, they send the sheriff out on a wild goose chase and enjoy come relaxation time. But Charlie wants to get the team across the border and is surprised when Ben says he will meet them soon. Ben is soon apprehended and the railroad wants to get the criminal to the "3:10" prison train leaving Contention for the camp in Yuma. They offer five men a lot of money to make sure Wade makes the short journey in time for the train. Dan takes the money, in an effort to pay off some of his debt, and to keep the ranch going until the next spring. Naturally, when Charlie learns of Ben's capture, he brings the crew back and they are determined to free their boss.
  
  Directed by James Mangold ("Walk the Line"), this remake is a very good film. Intense, believable, well-acted and exciting, it even makes a completely implausible ending work.
  
  The film works for a lot of reasons. Let's start at the top.
  
  Russell Crowe and Christian Bale top line the film and both turn in yet another very good performance. It is interesting that each actor just seems to get better and better with each film. Very different actors, they do seem to have a similar taste for challenging roles.
  
  Crowe is arguably the bigger star, but he likes to challenge himself and take on roles like heartless criminal Ben Wade. As the story progresses and we learn more and more about Wade, we learn to appreciate his character more and see more of the layers Crowe is bringing to this role. Initially, he seems like just another sociopath killer, who feels no pain as he kills yet another person standing between him and some money. But is he really that heartless? Or does he feel slightly pressured, even intimidated by the heartless people in his crew? That is for you to decide, but the mere fact Crowe is able to give this character that kind of depth speaks volumes to his skill as an actor.
  
  Wade is also not above playing little mind games with people. After he is captured, the posse takes him to Dan's ranch, where he meets Dan's wife, Alice (Gretchen Mol). While they wait for some business to unfold, they have dinner and Wade quickly ascertains Dan's weak points and starts to use those to poke some pins and needles into the rancher's hide. These moments are amusing and help to lighten the tone. As William, Dan's older son listens to the criminal's stories; he even seems to start to develop a little hero worship, which doesn't escape Dan's notice.
  
  Then, they are off, to make the journey to Contention, to make the train.
  
  Christian Bale is never anything less than interesting in his films. Quite often, he is simply mesmerizing. Even as Bruce Wayne, he manages to make the character seem real, and to give the former graphic novel creation a lot of depth and unusual traits. He often physically punishes himself for the sake of the role; for "The Machinist", he lost a lot of weight to play the role of an insomniac who worried about the world closing in on him, in the recently released "September Dawn", he lost a lot of weight, during filming, to portray an American fighter pilot held prisoner in Laos during the Vietnam War. But does this make him a good actor? Well, it certainly helps to create the illusion of the character he is playing in any given film. But Bale brings a lot more to his roles and usually creates mesmerizing performances.
  
  Dan Evans is a man who has had many struggles in his life. A Civil War veteran, he seems slightly put off he doesn't get and can't command any respect for his civil service. He lost part of a leg yet a wealthy land owner doesn't even seem to give it a moment's thought when he orders his men to torch Dan's barn. Because Dan feels powerless, he comes off as a bit of a wimp in the eyes of his older son, one of the many factors prompting him to take on the task of transporting Wade. He wants to redeem himself and earn his son's respect.
  
  It is a performance the equal of Crowe's. Each reveals little aspects of their characters as the story progresses. As each learns about the other, they seem to come to a better understanding of their nemesis. I won't call them friends, but they seem to appreciate the choices each has made, and in some cases, will make, throughout the course of the film.
  
  Peter Fonda turns in a stand-out performance as the Pinkerton agent who decides to take out his vengeance on Wade by trying to ensure he makes that train. Alan Tudyk (just seen in "Death at a Funeral") has another memorable supporting role as Doc Potter, drafted into the journey. Luke Wilson has a brief, but intense cameo as a railroad worker bent on revenge.
  
  But the real standout of the supporting cast is Ben Foster. As Charlie Prince, we see a mirror image of what Ben Wade once was; all bad, driven to do nothing but rob money, kill anyone who gets in their way, keep his gang in order and help keep his boss out of jail. He quickly rounds up the gang to save Ben. When they realize what is required to save Wade, he quickly silences their objections to what lies ahead. We never feel as though there is any question he will succeed in his plan; he is that driven, that committed to Wade.
  
