I think I like the idea of Westerns more than the actual films. Granted, I haven’t seen many, but the ones I have seen… I can enjoy them mildly (I’m talking about the classic John Wayne types). Nostalgia, simpler times, American…ness, questionable morality, good vs. bad… I dig all those things. But the movies themselves are just too slow and sometimes sad for my taste. But you know, I’ll watch a good old American Western once in a while. Those Spaghetti Westerns, though, ugg. Fun, but too novelty.
Anyway, so today I watched the original 3:10 to Yuma. I had seen the remake, and I pretty much didn’t like it much at all. Surprisingly (or maybe not), I enjoyed the original one more. So here’s the breakdown.
3:10 to Yuma (2007) vs. (1957)The Plot: (via imdb.com)
2007:
The rancher Daniel Evans, who lost part of his leg in the Civil War, is broken and owing a large amount to a powerful man in Bisbee. When the outlaw Ben Wade is captured after the heist of a stagecoach, Dan offers to escort the cold blood killer to the city of Contention to take the 3:10 PM train to Yuma to be sent to trial. In return, he would receive US$ 200,00, enough to save his land and give a better life to his family. During their journey, Ben gets closer to Dan while his gang of criminals follows the group to rescue their boss.
1957:
After outlaw leader Ben Wade is captured in a small town, small-time rancher Dan Evans is persuaded to take Wade in secret to a railway station in Contention to await the train to the court at Yuma. Once the two are holed up in the hotel to wait it becomes apparent the secret is out, and a battle of wills starts.
Bottom Line:
Basically, get Ben Wade on that 3:10 train to Yuma (so he can be HANGED!! That dirty murderer!). Except he’s so damn charismatic and smart, he kind of almost gets Dan Evans on his side. Dan is the most decent, talented, and intelligent of the motley crew trying to bring Ben in. Ben and Dan form mutual respect for each other, but is it enough so that Dan will give into Ben?? Tension! Suspense! Psychological warfare!
But the 2007 extends the trip between Ben’s ranch and Contention City, adding a lot more characters and filler action sequences to make it an ACTION! MOVIE!! It also gives the movie more plot holes than… a stupid action movie.
The original movie was simple (a third of the movie takes place in one room) and succinct. Even though the pace is somewhat slow, it’s deliberate, and it’s well done.
Dan:In the 2007 movie, Dan is… kind of whiny. He is, like, a super brooding loser who doesn’t even have the respect of his family. “Don't do it, Dan. No one will think less of you.,” his wife says. “Uh, I think you will. Your bratty son
definitely will,” I say to her. “No one
can think less of me,” Dan agrees, in the movie. Aw, dammit! That’s sad! I don’t know why they made him a self-loathing cripple. We kind of end up pitying him, which I think kind of misses the point of his character. In the 1957 version, Dan is a sidelines guy who doesn’t try to change things he can’t. So to prove he has some conviction (and earn some money), he helps bring Ben in. In the 2007 version, he is a man who thinks he has nothing to lose, and in a last ditch effort to show is family that he’s not completely useless, he risks his life to help bring Ben in.
In both, Dan is a guy who is Doing The Right Thing, but because the 2007 adds all this depressing back story, it weakens his character instead of making him stronger. It makes him seems stubborn, and foolish, and up to this point, he’s a wasted man that is unappreciated by his family. Dan in the 1957 movie is also under appreciated, but his redemption comes at the beginning of the movie, after he decides to bring in Ben, making his journey to and at Contention a story of a hero, instead of a depressed man struggling to become one. The latter might sound better to some (in the execution of the movie, however, it’s not), but I think that a Western shouldn’t have its protagonist so emo. I spent so much time feeling sorry for 2007 Dan, it got kind of annoying after a while.
Cinematography:The 1957 one was filmed in black and white, and the feel was very much an old-fashioned western. Since it came a little later, though, some of the camera angles were actually pretty compelling, and it almost felt kind of noir-ish at times.
The 2007 movie had virtually no wide angle shots, which is blasphemous, I think, in a Western. So yea, it was more ACTION! MOVIE! than Western. Boo. When I watch a Western, I want to see, I want to
feel the still, dusty, dry, emptiness.
The Ending:I won’t go into too much detail, but both endings are pretty ridiculous. They ended differently, but each ending matched it’s movie, and worked in context. The 2007 one left me feeling so depressed, and I hate depressing endings so maybe I’m a little biased, but of the two, I liked the 1957 ending better. I think I was just fed up with the stupidity with everyone in the 2007 movie that I wished everyone was shot up dead.
