The original version vs. the remake. (SPOILERS)
 |
| 3:10 to Yuma (1957) |
The original 3:10 to Yuma has a 96% rating on RottenTomatoes.com. It received a BAFTA nomination for Best Film, and it is now in the National Film Preservation Board's Registry. The remake of 3:10 to Yuma has a 88% rating on RottenTomatoes.com. It received two Oscar nominations for Best Original Score and Best Sound Mixing.
Winner: The originalThe setup.
In the original, a poor rancher named Dan Evans (Van Heflin) agrees to escort and deliver fugitive Ben Wade (Glenn Ford) to the train bound for his trial in Yuma. In the remake, the same story occurs (with Christian Bale playing Dan and Russell Crowe playing Ben), but it's fleshed out by an extra thirty minutes.
Winner: The remake |
| 3:10 to Yuma (2007) |
Both westerns have great shootouts, excellent leading performances, and an interesting relationship that develops between the two men. The original version is more bare, but it also features a quicker journey for Dan and Ben to take. In the remake, the men have a more troublesome journey and their relationship is, surprisingly, better developed.
Winner: The remakeThe ending.
In the original, both men escape on the train, and Dan and Ben ride to Yuma as friends. In the remake, Dan is killed, but avenged by Ben afterwards. Instead of running away, Ben chooses to get on the train anyway.
Winner: The remakeThe wild card.
The original film generally features lesser known actors in the supporting roles, but Oscar nominee Richard Jaeckel plays Ben's right hand man. However, the remake has a SAG-nominated cast featuring supporting players like Peter Fonda, Gretchen Mol, Vinessa Shaw, Ben Foster, Alan Tudyk and Logan Lerman.
Winner: The remake
Winner: The remake beats the original 4-1
Ratings, by the way:
3:10 to Yuma (1957) - ***1/2
3:10 to Yuma (2007) - ****
I prefer the original for its look, suspense, and its ending. The remake for its action and cast. Still, they both make one hell of a double-feature.
ReplyDeleteA great double feature, indeed. I saw the remake first, so I was surprised by the more upbeat ending of the original. I dig both of them, but the remake just works a little better for me.
DeleteLove both these films, but overall I prefer the original.
ReplyDeleteMaybe it's because I've loved the remake for almost 6 years, and I just watched the original for the first time recently. The remake just feels a bit more developed and emotionally involving for me. Also, while I love the chemistry between both pairs of actors, I think Crowe and Bale delivered better performances overall. Still, I love 'em both, even if I only give the original an A-.
DeleteI love both pairs, but I wish that Heflin could have starred in this with Crowe, since they dominated their films. Bale and Ford were good, but Heflin and Crowe were outstanding!
DeleteHeflin and Crowe would be an interesting pairing. Not sure if their chemistry would match the level of their individual performances, but I'd like to see that version.
DeleteI've only seen the 2007 film, but I must say I'm curious about the original. Especially because I loved the remake.
ReplyDeleteI loved both, even if I wouldn't give the original a perfect score. Since you loved the remake, I'd recommend the original.
DeleteBummer I haven't seen the original! I think I only know Glenn Ford as Jonathan Kent in Superman: The Movie, ahah. Great review Josh, I really like the 2007 version, even though Western isn't my favorite genre. Both Crowe and Bale are superb!
ReplyDeleteBtw, I reddited this: http://www.reddit.com/r/moviecritic/comments/1jvuhw/great_comparison_of_310_to_yuma_the_1957_2007/ Go and upvote it :D
Thanks again Ruth! :D
DeleteIf you're at all curious, I'd recommend the original version.