Movie Rambles

[JackFavell]

and Thomas Mitchell plays possibly the sleaziest character of his career.

 

That sounds great! I always like to see a new Thomas Mitchell movie. I am going to go check it out.

[Film_Fatale]

> {quote:title=JackFavell wrote:}{quote}

> and Thomas Mitchell plays possibly the sleaziest character of his career.

>

> That sounds great! I always like to see a new Thomas Mitchell movie. I am going to go check it out.

 

If you do watch the DVD, make sure to watch the 25-minute documentary in the bonus features, this is really well made, includes interviews by interesting folks like Robert Osborne and Eddie Muller, and is way better than many "making of" documentaries of recent releases that amount to little more than glorified EPKs. The *Moontide* documentary really sheds a lot of interesting insights about the making of the movie.

[JackFavell]

Alright, I better go abck and check the vid on Netflix to see if it has the bonus features.

 

Uhhh, ....what's an EPK?

[Film_Fatale]

> {quote:title=JackFavell wrote:}{quote}

> Alright, I better go abck and check the vid on Netflix to see if it has the bonus features.

>

> Uhhh, ....what's an EPK?

 

Sorry. That's an electronic press kit, they're handed out by the studios to the TV stations, you know. Many of the "bonus features" in the DVDs of recent movies are nothing more than EPKs, they're just like the publicity material the studio hands out to TV/cable shows.

[JackFavell]

Thanks FF. I see what you mean. Yes, many bonus features are simply advertisements.... quite frustrating when you expect info about a movie....

 

Have I already complained about the poor quality of some DVD commentaries? Lately, I can't help noticing that

 

1. Many of the commentators hired to do the voice overs are not really the best that are available.

 

2. Many of them are people who wrote a book about one star in the film, and so they continually concentrate on that person's private life rather than the film at hand.

 

3. Many are boring.

 

4. Many of them have not prepared (this is the one that really bugs me)

 

OK. I probably should not combine list-making AND complaining in one response, especially since I just read Helenbaby's thread......

[MissGoddess]

Interesting discussion of 3:10 to Yuma! I was very impressed with it, I like it's thoughtful approach and I find the way it's filmed supports the contemplative mood---there is something eerie and "desolate" about the way the landscape and that scurvy little town looks, suggesting "last chance" in so many ways. (Please note because I cannot hold back: I thought the remake was one of the worst films I have ever seen. Crap from start to finish. And I was a Russell Crowe fan. I say "was" because I haven't remotely cared for his last 3 or 4 films. Nothing since Cinderella Man, which was excellent).

 

Jackie, I too am very disappointed by a great many commentators and for mostly the same reasons, although I will add one other: the commentator who looks down on the material he/she is commenting on. Unbelievably, I've run across this type more than once and it's almost shocking because it goes against common sense from a publicity point of view. I mean, if it's such a piece of crap why did the distributor want to offer it for sale in the first place?

[MissGoddess]

Since we were discussing Howard Hawks recently and I have his interviews fresh in my mind, I

wondered if anyone watched the "Men Who Made the Movies: Howard Hawks" interview

when it aired the other day? Because in the book, he really rips 3:10 to Yuma but most of

time people only print the things he says about High Noon. In several different interviews

whenever he brings up *High Noon* he always mentioned 3:10 to Yuma as another example

of a western he considered badly done. I just wondered if he actually speaks about it on camera.

It's pretty funny because it seems to me that his criticism is predicated on an error about the

nature of Heflin's character. Hawks always refers to him as "the Sheriff" when in fact Heflin is

not a professional lawman, he's a farmer. I would love to have asked him if he stands by his

opinion if the man in charge is not really qualified or experienced to do the job? If I remember

correctly, the real Sheriff is wounded and incapacitated (or killed), right?

[Bronxgirl48]

Bonsoir, my Pappy Girl. Well, if Ike looks anything like scary Robert Ryan, we'll have something to be concerned about; however, if it's Loretta Young's ex-husband Grant Withers, it probably won't be that bad, lol, but, those Clantons definitely have to be watched!

 

When September rolls around I accent the place with gold, orange and brown colors, including pillows, wreaths, candles, dried flowers, to give a natural autumnal feel; I like to think I do this judiciously so it's not gimmicky or overdone. The temperature might be 88 degrees outside and tropical storms raging, but at least I have the illusion of the separation of seasons.

 

Oh, I bought a horse! Well, sort of.... It's a Ty Beanie Baby, and I love him.

 

I was doing my weekly shopping (and stocking up for any possible 'canes) and there he was, calling out to me near the check-out counter, a handsomely made piece of equine splendor.

