<my hand goes up>
because i honestly cant figure out why all the hostility. i absolutely LOVE this movie...great western, great film, and i have to say, CB was excellent.
[i] We're the English from England, let's all be proud!!!!!i]
[deleted]
[deleted]
I have to agree the decoy thing was stupid. How did they think he and the others guys with him were going to get out of that situation if the gang took the bait? That the outlaws would go, our bad, you tricked us, now please go about your merry way. The $200 thing I didn't think was that bad; that was a huge amount of money back then and in town like that many people hanging around the bar would probably be drifters, criminals, etc. who didn't give a lick about the town because they were just passing through.
share[deleted]
There probably were some good townfolk there just having a beer in the middle of the day, but I don't think they would necessarily have the cojones to stand up to a murderous gang that was known to kill people for little or no reason. Maybe they slunk off to go try to round up a posse or something. Maybe the gang got lucky and it was Outlaws Drink Free day at the bar. As to the reason they brought him there if it was an outlaw town, it was because it was the nearest town with a rail connection to Yuma, where the federal pen was located. They had no choice really other than going overground with the gang on their heels.
shareNo, actually $200 WASN'T that much money. On the inflation calculator website, you can see how much two hundred 1884 dollars are in 2010 dollars. It's $4,790.00!!!
If you were at a police community relations meeting, with a roomfull of your neighbors, say about 200 and they're all sitting on chairs listening to say, 5 to 10 members of the police force each deliver a speech on crime prevention, one at a time, at the front, and some /\sshole suddenly stands up in the audience and says "I'll give $4,790, GUARANTEED, to anyone who kills one of those cops", what do you think is REALLY going to happen?
Stunned silence, that's what! Security would escort that loud talker out of the building.
So you're judging the actions of people in 1884 by comparing them to what people would do now a days? Yeah that sounds fair.....
Bale's character said in the movie that he makes $2 a day, so if your inflation calculator is correct then does that mean that he makes $47.90 a day by today's standards? Teenagers working at McDonald's make way more than he does then...
[deleted]
Oh yeah, I forgot about that. What on GOD'S GREEN EARTH POSSESSED THEM to LOCK THAT GUY IN??? It was a RUSE!!! All they needed to do was draw his crew away from the real Ben Wade, they didn't need to have it notarized!
Halfway through the movie (I had the dvd) the stupidity reached critical mass so I skipped to the last scene just to see how this could possible end. I came in AFTER Ben Wade is now all alone so THAT wasn't spoiled for me...but then?
It made no sense.
Some of the hostility no doubt comes from people with limited attention spans, and a corresponding difficulty following narratives.
share[deleted]
haha hopefully you're not referring to me. yes okay it's not THE SEARCHERS or THE MAGNIFICENT 7 (my personal favorite westerns) but it wasnt that bad...
i think maybe any western made nowadays will have to try harder to be as good as the older ones just because that's a genre that may not be as easy to identify with in our current, high-tech society.
just basing the film on its performances, action sequences, and basic plot, i think it's pretty enjoyable.
i still cant figure out italics i guess
Mamma,
mgt is a psycho hater of this film. I have had him on ignore for over a year now.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
im glad. yay! off the top of my head i cant remember a film where christian bale played a character who's supposed to be kind of humble, meek and let's face it: a bit of a loser (in the beginning). he really makes you feel for him and for his lot in life. and this was right in the middle of his performances as a way more assertive, confident and (IMO) smartass bruce wayne.
i still cant figure out italics i guess
I agree, i also like this film. I do think the ending dash was a little unbelievable, but i get it completely and it doesn't spoil the film for me. I'd like to know where this miraculous gunshot recovery is though? Gunshot wounds take a looong time to be fatal, and they got the guy to a doctor in about a day...
<< Review: Benjamin Button: http://morphindel.livejournal.com/3070.html >>
[deleted]
so i guess peter fonda is one tough dude.
i still cant figure out italics i guess
[deleted]
best western since Unforgiven.
shareNo susan8one Yuma is not the best western since Unforgiven. How 'dare' you (I know, films are not sports) compare it with a classic which also changed the perspective of the western-genre. Scorsese is a living legend, but his The Departed is not a classic also.
If you liked "Unforgiven", you might like "The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford". Robert Ford reads those comicbooks that Sal Rubinek's character in Unforgiven writes. That hands a narrative tool that provides depth, which Yuma has nothing of. It is just looking at stupid tough guys acting primitive and violent.
From the Boards Fun Stuff and Trivia:
"Warned about the pain of surgery, Byron MacElroy tells Doc Potter that it's not the first time he's been shot. In real life, Peter Fonda accidentally shot himself in the stomach when he was 10."
Nobody, and I've seen the effects of a gunshot at ten feet away, and I'll repeat NOBODY is going to get up on a horse voluntarily and ride like they got a splinter removed after getting it point blank.
At ten feet when a bullet hits a body it looks just like when you throw a rock into a still pond. Your body which is 90% or so water, ripples out a shock wave from the point of impact in concentric circles, you will be in SHOCK. And being gut shot your intestines will be pouring crap into your body cavity to boot, you Wont be riding a horse.
