Western Retrospective: 3:10 to Yuma Original vs Remake

Hey, Tara Strong here, and you're listening to

the Geekcast Radio Network. Hello, and welcome

to episode 242 of the Cinema Geeks. I am one

of your Cinema Geeks optimists, Solo, and joining

me, as usual, is the comic concierge. Hello,

Dan. Hey, that means a little bit more with this

episode since one of the characters was named

Dan. So that was a little weird. Yeah. There's

no Kevin here, though. So it's just you being

represented here. No, Kevin Wade. It's just Ben.

So, yes. So as Dan mentioned, we are going to

talk more Westerns today. We're entering a new

block of our Western retrospective. So we have

covered some of the classic. john ford films

we've covered a handful of spaghetti westerns

and now we're moving into original versus remake

i guess you could say so westerns that originally

aired and then we had a originally got filmed

and then we had a remake later on so we have

a series of those that we're going to cover starting

with today's 310 to yuma comparing the 1957 film

and the 2007 film before we're going to break

this down by talking about each one separately

And then we will come together and kind of compare

and contrast a little bit, let you guys know

which ones we prefer, if we have a clear choice

or not, and kind of how that goes. But before

we get the facts on the 1957 Delmar Daves film,

Dan, remind everybody what your experience was

with both versions of 310 to Yuma going into

this record. So the original I had never seen

before, so it was the first time watched for

me, but I had seen the remake. So a couple of

times, I think it's been a while, though. It's

been, I think, over a decade since I last saw

it. So it was like watching it for the first

time, but a first time watch the remake for the

original for me. How about yourself? Same, same

camp. I was first time watch for the original.

I had definitely seen the 2007 version at least

once, if not a couple of times. But it is a completely

different experience watching them back to back

and having quite some time passed from the time

I last saw the remake. So it's going to be an

interesting conversation. For sure. Before we

get into that conversation, though, Dan is going

to give you guys some facts about the original

1957 film, and then we'll come back and give

you our thoughts on that one. Wow. Look at the

time. We may be late as we enter a new block

of our Western Retrospective, Originals vs. Remakes.

First up, 310 to Yuma as we look at the 1957

original, directed by Delmar Daves, starring

Glenn Ford, Van Heflin, and Felicia Farr. The

film is set in the Arizona territory in the 1880s.

It opens on a stagecoach going from Contention

City to Bisbee. It's only a few miles from its

destination, but a group of men on horseback

herd cattle to block its path. After it stops

and the dust clears, we see that the men are

a band of thieves, some with their guns drawn.

The owner of the stage line, Mr. Butterford,

played by Robert Emhart, is on board, and the

target of the robbery is a gold shipment on top

of the stage. Small -time rancher Dan Evans,

played by Van Heflin, and his two younger sons

are on horseback looking at their cattle that

have been used for this grand plan. Dan hears

the cattle over the ridge and they ride over

to where they can see the robbery in progress.

The robbers spot Dan and their leader Ben Wade

tells them just stay where you're at and you'll

get your cattle back in only a few minutes. As

one of the robbers passes down the gold, the

driver Bill Moods draws his own gun and grabs

the robber as a shield. That's when Ben Wade...

fires twice, one killing his own man, which clears

his line of sight, which allows him to kill Bill

Moods. Dan's son asks him if there's anything

he's going to do, and he responds, well, no,

there's nothing he can do without getting himself

and his kids shot. That's Ben Wade. He knows

how dangerous he is, and he doesn't really want

to get involved and endanger the life of himself

and his family. Wade then confiscates Dan's horse

so he won't ride the tail of Marshall. He says

he'll turn them loose this side of Brisbane,

taking the six horses from the stagecoach as

well. Wade and his men depart, and Dan and his

boys go on foot to bring the cattle home. Dan

agrees to return to the stagecoach with a horse

as well for the man left behind. Dan returns

home, and his devoted wife Alice is shocked over

his lack of outrage over what happened, but as

he explains, there was nothing he could do, plus

he has far more to worry about as their farm.

is failing due to the drought. After discussing

a few things, he agrees to go into town to try

to borrow $200 in hopes that it could save his

farm. Back in Brisbane, Wade and his men pose

as cowhands, telling everyone that they witnessed

a stage being robbed and its driver killed, trying

to get the marshal to go out and investigate.

Eventually, Wade tells his men to scatter into

the countryside, but he stays behind to enjoy

the company of a pretty barmaid. After picking

up Butterfield, Dan runs into the marshal and

is able to explain what actually happened. Back

in town, he approaches Wade in his saloon and

asks about being paid for what occurred that

day. His time was wasted. But in reality, it

was really a distraction so they can capture

Wade. And now the question is, what do they do

next? Dan sees that opportunity to earn that

much -needed money by joining the posse tasked

with escorting Wade to the town of Contention,

where he will board the 310 to Yuma train in

order to go to prison. The journey, of course,

is tense, but the real drama unfolds once Dan

and a group arrive in Contention and take Wade

to a hotel to wait for the train's arrival. Inside

that cramped room, the film becomes this psychological

standoff. calm, and manipulative, tries to undermine

Dan by appealing to his frustration, his lack

of respect from his family, and his financial

struggles, and the apparent futility of doing

the right thing. Making things even worse is

that, one by one, the men guarding Wade begin

to lose their nerve and abandon the mission,

especially as Wade's gang begins to gather outside

the town, egging on the impending violence. Dan

is increasingly isolated, forced to confront

both Wade's influence and his own self -doubt.