  The film is filled with great dialogue, the type of dialogue that helps to build the characters and allow us to learn about their past, giving us a more rounded view of their persona. Throughout, Wade and Dan have conversations which initially start as a minor form of mind game initiated by Wade. But as he gets to know the rancher, he starts to subtly reveal things about himself. Both characters are the better for this subtle form of exposition.
  
  These same conversations also help to lay the groundwork for the finale. Now, I still don't buy into the film's conclusion, I don't believe some of the actions of some of the characters, but the film sets up this ending very well, dropping little clues and hints throughout.
  
  The dialogue also appears to be authentic. As the characters speak, they don't use any modern day phrases, ruining the image of watching two men in the Old West. Period characters speaking in modern dialect is a more common thing than you might realize; because we are familiar with modern day words and phrases, it is more difficult for us to realize these are being used inappropriately in a period piece. It is interesting that we are now seeing a variety of projects attempting to give us a hyper-realistic view of what life was like in the Old West. First, HBO's "Deadwood" created by David Milch, and in which every other word out of every character's mouth is the "F" word. But it works, and is surprisingly engrossing. Now with "3:10 To Yuma", we see another thorough, seemingly accurate depiction of a different part of the Old West.
  
  There are also a number of terrific action sequences, keeping things lively and interesting. Because this is a western, these involve robbing stagecoaches, shootouts and chases on horseback. I realize some people may not appreciate this type of action, too old-fashioned, but it gives a stronger sense of immediacy, of danger to the film. Because the things are happening on a smaller scale to `real' people, they seem more dangerous.
  
  "3:10 To Yuma" is a very good film. A remake of the Glenn Ford - Van Heflin original, I have never seen the first film, so I can't compare the two. But the new version featuring great performances from Russell Crowe and Christian Bale, a number of fine supporting performances, and great dialogue is a very good film.
  
  
  
  
  
• I wanted this film to be great.
  By A2ZS59R1GNT1JB on 2008-01-31
  I love the Western myth too much to like this film, which does injustice to the savvy of Western characters in general, and to the Code that drives every classic Western. In these things, it becomes a pseudo-Western; if it *does* revive the Western genre, I hope its successors don't commit its same atrocities.
  
  The film is an exercise in Implausible Plotting. Cowboys and lawmen of the Old West escort a Notorious Outlaw across the wilderness and leave his hands cuffed in front of him, even after he kills two of the escort party in ways he never could have done had they just bothered to tie him up. Said cowboys and lawmen send a decoy "outlaw" in a stagecoach to throw the bad guys off the trail of the escort, and they just happen to lock the unfortunate decoy in the stage *for real* without giving him a key, so he can burn to death when the gang catches up and discovers his identity. Said cowboys and lawmen, armed and holding the higher ground, look out a hotel window to engage in conversation with the Notorious Outlaw's psychotically murderous gang, and then allow them to ride away unaccosted after several death threats, so the carnage can come later. What sane person would behave as these characters do? They act stupidly so dramatic tension can last longer.
  
  Yes, the scenery is lovely. Yes, the acting is pretty much flawless, but who would have expected less from Crowe and Bale? The character actions and the conclusion are the problem here. After seeing this film, my 18-year-old brother remarked, "Well, if that was reality, I'd definitely wanna be on the side of the bad guys ... all the good guys were either stupid or wimpy." That is not the Western myth; that is the antithesis of the Western myth.
  
  
• WHAT THE UNBELIEVABLE ENDING & FLAWS!!!
  By A2PMQH87R1H3QU on 2008-02-28
  I won't bother with the plot synopsis as everyone else has covered it already. But lets get to why I ended up loathing this film. It was because it betrayed its audience by thoroughly insulting their intelligence. I started out loving this movie, five stars I thought, great acting, authentic setting, terrific costumes and scenery. I dropped down to four as Peter Fonda was gutshot one day and in the saddle the next day with the posse delivering Ben Wade (Russell Crow) to town of Contention. What finally sunk this film for me was the complete idiocy of the final sequence. We're asked to believe that Ben Wade, this ruthless killer, somehow finds empathy for this pathetic rancher who wants to deliver him to the hangman. He then willingly runs handcuffed with Christian Bale through town, dodging bullets from townsfolk and his own gang who have risked their lives to save him. After much carnage, he makes it to the train with Bale who dies in the effort. He then slaughters his gang ( I still can't figure out why. They were there to set him free) and willingly gets on the train, which seems to have no guards or locked cells. He then softly whistles for his horse, who has super hearing to follow the prison train from which he obviously will easily escape. Tens of millions of dollars, thousands man/woman hours by talented people in the industry and this is the best ending they can come up with? They must be DELUDED OR COMPLETE IDIOTS or they have so much contempt for the audience's intelligence and think that we're not going to notice or be insulted by the absolute departure from reality and normal human behavior. I ended up HATING this movie. Any rational human being would too.
  