 

A beautiful stuffed pony called "Saddle" (that's the name they give him) with a cute white spot between his forehead. He's caramel color and has a fluffy mane and tail. All I need to add is a little Duke or Coop figure sitting on top, but, honestly, I just want him all to myself, no riders!

[MissGoddess]

I used to love to decorate our house that way when I was a kid (the last time I ever

lived in a real house).

 

I love Beanie Babies! I have bought several for my friends' kids but also have a bunny

that's just for me. And toy horses are something I always wanted as a child but my

parents never bought me any. There were plenty around of the real ones where I

grew up, maybe that's why.

 

Now I'd prefer to have the rider all to myself, and dispense with the horse.

[MissGoddess]

I'm SO excited about these Kay Francis movies! And it's mainly for her leading men (Ronald

Colman and William Powell). But I hope you all don't miss Raffles, Jewel Robbery, One-Way

Passage and Trouble in Paradise. All these movies are EXQUISITE.

[CineMaven]

MissGoddess: "Since we were discussing Howard Hawks recently and I have his interviews fresh in my mind, I

wondered if anyone watched the "Men Who Made the Movies: Howard Hawks" interview

when it aired the other day?"

 

I mentioned that on Tuesday. And I taped the 5-hours of interviews of directors but I haven't watched them yet. I saw them years ago, but I must re-visit them. I wanted to wait for a nice block of time where I can sit and take them all in. I'm working towards being a director myself. "The Men Who Made the Movies" should be a master class for me.

 

I get a little impression of sour grapes from Hawks. The subtlety of the movie might've been ahead of its time for the status quo of Hollywood and Hawks.

[MissGoddess]

Hi CM---yes, I recall you recorded them but I wondered if anyone watched it to say whether he

mentions 3:10 to Yuma on camera. If I had time I'd check my recording but it will be a while.

[rohanaka]

I just want him all to myself, no riders!

 

You need to name him "Old Thunder" after the horse in The Big Country. :-)

[Film_Fatale]

I'm trying to make sure I've recorded everything they showed Thursday night. Right now I'm up to *Women Are Like That*. Fun times.

[laffite]

*(Please note because I cannot hold back: I thought the remake was one of the worst films I have ever seen. Crap from start to finish.*

 

My estimation of the _remake_ ( 3:10 to Yuma ) is little higher than that but not by much. And it is clearly inferior than the original. Without going into details, and therefore hopefully avoiding any spoilers...

 

...but just in case, *possible spoiler ahead*...

 

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

 

 

the ending is _absolutely ridiculous_.

[movieman1957]

Lafitte:

 

Absolutely. It makes no sense.

[Film_Fatale]

I agree with laffite, too.

[FrankGrimes]

I'm on the other side of that fence. I LOVED the ending to the remake of 3:10 to Yuma. I have only seen the remake, by the way. I just did tape the original and I'm very curious to see how it all plays out. I'm someone who does like Glenn Ford and Van Heflin quite a bit, so I'm thinking I'm going to enjoy the original. As for the remake, it's one of my favorite films of recent time. I really enjoyed it. I thought Crowe and Bale were terrific; especially Crowe.

[movieman1957]

Granted, I didn't see it coming.

 

*Spoiler*

 

 

What Crowe does at the end doesn't make sense. All that way. All that trouble and then for him to finish it the way he does struck me odd. Why wouldn't he have done it before then or was Bale what put him over?

 

Bale is pretty good. I already mentioned I thought the part about his leg, while mentioned a couple of times, never manifested itself too much in his movement. I do think Crowe did a pretty good job.

 

Dos us a favor and let us know what you hink of the 1957 film. I imagine you are unique in coming from the newer to the older rather then the other way around.

[JackFavell]

Bronxie- I loved your different characterizations of Ike. That's brilliant.

 

Are you going to name your horse Pi, Velvet or Flicka? Phar Lap or Seabiscuit? I'm curious what you end up with....

 

I watched all the episodes of "Men", but unfortunately, Hawks was the one during the hour before my girl's bus came, so I wasn't paying very close attention. I rationalized my inattention by saying to myself, "Hawks is awfully terse, so it isn't really important that I didn't catch all of it."

 

I think WELLMAN talked more about his personal life than any other director.....I remembered a lot of his comments from the episode, especially the ones about grapefruit.......

 

Edited due to stupidity....

[FrankGrimes]

Howdy, Cowboy Chris!

 

SERIOUS SPOILAGE AHEAD

 

Granted, I didn't see it coming.

