Honestly? I'm ashamed to be a member of this site.
shareProbably because 3:10 was a more involving story with larger than life characters. Appaloosa reminded me of Unforgiven - a film I found to be bland and lacking in original storytelling. Appaloosa just meanders along and really by the mid way point I stopped caring.
I'm not a western person and about the only westerns I've liked have featured larger-than-life personalities (Butch and Sundance, high noon). Just a personal preference thing...
[deleted]
It's not only on this site that it is rated higher, so maybe you should be ashamed of yourself! lol.
shareIn general because the masses judge movies on cool scenes and star power rather than plausible scripts and good acting.
Specifically because they don't undertsdand the Western genre.
This movie is not w/o problems , but is is far superior to the remake of Yuma.
While I agree Yuma is a more shallow movie Appaloosa isn't some deep masterpiece. The one reason I would rate Yuma higher is based on one small little detail. I actually felt something watching Yuma. They are both completely different movies but Yuma made me feel nervous with anticipation. Sure Yuma loses at least half a point for having Luke Wilson in it but there were some memorable characters in it like Charlie Prince played by Ben Foster. Christian Bale wasn't anything special but what I did admire about him was he didn't mind getting dirty. He looked like crap in this movie and it just gets worse as it progresses. He's done it before and I think it's commendable. The only other actor I know who doesn't mind looking just as disgusting is Guy Pearce.
shareI'd say Appaloosa has deeper intentions and larger ambitions. But I don't think it ever fully reaches them. It begins strong but plods. It never gets a handle on the structure it wants and Zellwegger is miscast and given the entire third act delimma for Viggo Mortensen's character rests on her importance, that is a big deal. The screenplay is just too disjointed, despite that being somewhat intended. 3:10 to Yuma strove for less--a star vehicle western shoot 'em up with great scenery for the actors to chew in vivid cinematography.
But The Assassination of Jesse James was a masterpiece and well above both!
yeah.
I concur Charlie Prince played by Ben Foster is memorable character. Peter Fonda was another. You have a good point about Bale. Othwewise I find the movie forgettable.
sharePerhaps, but I think Yuma due to the performances of Fosster, Crowe and Bale (in that order), as well as a few choice scenes, makes the film far more memorable than Appeloosa. Harris aimed higher but struck out.
And again Jesse James was better than both.
The only real diagreement we have is Crowe. In my opinion he was movie star Crowe, not actor Crowe. His role called for actor Crowe.
We definitely agree about Jesse James.
RC ought to be hung by his heels for showing this kind of contempt for a role, any role, when he can so clearly do better. And CB used about three facial expressions in the entire film and kept forgetting -- as did the director, apparently -- that he was supposed to have an artificial leg. The rest of the film was a comparable mess. They should have left the original alone. It was a decent movie, especially for its time. This was a thriller aimed at an audience that just wants lots of violence and MTV-style cuts in the action. Oh, and at least one psychopath, as all modern westerns are supposed to have, I guess.
EH knew exactly what he was doing, and he got there.
"They should have left the original alone."
Glenn Ford knew how to play Ben Wade . I understood why his men were so loyal and how he so cooly seduced the bartender; Crowe was only able to do either because it was in the script.
Because 3:10 was much much better
Inception - never in my life have I been more excited about seeing a movie
I suspect there may have been some sort of vote.
shareumm its a tighter film?
shareNope. It's just trendier. APPALOOSA is modeled on the classic Westerns, with some twists and subtleties added. 3:10 is just a bad remake of a pretty good movie. It pleases people who don't like their Westerns too cerebral or subtle, which is of course just the young-man audience it was aimed at. But a couple of good actors ought to be ashamed of the bad job they did on it.
shareTwo words: Elmore Leonard! Sorry, the guy is a fantastic writer but not all of his books which are turned into screenplays, work. I agree, Appaloosa was far better than 3:10 to Yuma.
What, just for once in your life can't you be serious?
[deleted]
I agree with what you said about the adaptations, and I expect you just misspoke about the author.
LOL! Ahhhh, nooooo, I said "two words, Elmore Leonard" implying that 3:10 to Yuma was written by "EL" as referred to by you. I knew exactly who wrote 3:10 to Yuma and who wrote APPALOOSA.
So sorry, YOU misread my reply.
No harm done.
Cheers!
What, just for once in your life can't you be serious?
[deleted]
Well, for me:
3:10 to Yuma (2007)- 8/10
Appaloosa (2008)- 6.5/10
I've only walked out on about 5 movies in my life. Crappaloosa was one of them. Pure pandering wanna-be oscar bait boring drivel. Yawnfest.
shareI watched it today for the first time. How is 3:10 to Yuma rated higher? Maybe, just maybe because it was entertaining. I kept waiting for Appaloosa to get interesting but if this was a throw back to old westerns it must have been westerns before they were good.
shareMasked eaglet says: ...it must have been westerns before they were "good".
Before they were "good".
How informative and enlightening to read the musings of a viewer who understands such absolute and precise terms as "good".
It's sort of like a drooling toddler who catches his first glimpse of Mutant Ninja Turtles and says, "Wow, mommy, dis is goooood!".