  
• So many stupid people in one movie...
  By ADTVI1TQRV4UD on 2008-02-10
  Spoilers follow.
  
  I agree with the many folks who commented thusly: beautiful movie, with excellent acting, especially by Crowe & Bale- but with stupidity galore. The thing with the captors having Wade, a known murderer, very loosely handcuffed with his hands in FRONT of him- and letting him stay that way even after killing TWO of his captors- that was completely unacceptable. Stupid beyond explanation. And the gut-shot Pinkerton man- oh, he's basically FINE the next day, just because the bullet was removed? What??? And it just goes on & on- why did anyone tell the poor sap decoy in the stagecoach where the rest of the group was taking Wade?? Why did these morons make a campfire in known Indian territory? Why did they let Wade go to the window & chat with his pals when they got to Contention? Why, when the outlaws were busy gunning down the lawmen when they came outside- unarmed & surrendering- did the idiot captors not take that opportunity to SHOOT the outlaws?? And so on & so on. And the ending was so far beyond far-fetched that there's just no describing it in any way that makes any sense. The biggest disappointment of all: this could have been a great movie, with a little bit more effort. Why is it that nobody who watched the movie before it was released, or read the script, or did any editing, said, "Hey, why are these guys all so incredibly stupid? Do they have lead poisoning or something?" What a waste.
  
  
• Farce
  By A2M7O7QDALTJK0 on 2008-01-02
  The movie grows increasingly weak as it progresses. Whatever remains of it is utterly destroyed by a ludicrous ending.
  
  
• Supervillain overdoes it
  By A3NH7PYU4AD5GA on 2008-01-12
  As much as I would love to see a very good new Western, this one is not it. Bale does a good honorable heroic money-strapped small rancher, while Crowe is charming as ambiguous villain: evil and educated and in his way honorable too, but bloody murderous. But the sting is not there. I watched the whole without real involvement. It is not boring, but certainly also not captivating. And let's face it, the final sequence is just not right. Hyperactivity does not create suspense. The oddness of the bad guy's motivation reduces credibility.
  Will have to look at old Clint in a spaghetti flick again, one of these days.
  
  
• mid life crisis fantasy
  By A3DYDYNUN7NLI5 on 2008-02-07
  This movie was so bad it made me angry. I couldn't believe it was a remake of a John Ford movie. I was so upset I sat through the John Ford version to make sure I wasn't crazy. Thankfully, all the things I hated about this movie were not in the original version.
  
  plot spoilers below.
  
  Other people have pointed out plot flaws. The movie is just a well shot western patina applied over handsome actors doing nonsensical stuff. What bothered me was that this movie was an exercise in wish fulfillment for anxiety ridden baby boomers. It had all the classic mid-life anxiety themes:
  (1) my snotty teenage son doesn't respect me.
  (2) my wife is no longer attracted to me.
  (3) I'm screwed up because I had bad parents.
  (4) the bad boy always gets the girl.
  (5) I haven't been successful at work.
  
  So what does he do? He performs an outrageous act of principle which, in the end, gains him the respect and admiration of everyone involved. Even the bad guy is overcome with admiration.
  
  The movie that you end up with is a whiny, nonsensical mess. I'll give it credit for one thing: it looked good. It was well shot. The villains looked like villains, and beautiful women were working on farms or tending bars in tiny towns. However, the substance of this movie was garbage.
  
  
• Waste of a couple of hours...
  By A3EETR6Z73XQXE on 2008-02-17
  Plenty of action, admirable story line, but in the end, lots of what everyone did in the movie didn't make any sense...unsatisfying ending to say the least. Wasted a couple of hours watching this useless movie.
  