 

It took my breath away. My jaw dropped in amazement. My heart was just ripped out before that, too, so I was sad and angry.

 

What Crowe does at the end doesn't make sense. All that way. All that trouble and then for him to finish it the way he does struck me odd. Why wouldn't he have done it before then or was Bale what put him over?

 

Most everyone who has seen the remake that doesn't like the picture point to the controversial ending as the main reason, except for Miss Trashy Taste. I'm going to be paying for this one.

 

The ending works for me because the man Crowe had the absolute most respect for in the film was Bale. Bale stood up to him from the start and he was willing to die for what he believed to be right. He was more man than any other man in the film, including Crowe. Even though Bale was "weaker" than Crowe and completely alone, he still went on. It's very reminiscent of Gary Cooper in They Came to Cordura. Bale was going to push that damn cart to Cordura if it killed him.

 

Crowe helps Bale out many times in the film. Most of the time, he is doing so to save his own neck, but at the end, it's to help Bale. When all the law leaves Bale alone with Crowe in a town ready to kill him (ala High Noon) and Bale still decides he's going to get Crowe's tail on the train (ala High Noon), Crowe's admiration for him is sealed. Crowe now wishes for Bale to get him on the train. He wants him to win out over his gang.

 

I don't believe Crowe is necessarily upset that Bale is gunned down, it's how he is gunned down. Bale's journey to his death was an extremely honorable one, one that Crowe understood. Bale's death at the hands of Crowe's gang was a dishonorable one. That's what sets Crowe off, at least to me.

 

If you are to look at the ending with realism, you will certainly come away disappointed. It's rare that any criminal would help the law against his gang unless they had turned good. And it doesn't add up that a criminal would then gun down his gang for helping free him from the law. But my view of the ending is broad. I believe it's a statement on respect, honor, and code. Yes, honor among thieves.

 

Would Crowe's character succumb to such respect and honor? After all, he often tells us of just how cold blooded he is. Should we believe him? I think so. But I also believe Crowe is a different kind of killer. His paintings show us a softer side of him, an intelligent side, even a loving side. He's no dummy killer.

 

Laffite spoke of reality and fantasy in film in another thread. As usual, I thought he spoke wisely. I took his message to mean that if a film works for us, we let the fantasy outweigh the reality. We are less critical of our loves. If a film doesn't work for us, then reality outweighs fantasy and we will start to find faults all over the place. The remake of 3:10 to Yuma works for me because of the broader themes at play.

 

Bale's character can be seen as today's man. There's so much a man must do in today's world and, for many, it can be a struggle. He's trying to do good, trying to be a good husband and father, but the outside forces are making it tough on him. To make things worse, he not only feels the heat from the outside, but he's now starting to feel it from the inside, his family. What to do?

 

I thought the story arc of Bale's eldest son to be one of the best aspects of the remake. In the beginning, his eldest son thinks his dad is a weak man because he doesn't fight back. As the film progresses, the son starts to understand the father more and, most importantly, starts to respect him... greatly. At the very end of the film, after Bale has been gunned down, his eldest son has the chance to kill Crowe. If it were the beginning of the film, he would have. By the end, he's become more like his father and he chooses not to kill Crowe. Is this the right decision to make? Should he kill Crowe in cold blood, just as Crowe has done to so many before, just as Crowe's gang did to his father? His father would not have done so, so he doesn't. Does this make him weak or strong?

 

As you can see, it's the big themes in the film that touched me most. There's a lot of humanity to be found in the film. A lot. I'm curious to see if the original can match this humanity. I'll be impressed if it does.

 

Bale is pretty good. I already mentioned I thought the part about his leg, while mentioned a couple of times, never manifested itself too much in his movement.

 

Bale has become one of my favorite contemporary actors. 3:10 to Yuma was the most emotional of his performances that I have seen so far. I thought he did well.

 

I've read criticism of Bale and his character's spryness with his damaged leg. Again, I consider this to be focusing on the small at the expense of the large.

 

I do think Crowe did a pretty good job.

 

This was only the second Crowe film I have seen. The other was L.A. Confidential, which I saw earlier this year. I thought L.A. Confidential to be overrated and not that good, although Crowe was fine in the film. I love Crowe in 3:10 to Yuma.

 

Dos us a favor and let us know what you hink of the 1957 film. I imagine you are unique in coming from the newer to the older rather then the other way around.

 

You know how much trouble I am with this. I am curious to see the film. Over the past year, I've really started to like Van Heflin's understated performances. He seems perfect for the farmer down on his luck with everything to lose. Glenn Ford as a villain is going to be new for me. I like that he took on such a role.