The whole gotcha nature of those who want to take a whole film down on what they see as a goof, not even really a plot hole, is kind of ridiculous. ANY film other than a documentary tests one's willingness to suspend belief.
Let's take a film that recreates a real story, but uses CGI to do it. Like Titanic. You sit there watching the film knowing it's not really the Titanic on screen. It's not even a real ship. It's CGI. Does this prevent you from enjoying it?
Why should wondering whether Fonda's character can ride a horse the next day after having received medical care mean the whole film is not capable of being enjoyable? What does it have to do with the meaning of the film? Nothing.
"ANY film other than a documentary tests one's willingness to suspend belief..."
definitely!!!
[deleted]
[deleted]
I agree with mgtbltp: it's the piling on of absurdity upon implausibility that does this film in.
It's where you as a spectator realise you are wasting your time instead of being entertained or escaping. Watching other ppl have fun on screen being silly and not connecting with normal life like you are in seems very unimportant and unneccessary at those times. It's when you realise dead horses begin to stink and you are not apreciating it. And then you wish to see (having mentioned dead corpses stinking) "The Three Burials of of Melquides Estrada" (Tommy Lee Jones) again or "The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford" again (well in my case).
Film is the biggest american art form kenny-164. Its tool is the power of suggestion. At some point you decide you go along with it, or not, or where you decide it is good or bad but you take it for granted yes or no. You defend it and support it when you appreciate the power of story telling or when the themes fascinate or disturb you. CGI-fims are just silly and being impressed by handsome ppl suggesting they are VIPs is not interesting.
Films like books or music are not holy or divine, but can be entertaining to you at the same time learning you things. It can mean escapism too when it has nothing to offer.
IT. IS. A. MOVIE.
who cares about what really happens? it's fiction, it's sensationalized, and yeah okay it's unrealistic. it's supposed to be fun and ENTERTAINING
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
OK mammamia1216 I don't want to spoil your fun and I maybe shouldn't have reacted to your OP message: that you loved it, and you love CB, and you were entertained. But you said you didn't understand why ppl think otherwise.
Well I just felt betrayed and to be honoust, a little humiliated. And I wasn't in the least bit entertained. I'm still passionate in my disliking it, that's why I went on this board. I feel some 'relieve' in fellow-posters stating 'it was without theme and vision only made to make money' 'it's for young audiences with shallow minds' and 'it is just a POS movie'.
I'll leave you to enjoy it. But I could reverse your plea: what did you like about this film?! You just love to see CB in anything that's it? Like ppl post on YT that "oh he is so hot" at anything Leonardo DiCaprio does? You just go for appearance and looks and oh well, cliché coming up: charisma?
If you like this type of story, please give an old movie with old faces from the old times a chance: "The Good, The Bad and The Ugly". It's equally impressive (and more). And it's in the IMDb top 250 ("3:10 to Yuma" shouldn't be, but check if you need to). That's a pretty decent list IMO.
DaVooz,
You completely missed my point about CGI. Sigh.
Hi Kenny-164 you said I "completely missed my point about CGI. Sigh."
Well, because I said "CGI is just silly" that seemed that way, I understand. That wasn't put very well, I meant I don't care much for big commercial and action movies that consits only of and rely only on CGI. But that was beside the point because you used it in a context (we agree CGI is just an aid in order to help tell the story?):
"ANY film other than a documentary tests one's willingness to suspend belief.
Let's take a film that recreates a real story, but uses CGI to do it. Like Titanic. You sit there watching the film knowing it's not really the Titanic on screen. It's not even a real ship. It's CGI. Does this prevent you from enjoying it?
Why should wondering whether Fonda's character can ride a horse the next day after having received medical care mean the whole film is not capable of being enjoyable? What does it have to do with the meaning of the film? Nothing."
Like one or two other posters who reacted to your statement and example, I don't quite agree with that. Titanic really happened and CGI is craftly used to recreate. In other fiction like superhero fiction CGI is used to impress and I decide as a viewer to go along with it yes or no. But the drama (writing) and intention (directors approach, actors envy to deliver) need to convince me first. Authenticity and believability play a role. Getting shot in the stomach and riding off the next morning just adds to the dislike, or fits into ones expectation and hunger to follow the story. You either then don't care or do care what will happen next. I just didn't buy it any longer at some point. Many movies do that for me, and I try to avoid those.
You say "What does it have to do with the meaning of the film? Nothing." Now what was the meaning of the film tell me, because I just think it was making money. It had no depth and I felt lost.
But I don't want to spoil your fun Kenny-164 if you found it entertaining, and I don't mean that cynical nor am I trying to be snotty. I'm just want to figure out why I disliked it with a passion.
oh no, let me make it clear:
i like CB in THIS film. to be honest, he's not one of my favorite actors: i dont like him as batman, i absolutely hate AMERICAN PSYCHO and a lot of his other movies.
and i mostly like westerns in general, maybe that's why i was likely to find the film entertaining.
so other than the unlikeliness of peter fonda's character walking around, what exactly is it that people cant stand? maybe people just dont understand westerns.