  
• Noble attempt to be an in-depth movie + Outrageously far-fetched ending + Few entertaining moments = Not worth buying
  By AYWSFRCIMOAYE on 2007-12-08
  It tries hard to be an in-depth movie. It deals with psychology, conscience and honesty. There are very few exciting moments. The worst problem is the outrageously far-fetched ending. That has never happenned in history or reality. Logically, it'll never happen either. To me, that makes the film less interesting. It's still worth renting for curiosity.
  
  
• What a RIDE! Ten stars! (five for Logan Lerman)
  By A1AP3A4UW8OJFV on 2008-01-18
  Yes, it's a western, a remake, and yes, it's bloody and yes it's so terrific you will want to watch it again right after having finished it the first time.
  
  Perfect acting by everyone. Russell Crowe is given the chance to show his amazing talent, to really dig into it. Christian Bale is marvellous as a father trying to make up for lost chances, finally doing it right.
  But to me what struck me most, is the amazing talent of Logan Lerman who plays C. Bale's son. I have never before watched such a stunning performance by a 14 year old. No matter if he's in close up or riding a horse in the background, he's always focussed. Perfect!!!
  Also the bad guys, most of all Ben Foster, are such dirtbags, you really wouldn't want to meet them. Neither in the dark nor the light.
  Perfectly directed by James Mangold with a constant change in pace, great lighting, perfect composure - what is there left to say, I'm in awe!!!
  One thing to reality: the bad guys somehow walk through almost any gunfight unhurt. Especially in the shootout scene at the end, there are many opportunities for Bale to finish off the meanest of the gang. Strangely enough he never gets the idea. Also when they are attacked by the Apaches, nobody puts out the fire which makes them the easiest target.
  This is what makes it a five star movie, not more (with 5 extras for Logan Lerman). It's Hollywood, not real life.
  
  As to the story: Based on a terrific short story by the great Elmore Leonhard, Christian Bale is Dan Evans, a poor rancher with a wife and two kids. He needs money badly to hold on to his farm. So he agrees to help out in getting Ben Wade, a captured outlaw (Russell Crowe) onto the train to Yuma. Amidst all the action (involving Crow's gang, dirty businessmen, a handful Apaches, Chinese railroad workers, a sexy singer, Peter Fonda as an avenging bounty hunter) you have the psychological dialogue/duel between the good (Bale) and the evil (Crowe).
  As they get closer, they discover that in their hearts they are not so different after all. Both have their dark sides and the good. Which is going to win, and with whom? Will Wade have mercy with the farmer or will Evans give in to the money that is being offered to him in case he would give up the fight for justice?
  
  BluRay? YES, YES and YES!!! Marvellous, sound, sharpness, depth, color, shadows, detail.
  A terrific film!
  
  
• The Western Really Is Dead
  By A3L3IP5RKAA0NB on 2008-02-04
  The movie opens with a farmer whose barn is being burned because the area is going to have a train run through it and someone wants his land. This is followed by a stage coach robbery with Russell Crowe as the leader of the gang. Everyone looks suitably dirty and Crowe gets to wear the "black outfit complete with hat." Move to a saloon where Crowe is talking to the lady bartender. She doesn't fit into this movie since she obviously has escaped from a Vogue photoshot so she disappears. Crowe is captured. The farmer is asked to take Crowe to the train so that he can be held for trial. Crowe's fellow bandits follow them (Indians appear and disappear for no reason since this is not about fighting Indians). The farmer is left alone with Crowe and his gang (who are present to save Crowe)waiting for the train. There is a marshall with the farmer but he leaves because he says he is frightened. Crowe (after finding out the farmer is trying to impress his son) shoots all of his gang so they can't save him. The farmer is shot to death. Crowe then gets on the train, whistles for his horse and the train pulls out with his horse running along side. Peter Fonda is in the movie but only for a short time since he falls off the side of a mountain. I don't remember why.
  
  The movie does not flow. It hops from one scene to another which completely destroys the interaction between the farmer, his son and the robber. There are too many things added which have no bearing on the story (Indians, surgery on a man who appears to have plastic intestines, and a lady barkeeper). Overall, the movie is a waste of time. Surely, they can do better than this.
  
  
• Big Disappointment!
  By A9ZEPWPNIQYML on 2007-11-30
  I have always loved westerns, and my favorite westerns, by far, are the great classics from the 1950s, including Delmer Daves' 3:10 TO YUMA. That 1957 movie had superb acting, and you really cared about what happened to the characters. It also had a very satisfying ending.
  
