Digital M@
Explorer
jaerdaph said:
We all have done something in our life to deserve getting a cell phone smashed in our faces, Karma just choose Russell Crowe to deliver it. Don't blame Russell he was just the messenger.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Anyone seen 3:10 to Yuma?
- Thread starter Bullgrit
- Start date
We all have done something in our life to deserve getting a cell phone smashed in our faces, Karma just choose Russell Crowe to deliver it. Don't blame Russell he was just the messenger.
Darth Shoju
First Post
Digital M@ said:
I'm not certain, but from my understanding he hurled a telephone indiscriminately and it hit one of the hotel staff. Russell Crowe apologized and I believe the staff member profited monetarily. I'm not saying the guy doesn't have a juvenile temper, but I don't think he tackled the guy and caved his face in with a phone either.
GoodKingJayIII
First Post
Bullgrit said:
Really? Bummer, sorry you didn't like it. I'm curious to hear what you thought about it, though. I thought it was a great, a strong narrative, good characters and visuals, though it certainly did not end in a nice, neat little package with a bow on top. I don't know if that was your issue with the movie, but I know a few people who disliked that aspect of it.
AdmundfortGeographer
Getting lost in fantasy maps
For me, one of the best movies I've seen in a while. Top notch western, and thoroughly a western.
Bullgrit
Adventurer
I'll be posting this review on my blog tomorrow.
3:10 to Yuma - movie review
Viewed:Theater
I love Westerns. I love the shoot outs, I love the horse riding, I love the dress, I love the wide outdoor scenes. But I also love all of those things to be wrapped up in a good and logical story. Unfortunately, this movie fails in the story logic.
The whole series of events starts because the bad guys let the rancher and his boys live when they witness the stage robbery. The bad guys murder (murder) the Pinkerton agents who survive the stage wreck (except for one, who they just gut shot for sadistic pleasure), but they let the rancher who witnessed it all go free and alive? The whole first 30 minutes of the movie is to establish just how evil, ruthless, and uncaring these bad guys are, but they show uncharacteristic benevolence to let the rancher go.
There are many other logic-defying scenarios throughout the movie that just keep me from liking this movie.
The posse taking Ben Wade, the self-admitted evil murderer, in hand shackles, let him sit at the dinner table right next to the rancher's youngest son and his wife---and he's eating with a long, sharp object. (He uses that exact object to kill a man later in the movie.)
After Ben Wade kills two of his captors, while still shackled, the posse doesn't execute him on the spot. They have the chance to kill Ben's terrible second in command, numerous times, yet they don't do it. The second in command is able to go round up his scattered and in hiding gang to rescue their boss in less time than it takes the posse to escort Ben two days ride. The Apache attack is laughable. Just problem after problem---I haven't mentioned them all.
The plot and story in this movie just relies on so much stupidity and ineptitude on the part of the heroes/posse that it actually angers me. I don't expect heroes (or villains) to always do the smartest or most logical things---sometimes people do something stupid, especially when they are rushed or in danger---but when the whole story relies on continuous dumb decisions or scenarios, it's just bad writing.
There are plenty of movies where the hero only survives and succeeds because the bad guys have to be stupid, but this is a movie where the story keeps going only because the good guys have to be stupid.
Bullgrit
bullgrit@totalbullgrit.com
Total Bullgrit
3:10 to Yuma - movie review
Viewed:Theater
I love Westerns. I love the shoot outs, I love the horse riding, I love the dress, I love the wide outdoor scenes. But I also love all of those things to be wrapped up in a good and logical story. Unfortunately, this movie fails in the story logic.
The whole series of events starts because the bad guys let the rancher and his boys live when they witness the stage robbery. The bad guys murder (murder) the Pinkerton agents who survive the stage wreck (except for one, who they just gut shot for sadistic pleasure), but they let the rancher who witnessed it all go free and alive? The whole first 30 minutes of the movie is to establish just how evil, ruthless, and uncaring these bad guys are, but they show uncharacteristic benevolence to let the rancher go.
There are many other logic-defying scenarios throughout the movie that just keep me from liking this movie.
The posse taking Ben Wade, the self-admitted evil murderer, in hand shackles, let him sit at the dinner table right next to the rancher's youngest son and his wife---and he's eating with a long, sharp object. (He uses that exact object to kill a man later in the movie.)
After Ben Wade kills two of his captors, while still shackled, the posse doesn't execute him on the spot. They have the chance to kill Ben's terrible second in command, numerous times, yet they don't do it. The second in command is able to go round up his scattered and in hiding gang to rescue their boss in less time than it takes the posse to escort Ben two days ride. The Apache attack is laughable. Just problem after problem---I haven't mentioned them all.
The plot and story in this movie just relies on so much stupidity and ineptitude on the part of the heroes/posse that it actually angers me. I don't expect heroes (or villains) to always do the smartest or most logical things---sometimes people do something stupid, especially when they are rushed or in danger---but when the whole story relies on continuous dumb decisions or scenarios, it's just bad writing.
There are plenty of movies where the hero only survives and succeeds because the bad guys have to be stupid, but this is a movie where the story keeps going only because the good guys have to be stupid.
Bullgrit
bullgrit@totalbullgrit.com
Total Bullgrit
AdmundfortGeographer
Getting lost in fantasy maps
A great deal of what you call "logic defying" makes sense when considering that many of the characters honored the Code of the West.Bullgrit said:
Also, does your review of the movie apply to the original?
Bullgrit
Adventurer
"It's more of a guideline, really." ;-)
What is this code? Are you meaning the 20th century Hollywood genre creation? The 19th century dime novel creation? Whichever one, what actions did anyone take that honored a code?
Never saw the original, and know nothing about it.