OK mammamia1219 then I liked CB in other movies than you. Understanding ppl is hard as always, and I think I just prefer a different approach to the genre of westerns than you.
Let's agree to disagree. Didn't want to spoil your fun.
See, that's the problem. Entertaining? That is subjective, isn't it? Or do you disagree? A peanut butter and jelly sandwich is GOOD to a four year old...just like cartoons are. But this movie is the equivalent of a cartoon. The bad guys are UTTERLY INVINCIBLE and the good guys are weak, ineffectual dimwits.
Do you SERIOUSLY BELIEVE our country could have survived if it was the bad guys who were the stronger? In reality, bad guys are ALL pussies. That's why they're bad guys. They don't have the mental and moral stamina to make it in the real world. They HAVE to depend on killing others. Because THEY THEMSELVES are WEAK!!
Case in point: Hitler was such a sissy, the little fairy KILLED himself, rather than examine his own behavior. Compare Hitler to that guy who cut his arm off at the elbow to escape from that rock that pinned him in, that James Franco played. THERE was a guy with courage!
No, your argument is completely specious. Titanic was realistic, Yuma was not. This isn't Narnia. This is a BULLET IN THE UPPER GASTRO INTESTINAL tract!!! It's RIPPED through this guys colon! Have you ever been post-op? I have MORE TIMES THAN I CAN COUNT. And even something minor leaves you F.U.B.A.R. F'd Up Beyond All Recognition.
shareI love it too. Partly because of the characters, the story, the actors, and the fact that it's a western. It entertains me, I get it, I liked it.
The end.
One of the posters above, stated something regarding let me see the old faces, but brought up ONLY one title of one of not really that old western, 'the good, the bad, and the ugly.' Yes, it's a good movie, and changed the western genre, to some extent, but it was not the first western. Westerns go back to the silent era. Check out any of the four filmed versions of the '3 Godfathers' (one being titled 'Hell's Heroes') or John Ford's 'The Iron Horse' or its remake 'Union Pacific'. Check out 'Shane', 'High Noon', 'The Searchers', 'I Shot Jesse James', 'The Magnificent Seven' (remake of the great Japanese classic 'Seven Samurai'), 'The Ox Bow Incident', etc etc etc....OH, almost forgot an important one for this post, '3:10 To Yuma' (1957) starring Van Heflin and Glenn Ford. Both the '57 and the 2007 version are based on a SHORT STORY by Elmer Leoard. (Notice the movies are exactly 50 years apart.) I mentioned the original in a post above, but just in case, THIS ONE IS A REMAKE. Almost, the same, but not completely. They went for a different set of heart strings in this one, that's all.
Oh, and per the trivia Peter Fonda did get shot as a kid, in his stomach. Now that's irony. Everyone's too busy arguing about whether or not he'd be able to be all better within one day. Movies are for entertainment, a chance to escape. Stop thinking about what you're watching, it's ruining you're ability to 'get' the movie. This isn't a 'who dunnit?', after all.
i'm not getting involved in these heated discussions, so just conisder my hand raised....I loved this film and Logan did a terrific job, I recognize you from other Logan threads and think this is some of his best work to date.
shareI loved it.
I'm not a huge Western fan - I find the whole shoot-em-up type of scene confusing and pointless - but I'm a big sucker for bromances.
Russell Crowe's chemistry with Christian Bale here is almost as good as the classic Crowe/Paul Bettany pairing in Master and Commander.
I realize that there are quite a few far-fetched moments, but I enjoyed it.
With lives on the line where dreams are found and lost...
I enjoyed this movie, in spite of its flaws. The evening sun photography was gorgeous and practically gave me flashbacks to my youthful days feeding the cows and chickens at grandma's. Basic. Rustic. Western.
Russell Crowe is always excellent. Charming, friendly, deadly. Completely untrustworthy. Apparently has a weak spot for the ladies. (Did anyone else notice how disappointed/cold he looked when the bar maid responded with, "You're crazy!", when he asked her to run off with him?)
Christian Bale did a marvelous job with his part of the broken down but ultimately decent rancher, who was doing the best he could.
Ben Foster as Charlie Prince was horribly frightening as he was an out and out psycho. At least Ben Wade had charm going for him.
I liked it, not the best movie ever, I expected a little more, but it was fine. By the way, there is no movie in the world, no matter how good it is, that won't have any haters
"I think that God has got a sick sense of humor and when I die I expect to find him laughing."
[deleted]
I was just messing around on the internet and decided to look up what people have said about this movie. Such hostility, I'm pretty surprised. I thought it was good. That's just my opinion.
James Webb
www.cynicalshop.com
[url]www.myspace.com/avenearmusic[url]
well i liked it as well, can't say i loved it but it's a good film and it's far from the worst film ever as some are saying. They cannot have seen many films.
are my farts responsible for global warming?
I actually liked it. Sometimes I like things that are bad in spite of the badness, because some part of the film speaks to me.
Let slip the Determined Kitten of Doom!share
[deleted]