  James Mangold's 2007 remake of 3:10 TO YUMA also has superb acting, but the almost continuous and extreme violence turned me off to the point that I couldn't have cared less about what happened to the characters and how the movie ended. In fact, the ending is nothing short of ludicrous.
  
  Unless you love lots, and I do mean lots, of violence, I would suggest that you skip the remake and buy the original.
  
  
• Adding to Our Understanding of Heroism
  By A2EGO6DJNJEUP0 on 2007-12-10
  You'd think the theme of heroism would be exhausted by now, but you'd be wrong. 3:10 to Yuma does an excellent job of adding to our understanding who heroes are, where to look for them, and why they are important.
  
  It juxtaposes two men- one is unaccomplished, frustrated, and desperate-in short, a failure with a family. The other is unattached, romantic, intelligent, fast, and powerfully charismatic.
  
  It really does take every minute of the movie, and especially the structure of the ending, to tell us WHY the first of the two men is the true hero, and why the second is empty and valueless. You'll see that the West was won by men of no accomplishment and high character, not men of talent and charisma. You'll see that a father's love has more power than a gunslinger's right hand. Perhaps most important, you'll see that a hero is such because he gives, not because he takes.
  
  Enjoy the movie, and learn to see the heroes in the world around you.
  
  
• Hollywooded to the Hilt
  By ALA7ITRHEN2MO on 2008-01-16
  The actors are good, the scenery is good, the cinematography is good and the costumes are good, but many elements of the story are strikingly bogus. With the people and budget he had, the director could have made this film an Oscar nominee instead of an awful mess.
  For example - early in the action the bad guys get in line-abreast in front of the stagecoach they are robbing, and charge like cavalry, giving the coachmen the maximum opportunity to shoot at them, then they get behind the coach where they can be shot with the gatling gun. Nobody smart enough the get on a horse is going to be that stupid. They would drop a tree or big rock in the road and shoot from behind cover.
  Another example is the bounty hunter. He is shot in the stomach from close range. That can be dicey in the best modern trauma wards. At that time and place it was a death wound, but he is on his feet later that day and riding a horse the next. It was absurd. Later, they are trying to sneak thru dangerous Indian country. They stop for the night and build a bonfire. They might as well have roasted marshmellows and sung camping songs. When the Indians come and start shooting, they huddle by the fire so they can be more visible while Russell Crowe walks up to the Indians and kills them ( they don't notice him coming ). I can't describe events after that point because I ejected the DVD.
  
  
• Darker and more violent than the 1957 version with some differences in the story
  By AUHG8KSHI529U on 2008-02-05
  This is a very good modern Western. Yes, it uses the same title, mostly the same characters, and the plot is similar in most of its core points, it is still a different version of the story than the 1957 movie. And I gather that both are different than the Elmore Leonard story from which the movies draw their inspiration.
  
  This movie is much more violent, has a longer and more event filled journey to Contention, and there is a difference in what is being robbed, what happens to the wagon, and the makeup of group taking Ben Wade to meet that fateful train to Yuma. The move from the hotel to the train is much longer and terribly more violent than the 1957 version as are the moments before the train to Yuma leaves. Remember this is a modern tragedy and has different conventions than the movies had in 1957.
  
  Christian Bale plays his Dan Evans as a defeated and desperate man than Van Heflin did. However, Bale draws us in and we participate in his struggle more than we observe it. Russell Crowe is just as good as Ben Wade. He is less charming than Glenn Ford's version, but shows his more refined side in different ways. For example, Crowe's Ben Wade likes to draw and does it pretty well. Both versions of Wade try to use charm, then bribery, then terrible threats. Crowe's Wade demonstrates his violence where Ford's characterization implies it after the opening shooting. The difference is probably more about what movies were not allowed to do fifty years ago. In any case, the movie is really about Dan Evans and why he persists in a task that, in the end, no one cares to see done as much as it is about the outlaw Ben Wade.
  
  One key difference in the way the versions are told is that this movie is about Dan proving himself to his sons, especially to his oldest son, William (Logan Lerman), where the 1957 movie was about Dan regaining the confidence of his wife, Alice (Gretchen Mol), who has a much smaller role in this movie. Dan's sons are older in this telling.
  
