How the F@%k is 3:10 to Yuma rated higher?? - Appaloosa (2008) Discussion

[–] JordanMichaelKoch 15 years ago

Quite simple. Rene Zelwegger was in one, and she was not in the other. I would have loved this movie. It would have surpassed all on my favorite western list if she was not in this movie. I despise her with such a passion, that I have sworn off every movie she ever makes. I really have. I have never seen a more annoying actress or actor. I have never disliked a famous person so much (by famous, I mean rightfully famous, so that does not include the likes of Paris Hilton and all the other sensations that have no actual claim to fame apart from the success of their parents). If I hear her voice, I will bleed out my ears. If I see her face, that awful scrunched-up Chinese Pug of a face, I will turn the channel.

Do you know what it's like to live in fear of her being cast in one of my favorite directors' movies? I'm terrified!

This is why I own Yuma, an ENTERTAINING but not GOOD film, and why I do not own Apaloosa.

And like somebody else said, 3:10 to Yuma was actually entertaining. I loved the more-realistic gunfights of Appaloosa, I loved Viggo Mortenson's character an the performances by Irons and Harris, but there were no other good characters in it that I actually cared about, the movie, as said previously, was a bad attempt to look like an Oscar-worthy picture, and it was boring. It would be the equivalent of Charles Dickens worst work. He got paid by the word for writing back in that day, and he would go on and on and on with pointless drivel to get his word count up, and only about half of the text in each book was actually worth reading or necessary to the plot.

I can understand WANTING Appaloosa to have been good. I wanted it to be too. I really did. Ed Harris and Viggo Mortensen working on a film together, and a Western to boot? I was so there, and then I was so disappointed. I hadn't felt that robbed since I went to The Village.

Oh, take a gander the bigger they are the harder they fall.

reply

[–] dorlich 14 years ago

Jordanmcune:

I could not agree more. This is a post wherein there was nothing left for me to add.
I never figured out Zellweger's appeal. But I also gagged when another dishpan blonde was cast as the female lead in Spiderman.
Just homely women who appealed to some vacuous casting director. Makes the homely women in the theater feel good about themselves, I suppose, so all is not lost.

No, I didn't love you the most, but I loved you first.

reply

[–] omisan771 14 years ago

Both movies are *beep* So it doesn't matter much.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jgopen 14 years ago

I enjoy both movies. They're both plagued by pretty mediocre middle sections. 3:10 has mindless action, and Appaloosa has plodding screenplay. But the last 20 minutes of 3:10 and the last 10 minutes are Appaloosa are both amazing in their own respect.

I love Christian Bale's character in 3:10, and I love Viggo's in Appaloosa. Both really interesting chracters, who come to very interesting crossroads, and make very interesting decisions regarding them.

And by the way, it's magazine. Not clip. And you picked two terrible Zombie Apocalypse weapons.

reply

[–] Mixalidis 14 years ago

Because it's simply a better movie. Not that I disliked Appaloosa, but Yuma is better in probably all departments.

reply

[–] slugdub 14 years ago

Because this movie is awful.

reply

[–] HeyFoxymophandlemama 13 years ago

Because 3:10 was awesome. The Proposition was better than this also, imo of course.

reply

[–] Huump 12 years ago

You and me both! Appaloosa was better than 3:10 (in my opinion) by far...

reply

[–] okky-1 11 years ago

because 3:10 to Yuma doesn't have wooden acting, cliche script and paint by numbers plot, characters and ending

reply

[–] withoutatrace 10 years ago

Because 3:10 to Yuma was a joy to watch and Appaloosa, by both popular and critical consensus, was not.

reply

[–] samantha3 10 years ago

Well, APPALOOSA did get a 75% approval rating on rottentomatoes and got on several 10-best lists for the year, so I wouldn't call it a critical failure.

And anyway, I liked it a lot better. I thought 3:10 to Yuma was a very poor western. Of course it made tons of money; it was aimed at the audience who likes such things. And for some weird reason, Roger Ebert.

As they say, no accounting for tastes.

reply

[–] withoutatrace 10 years ago

You liked it a lot better because your imaginary boyfriend Viggo was in it.

If Viggo had been cast as Ben Wade, you would have been singing 3:10 to Yuma's praises instead.

And for some weird reason, Roger Ebert.

Yeah, he gave Appaloosa three stars and 3:10 to Yuma FOUR stars.

"As they say, no accounting for tastes."

Run along now. You've given your uninteresting opinion umpteen times now on this board.

reply

[–] samantha3 10 years ago

My,my, you certainly get all nasty when anyone has a different opinion, don't you?

In fact, I disliked 3:10 partly because I hated what they did to jazz up a pretty good old western with one of Glen Ford's better performances. I was all prepared to like 3:10 until I saw it. Russell Crowe with his outsized ego playing smartass, Christian Bales's inablity to remember that his character had a wooden leg -- an inability apparently shared by the director -- gratuitous violence galore, and the obligatory psychopath killer. Et cetera. The film was made for the 14-39 male audience but had enough talent that even in that case it should have been better. As it is, everybody involved with it ought to be ashamed. That's my opinion, and your silly insults won't change it. Sorry about that.

And as I have said before, Roger and I didn't always agree, especially when he forgot to show me his copy in advance.

These boards are, after all, for our amateur opinions. Nobody says we can't repeat them. Except people like you, I guess. Funny thing to be touichy about. One might think you weren't really sure of yourself.

Here I am, running along. Just not away.

reply