Who needs realism anyway?
3:10 to Yuma
At one point in 3:10 to Yuma Ben Wade (Russell Crowe) is beaten repeatedly in the face with a shotgun. The guy hitting him is enraged to the point that the others almost have to drag him away, and when they do we see dark blood trickle out of Wade’s mouth and down his chin.
( And then....that’s it. )
At one point in 3:10 to Yuma Ben Wade (Russell Crowe) is beaten repeatedly in the face with a shotgun. The guy hitting him is enraged to the point that the others almost have to drag him away, and when they do we see dark blood trickle out of Wade’s mouth and down his chin.
( And then....that’s it. )
Wade and his guys talk about the big heist they just pulled right in front of the saloon girl
That whole plot point was so bizarre. I kept expecting it to make sense, or for her to be an accomplish or something. Granted there were hints that Wade had heard her sing before and as such they had met, but there is a far leap from that to trusting her with their dirty secrets. But for me what tipped the scale was the fact that Wade asked her to elope with him. I mean - why did he do that? Was it illustrative of his character? Probably, but since we didn't really know him or her it was hard to say.
They even had a random Apache attack... which didn't lead to much, did it?
Oh man, the Apaches in this film just felt pasted on. Not only did we barely see them, but based on the geographical feel the film gave it appeared that there were about six Apaches living in a small valley about ten minutes from the city, brandishing their guns and being ominous. I suspect they were just there so that the director could tick of Cowboys vs. Indians on his list.
Now this version of 3:10 to Yuma is a remake of an earlier version, so a few of the WTF? and Huh? moments might be a result of that. That said this doesn't excuse in the slightest the inclusion of the Chinese laborers as nothing more than a scenic element.
So why do I care whether the guy with the white hat gets the guy with the black hat to the train station or not?
You don't. At least I didn't. I think the film wanted you to feel it was something about fathers and sons, and how Wade was bad because he had no father - and that Dan Evans' son was turning bad because he lacked a fatherly rolemodel, and so to impress said son Evans had to prove himself a man. So when Wade let Evans take him to the train it was all to ensure that Evans' son could learn that "a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do."
Reply
If they wanted me to care about fathers and sons, maybe they shouldn't have pointed out how even the "good guy" father is teaching his son to turn a blind eye to forced labor and genocide in favor of focusing on some random white star. What do one teenage boy's minor problems matter in the face of all that? Really, they just not brought in all those moments that reminded me of the interesting movie I wasn't watching.
Reply
Leave a comment