  Do I prefer one version over the other? I think they are different movies and enjoy them both on their own terms. However, I would feel much more comfortable showing the older version to young people than the new version because of the intensity of the violence in the new movie. But don't think the new version is a blood and guts splatter film. It isn't. But it is intense and much darker than the older film.
  
  Very good and a fine Western.
  
  Reviewed by Craig Matteson, Ann Arbor, MI
  
  
  
• POINTLESS ALL THE WAY TO YUMA
  By AEOJWHZB5D4MU on 2008-02-16
  Well,one reviewer got it right,in my opinion,the movie is just pointless,there was no reason for any of the events to happen,they should have and WOULD have just shot crow's character.done.afraid his gang would burn down the town?what do you think the gang would do to the town if they gave in to them?and the movie just goes down hill after that, especially the stereo typing of the indians as complete morons.the best western,in my opinion,since unforgiven is "wyatt erp"and/or "tombstone"
  
  
• Poor Remake
  By A1RKL0S9R65O5K on 2007-11-08
  It has been said that to enjoy this remake of a great western you must forget about the original. I'm not sure how this can be achieved since some of the scenes in it are carbon copies of the old one even to the extent of using the same dialogue. Therefore it is a pity the producers of this awful remake didn't practice this credo and steer clear of anything that would resemble the now classic version. It is a long, slow laborious haul from Bisby to catch the 3.10 to Yuma at Contention and in this movie the journey really drags.
  
  Firstly, James Mangold (or maybe it should be Mangled?) is no Delmar Daves and Russell Crowe is most certainly no Glenn Ford. Crowe totally misses the vitality and vibrancy in the performance of the late actor. He gives a very subdued, almost quiescent performance and it's hard to wholly accept that he is Ben Wade the "notorious" and "fearsome" leader of a gang of outlaws. He mutters his lines unconvincingly and without authority. Crowe is surprisingly disappointing in it! There is none of the Bud White temper or truculence he displayed in "LA Confidential" which is exactly what his portrayal of Ben Wade required. In the earlier version Glenn Ford made the character of Ben Wade his own.You couldn't but be taken in by his roguish demeanour and winning personality. Crowe exudes none of this with his Ben Wade. Instead he invests the character with a slow, quiet almost bored persona. As a result you really can't give a toss what happens to him. The scene with the Barmaid is a weak attempt to replicate the '57 film. In the earlier movie the sequence in the saloon with Ford and the lovely Felicia Farr is touching and amorous. By contrast the same scene with Crowe, and a remarkably poor and ineffectual unknown actress, is decidedly flat and charmless. In fact the whole movie lacks pace and anything that could be called style. Also,for a western there is very little action! With the exception of a well executed stagecoach holdup in the film's only set piece near the beginning action fans are going to feel hard done by!
  Best in it is Christian Bale! His Dan Evens is well compared to Van Heflin in the original. Excellent too is the young actor Logan Lerman who plays Bale's 14 year old son. But I thought the part of Charlie Prince as played by Ben Foster to be over-written and somewhat overplayed. Richard
  Jaeckel got this character just about right in the original.
  The film also has a major fault in the music score by one Marco Beltrami. What on earth was this so called composer trying to do? Why was he emulating the overrated Morricone with his meaningless clunking guitars all over the place. All he missed out on was having a chorus singing wordlessly and we would have had a dreaded full blown Spaghetti Western!
  If you listen to his "Theme" over the end credits you will hear what is suspiciously like "The Good The Bad and The Ugly". I wonder has anyone ever intimated to Mr.Beltrami that the purpose of music in film is to create atmosphere, heighten tension and emotion and to add pathos. His music aids none of these things in the picture. Also why oh why did'nt they reuse the brilliant Frankie Laine song from the original? It would have given the credits a badly needed dramatic punch instead of the awful droning and odious Beltrami rubbish.
  All in all a poor attempt at remaking a first class movie. Looks like
  "Open Range" is still the best latter day western yet produced and which thankfully wasn't a remake. I just hope that now they stop producing remakes! And please Hollywood leave the classics alone!
  
  The one thing this new version of "3.10 To Yuma" did achieve however was to make one realise just how good the old version really is and appreciate it that much more.
  
  A final afterthought, can anyone explain why was the ending changed???
  