For the record, so it's understood for any kind of discussion on the topic, I am (at least used to be) well learned in the fact and fiction of the "Wild West".
Quasqueton
Darth Shoju
First Post
Bullgrit said:
I'm generally pretty cynical, but I didn't find any huge gaps in logic in this movie. To me it seemed more like unique characters acting based on their personalities and motivations.
Bullgrit said:
I got the impression that, had it been up to the gang, Dan Evans and his boys would have been dead. It was Ben Wade that decided to let them go. He seemed to operate on a rather unique personal code of honour, one that had no mercy for the Pinkertons (possibly because he viewed them as being fellow "warriors" and thus were fair game to be killed, where the ranchers were bystanders?). This personal code was consistent throughout the movie and was a big part of the relationship between him and Dan (which I feel is the central theme of the movie).
Bullgrit said:
I thought it was a little odd to eat with him, but it did reflect one of the other themes of the movie, which was the mystique of the ruthless outlaw and how people can be excited and attracted to the danger they represent. Plus, I recall that at least two men were standing there in the kitchen with rifles. Letting Ben pocket the knife is an honest (and careless) oversight by the other characters, which can be at least partially explained by their distraction over the switcheroo they were trying.
Bullgrit said:
Well, Dan has a vested interest in getting Ben to Yuma alive (money), and he doesn't necessarily like the people he's traveling with (except maybe the doctor). The railroad guy would rather have Wade killed publicly for the symbolism and the message it would send (victory for justice and the railroad over those who would rob and/or oppose them).
Bullgrit said:
It has been a few weeks since I saw this movie, but I don't recall them having any real opportunities to do this. Did anyone know his second in command on sight?
Bullgrit said:
To be fair, I got the impression that Wade's gang hadn't gone that far. They also said something about having to ride their horses to near death to catch up, and the group escorting Wade was delayed a bit.
Bullgrit said:
I was hoping this would be a longer encounter after the build-up they gave the Apache.
Bullgrit said:
I think you give people too much credit. Plenty of people do really stupid things every day without being under an ounce of duress.
Last edited:
I also thought this movie had some really dumb parts. Near the end of the movie, the bad guys kill the surrendering good guys and then ask for another surrender, and the good guy actually considers it. Huh? Didn't you just watch those surrendering guys get gunned down in cold blood?
Earlier, during the switch, they have some guy drive a stage coach the other direction so the outlaws will see him. Of course those outlaws include a known sharpshooter. And of course, the guy driving the decoy stage coach gets shot by said sharpshooter. So my question is either "where did they get the idiot to drive the fake stage coach to his obvious death" or "how evil are the 'good guys' that they would sacrifice one of their own just to get Wade to Yuma"?
Overall the dumb parts killed the rest of the movie for me.
Earlier, during the switch, they have some guy drive a stage coach the other direction so the outlaws will see him. Of course those outlaws include a known sharpshooter. And of course, the guy driving the decoy stage coach gets shot by said sharpshooter. So my question is either "where did they get the idiot to drive the fake stage coach to his obvious death" or "how evil are the 'good guys' that they would sacrifice one of their own just to get Wade to Yuma"?
Overall the dumb parts killed the rest of the movie for me.
Hijinks
First Post
I liked it. And I'm a girl and I'm not that big on westerns - I went so that my husband got to see a western on the big screen, which is rare these days.
I thought that a lot of the "stupidity" was actually reference to the fatal flaws of the primary characters. Dan Evans's fatal flaw was naivete. He didn't trust Ben Wade, but he was still naive and didn't know how lawmen are supposed to act, and he didn't have experience with escorting a fugitive. Making stupid mistakes is part of that.
As for Ben Wade, one of the movie's themes is good vs. evil warring within a man's soul. It's made pretty obvious by Evans's son being enamored of Ben, and Ben continually doing things that are evil, then turning around and doing something that seems kind (but actually has an ulterior motive). For example, the son sees Ben being nice and friendly to his mom, but Ben is actually trying to scare and unseat her. Maybe as a woman, I paid more attention to the characters' relationships with the two women in the film, than a man would? I dunno.
At the same time, Ben's capable of warmth, as evidenced in his bedroom scene with the barmaid. He professes to be 100% bad, but he's not. So part of the appeal of the movie is that the whole time, you're thinking he's going to redeem himself at the end, because you can see bits and pieces of what was once a good man. He does redeem himself, but too late for Dan Evans.
I thought it was good and I didn't think the actions of the characters were stupid. They were good men who weren't used to dealing with evil men, and were out of their league. Those kinds of men are bound to make mistakes.
I thought that a lot of the "stupidity" was actually reference to the fatal flaws of the primary characters. Dan Evans's fatal flaw was naivete. He didn't trust Ben Wade, but he was still naive and didn't know how lawmen are supposed to act, and he didn't have experience with escorting a fugitive. Making stupid mistakes is part of that.
As for Ben Wade, one of the movie's themes is good vs. evil warring within a man's soul. It's made pretty obvious by Evans's son being enamored of Ben, and Ben continually doing things that are evil, then turning around and doing something that seems kind (but actually has an ulterior motive). For example, the son sees Ben being nice and friendly to his mom, but Ben is actually trying to scare and unseat her. Maybe as a woman, I paid more attention to the characters' relationships with the two women in the film, than a man would? I dunno.
At the same time, Ben's capable of warmth, as evidenced in his bedroom scene with the barmaid. He professes to be 100% bad, but he's not. So part of the appeal of the movie is that the whole time, you're thinking he's going to redeem himself at the end, because you can see bits and pieces of what was once a good man. He does redeem himself, but too late for Dan Evans.
I thought it was good and I didn't think the actions of the characters were stupid. They were good men who weren't used to dealing with evil men, and were out of their league. Those kinds of men are bound to make mistakes.