[movieman1957]

*More Spoilage Ahead*

 

Maybe I should check my life logic at the door. I agree with nearly everything you said. The part I had a problem with is Crowe letting it get to that end. If he had finally come to respect Bale logic tells me he could have just called it off. (Of course you have a rather dull ending so where do you compromise?)

 

I do get the sense that he was regretful about Bale. Why then go to the trouble to get back at HIS gang. I figured by the time he got to the train he was done with the group. I just didn't know how done. Even with all that should he have still got on the train? Surely no one was in a position to stop him.

 

How did you like Foster? Too much the psychopath for a western or well placed juxtaposition for Crowe? You mention the son and he does play a much bigger part here then the '57 film. It's a smaller cast and less action. (Another bow to modern audiences which I understand.)

 

I only thought if they were going to make a point about Bale's leg stick with it. It would have made little difference to me if it had not been part of the story at all. If it was about how he was wounded than nearly any wound would do.

 

Hey, you are in no trouble here. This is what this whole board is about and not too often becomes. (Fun though it is here.) I'm enjoying this and look forward to more on this and the '57 film. I think you'll find Ford interesting.

[MissGoddess]

Of course he'll take no heat, Chris. Everyone is welcome to share their opinions even if

they show such poor taste.

[FrankGrimes]

BEWARE OF SPOIL SLICKS

 

Maybe I should check my life logic at the door. I agree with nearly everything you said.

 

If you agreed with nearly everything I said, you have definitely checked your life logic at the door.

 

The ending to the remake of 3:10 to Yuma definitely fails the "common sense" taste test.

 

The part I had a problem with is Crowe letting it get to that end. If he had finally come to respect Bale logic tells me he could have just called it off. (Of course you have a rather dull ending so where do you compromise?)

 

This is very true. But I think "Ben" (Russell Crowe) wanted to see if "Dan" (Christian Bale) could pull it off. It was a thrilling proposition to him. The ending kind of reminded me of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. Ben and Dan had evolved into strange partners.

 

I do get the sense that he was regretful about Bale. Why then go to the trouble to get back at HIS gang. I figured by the time he got to the train he was done with the group. I just didn't know how done.

 

Ben was hot-tempered and prideful, which is a deadly mix. He was ready to kill some of his gang earlier in the film over similar issues, particuarly at the beginning.

 

Even with all that should he have still got on the train? Surely no one was in a position to stop him.

 

Ben whistles for his horse at the very end of the film. That's a tip of the hat to us all: Ben is going to break free before he gets to Yuma. He knows this while getting on the train. Ben may have had great respect for Dan, but he ain't gonna sacrifice his freedom for him. No way, no how.

 

How did you like Foster? Too much the psychopath for a western or well placed juxtaposition for Crowe?

 

I loved his "Charlie Prince." I actually think James Mangold was using an old classic film trick in winking at his having more than adulation for Ben, if you get my drift.

 

You mention the son and he does play a much bigger part here then the '57 film. It's a smaller cast and less action. (Another bow to modern audiences which I understand.)

 

I definitely enjoyed the pacing of the remake of 3:10 to Yuma. It goes along at a nice pace. But I'm someone who generally prefers slower-paced films.

 

I'm sure I will also like the pace and less action of the original 3:10 to Yuma, as well.

 

I only thought if they were going to make a point about Bale's leg stick with it. It would have made little difference to me if it had not been part of the story at all. If it was about how he was wounded than nearly any wound would do.

 

A very good point. I believe the leg injury serves the purpose of showing Dan is less than Ben physically and that it helps bring forth a past history that he reveals to Ben. But you are correct in saying the injury could have been to another body part, like one of his hands or arms.

 

Hey, you are in no trouble here. This is what this whole board is about and not too often becomes. (Fun though it is here.) I'm enjoying this and look forward to more on this and the '57 film. I think you'll find Ford interesting.

 

I'm thinking you are right about me liking Ford.

 

By the way, I watched the remake of 3:10 to Yuma with my brother and two of my cousins about a month ago. My one cousin, a guy, had the same reaction to the ending as many others have expressed here and elsewhere. He didn't buy Ben killing his gang. It didn't make sense to him, either. I don't think he bought my explanation.

[FrankGrimes]

Of course he'll take no heat, Chris. Everyone is welcome to share their opinions even if

they show such poor taste.

 

Heat? With you? No, no, no. I'm not worried about the heat with you. It's the ice. :p