  
  
• More than a Western
  By A39OM050G38BRN on 2007-11-23
  This is a movie that bears repeated viewings due to a great subtext and accomplished acting. Not only does the film offer fast-paced entertainment, it offers a deeper story that asks questions about the meaning of morality and the requirements of faith. Decidedly the best movie I've seen this year. Highly recommended.
  
  
• Miss This Train
  By A1XIMYN01X7CJU on 2008-01-23
  This was absolutely and relentlessly laughable. What happened to the continuity dept. on this film? A good guy gets gut shot with a very large pistol at point blank range. A few minutes later the doc has him on the table, his guts wide open and exposed (much beef liver used here), the doc digs out the bullet, and five minutes later the gut shot guy limps into the saloon and says he's good to go for the posse. THEN HE GALLOPS OFF AND THOUGHOUT THE MOVIE HE'S APPARENTLY RIGHT AS RAIN! Inconceiveable! Miraculous! STUPID! There are many more examples like this throughout the movie. I dropped it in the trash can as soon as it was over.
  
  
• I've Got a Train to Catch
  By A18G7GG53G2X8A on 2007-09-04
  The Western: a classic and simple genre, famous for its portrayals of lawless towns, armed bandits, shootouts, saloons, and whisky drinking. "3:10 to Yuma" is a film that makes use of them all, and I expected nothing less. What I did not expect was a story of amazing depth and complexity; this remake of Delmer Daves' 1957 film--which itself was based on Elmore Leonard's short story--is a triumph of plot and character development, telling a story that's just as meaningful as it is brutal. It begs the question: Is there truly a clear distinction between good and evil? This film refuses to answer that question, making for one of the most compelling films of the year.
  
  One of the main characters is Ben Wade (Russell Crowe), an Arizona outlaw with a deplorable record of robbery and murder to his name. He seems to feel no remorse over his actions; indeed, he is an unlikable character, having little if any regard for other people and what he puts them through. But at the same time, he's engaging and oddly magnetic, with an air of mystery that's undeniably fascinating. Watching him, one gets the sense that he knows what someone else is thinking, which is both interesting and disturbing. He leads a band of murderers and thieves across the Western desert, a ruthless band that remains loyal for no apparent reason. Judging by the behavior of Wade's right hand man--Charlie Prince (Ben Foster)--one gets the sense that a little hero worship is at work.
  
  The other main character is Dan Evans (Christian Bale), a one-legged farmer currently in a financial crisis. A greedy, arrogant landlord named Hollander (Lennie Loftin) has cut off the local water supply, destroying Evans' crops and making the land infertile. Hollander also oversaw the burning of Evans' barn; Evans had borrowed money, but was unable to repay. To make matters worse, Wade stole Evans' herd of cattle. Facing a lifetime of hardship and the disrespect of his wife and children, Evans joins a motley crew of townsfolk in their effort to capture Wade: the rich Grayson Butterfield (Dallas Roberts); the cantankerous Byron McElroy (Peter Fonda); and Doc Potter (Alan Tudyk), the local veterinarian (who occasionally sees human patients). In return for having him arrested and sent to Yuma Prison, Evans will be paid handsomely. But catching Wade will prove to be no easy task; by the time he is caught, more than a few lives are ruined.
  
  Thus begins a physical and emotional journey, one of incredible insight. Wade is now bound by handcuffs and ready to be transported to Yuma. Once there, he'll board a prison train at 3:10 in the afternoon. As one might expect, almost nothing goes according to plan, and the characters are thrust into life or death situations. This is especially true in terms of Wade's posse, which has been following Evans' group relentlessly. In the midst of all character interactions, the greatest dynamic exists between Evans and Wade. At first glance, they seem like complete opposites; one lives a life of honesty while the other lives a life of crime. Nonetheless, both men are deeply flawed, with emotional baggage they have yet to rid themselves of. They have more in common than either would care to believe.
  
  This isn't to say that being on common ground has brought them closer together. If anything, they push each other's buttons, especially when it comes to matters of faith: Wade--a lowly, deceitful man--is a pious Christian, and he always seems ready to quote a passage or two from the Bible; Evans--a good, honest man--is struggling with his faith, feeling as if God has ignored him for quite some time. Both men hide secret pain, all of which is slowly revealed as the film progresses. There's something about their line of communication that I found incredibly revealing, especially when the worst is brought to the surface. Example: Wade rouses Evans by questioning his treatment of his wife. "You say one more word," Evans shouts as he grabs hold of Wade, "and I'll cut you down right here." "I like this side of you, Dan," is Wade's reply. Here's a conversation that speaks volumes with so few words. It was highly effective.
  
  An intriguing subplot involves Evans' son, William (Logan Lerman), a headstrong fourteen-year-old who feels he has something to prove. While specifically told to stay home with his mother and brother, William runs off to join his father, hoping to be of use. But more importantly, he seems genuinely curious about Wade: Is there, in fact, something to be gained by knowing who Ben Wade really is? Is this killer really as cold-blooded as he lets on? It's difficult to know for sure, especially since he and Evans form alliances just as quickly as they break them. What they share can't be considered a friendship. But on the same token, they are able to acknowledge each other's existence, and not always with hostility. Surely something can be said for that.
  
  By the time the characters reach Yuma and engage in a climactic shootout, any sense of black and white reasoning has been lost. "3:10 to Yuma" exists in that massive gray area between the two, preventing the audience from pigeonholing the characters into definite types. This is without a doubt the film's greatest strength, acting as an appropriate counterpart to the ending. While the final moments require a little extra thought on our part, it still plays out beautifully, about as smooth and efficient as a well-oiled machine. For all the clichés that could have bogged it down, "3:10 to Yuma" is a Western that doesn't let itself get carried away. This is not a shallow Tough Guy movie; it's a wonderfully executed character study. Here's one train that you should definitely catch.
  
  
• Rough Ride
  By ARA48345JZPZR on 2007-09-18
  There is an Amazon review here by Clare Quilty (Lolita anyone?) that nails all the illogic in this film so I will not repeat it. He's got that right, but I enjoyed this film anyway. It was smartly paced, looked great, and had a marvelous cast. Russell Crowe's roguish killer/bandit playing mind games with his captors was great fun. Christian Bale's downtrodden rancher trying to find some redemption for a failed life was compelling. There's a bit more unease generated by Ben Foster's devoted lieutenant than just pure psychopath. And there's a nice bit by an, at first, unrecognizable Peter Fonda as a vicious bounty hunter.
  
  I liked the leaner original film this was based upon. And perhaps the expansion of this version created some of the illogic so ably pointed out in the above cited review. But call it a guilty pleasure, I went along with this rough ride without any of those valid criticisms bothering my enjoyment of the film. It moved, it held my interest, and there were some nice nuances in the interplay of the performers that allowed me to suspend disbelief. Yeah, it ends in an overblown shootout, but I like big shootouts and don't look for logic in them. The resolution had some surprises and the denouement in the cold light of day doesn't make sense, but I'd taken the hook and my enjoyment of the film was not lost by it.
  
  I love the Western genre. Funny that it is being kept alive often by Aussies and Brits. No matter. This may not rank in the pantheon of Classics, but for sheer entertainment, I found its pleasures outweighed its flaws, and it was a worth the ticket.
  
  
• Runaway Train
  By A1VABWDOUQLULZ on 2007-11-05
  I didn't know what to expect of this film, as it had a fantastic cast, but I'm not particularly into westerns. Turns out it was very well done, well directed, tight writing, artful delivery, great cinematography... What I found most compelling about the film was the lead actors. Bale tends to have pretty boy stamped on him in everything he does (though I think he's a fantastic actor), and as he plays a man quite truncated in his virility, I enjoyed seeing him act with such reserve. He mastered understatement in this film, allowing subtler facets of his skill to come to the fore. I do think he is a creator to watch, and it's a pretty nice view to behold. At the other end of the spectrum we have Crow, whom I've been impressed with but never truly blown away by. Perhaps I am not so moved in this film either, but I was immensely impressed with Ben Wade. Wade was richly presented in all his contradictory angles, so much so that I found I no longer minded that he was engineered by Crow. I suppose I must now be impressed by Crow because despite all the heartstrings we were supposed to attach to the lesser gifted Dan Evans, it was Wade's plight that engrossed me. Well done. Now go do more.
  
  
• Great movie!
  By A33B9M9K54R2LI on 2007-11-19
  I've seen this movie four times in theaters! It's better than the original! Fantastic acting, and scenery!
  
  

• The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford [Blu-ray]
• No Country for Old Men [Blu-ray]
• Michael Clayton [Blu-ray]
• American Gangster [Blu-ray]
• Eastern Promises [Blu-ray]