As the clock ticks closer to 310, Dan remains

determined, motivated by a need to prove his

worth and uphold his sense of honor. In the final

stretch, he must escort Wade through the dangerous

streets to the train while Wade's gang closes

in. The climax hinges not just upon physical

courage, but moral resolve, as Wade makes an

unexpected choice. He indicates he's willing

to jump onto the train under his own free will,

allowing Dan to complete the mission. Ben Wade's

final decision has been debated for decades.

Does he act upon respect, boredom, manipulation,

or something like redemption? The film never

spells it out, which is part of why it sticks

with so many people. The film comes from a short

story by Elmore Leonard, better known for later

crime novels like Get Shorty. This was one of

his earliest works, and you can already see his

trademark with focus on dialogue and morally

complex characters. Glenn Ford was often cast

as a straightforward hero, but here he plays

Ben Wade as a charismatic, intelligent, and quietly

menacing. The movie wasn't huge or didn't have

a flashy production, but it earned strong reviews

and later became regarded as one of the most

psychological rich westerns of his era. It's

often cited as a bridge between the traditional

westerns and more morally ambiguous ones that

come much later, like the ones we discussed during

our spaghetti western part of this retrospective.

It was shot very quickly on a modest budget.

Director Delmar Daves was known for efficiency,

and this film was made fast and really cheap.

That was part of why so much of it takes place

in a single hotel room. At the time of its release,

it was heavily praised by critics that loved

its intelligence and restraint. General audiences

appreciated it, but it was not a huge mainstream

hit, mostly due to its slower pace and lack of

action. Although, it had a big impact outside

of the U .S. as it caused Yuma to enter into

the lexicon of the Cuban slang as a term for

American visitors. But where do Kevin and I stand?

Back to us to discuss. Alright, so now Dan and

I have both seen the 1957 film for the first

time. Dan, I'm very interested to see how this

conversation is going to go in multiple ways,

but what was your reaction to the original 310

to Yuma? It's interesting because, like you said,

it's weird going in to watch a movie you've never

seen before, but you kind of have because you

saw the remake of it, so you kind of have an

idea of what to expect. But in some ways, this

really wasn't what I was expecting, because in

my head, the remake, which we'll get to, is very

different in its execution. But I was actually

really impressed with this. Looking at all the

movies we've done thus far, the first time watches

for me, so not counting Once Upon a Time in the

West, which is one I've seen before, this is

up there as one of... by favorites we've watched

in a lot of ways. I think just because it was

so unexpected. I love the approach. It is very

different than what we've seen. If anything,

it reminds me the most of maybe The Man Who Shot

Liberty Valance because it's very much more of

a dialogue -driven film compared to an action

-driven. Although it is very tense and very thrilling

at times, but it's done, again, mostly through

dialogue until maybe the very end. but I just

found the dynamics quite interesting. I also

just, even some of the roles that certain characters

play, I mean, we'll probably get to this later

when we contrast the film, but I think if you

were to kind of just get someone who's never

seen both and just lay out the plot lines and

certainly the way decisions that certain characters

make, especially near the end, I think you would

think the plot line of this would actually be

the more modern plot line. In some ways. With

the way it plays out. But that is not actually

the case. And I know it's not part of our. Retrospective.

Maybe if we continue it. It will be. But it definitely

reminded me a lot of High Noon. In the sense

of. It's a lot about. Trying to find those individuals.

That have that moral courage. To do what's right.

And like weighing. The doing what's right. With

your own. self -preservation and like is it actually

worth it because like at the end of the day is

it worth it just to protect this bank at the

end you know does it make sense and so i just

thought it asked a lot of really intriguing questions

compared to a lot of what we got before like

i said i think the only thing that's come close

so far is liberty valence and i thought the performances

especially you know Ben Heflin and Glenn Ford.

Two actors I don't know. I've seen much of four.

Their faces are familiar. You have, but you don't

realize you have. Their faces are familiar, but

I can't really place them very well. Glenn Ford

you might recognize because he plays Jonathan

Kent in the first Superman film. Oh, okay. There

you go. So I do know him. And then Van Heflin

appeared in... one of the, I think he was a starring

role in Shane, which I, I don't think I've seen

Shane, but he also appears in 1970s airport.

Okay. Um, but yeah, I, I know less about him

and I, I wouldn't have definitely recognized

either one of them. I thought this was definitely

the first film I saw either one of these folks

in, but I have seen the original Superman. So

I guess I'm like, I didn't, didn't remember that

was him though. Yeah. But I thought, I thought

they were both great. Their dynamic worked really

well. Uh, so I, I was, Quite impressed with this

one, but how about yourself? I'm curious what

I want to put you on the spot, because you kind

of know some of my movie tastes and some things

that I like in movies or not. Do you think I'm

going to be positive or negative on this one?

Well, I'm trying to think. I feel like it is

very play -like, and I know you have histories

with plays. I thought you would like it, because

I feel like the... everything's pretty clear

cut like i don't feel like there's anything that

is i know with some of the issues we had with

the uh you know a few dollars dollars more like

some of the motivations weren't quite there i

feel like everything here makes sense uh on on

on like a script level so i don't know i think

you liked it am i am i right you are you are

correct um i think it has a couple different

things going for it none it's not always a limited

setting But there is a great deal of this original

movie that takes place in basically a hotel.

Yeah. And even past that, we don't get these

far expansive sets and different things. I mean,

there are some outdoor things that happen and

whatnot. But I'm always a fan of limited settings.

And I'm always a fan of limited cast. And I feel

like you get that both here. And then I'm pretty

typically, I think it speaks to the types of

movies I like when it's something that's dialogue

heavy. Yeah. and when the dialogue becomes super

important and then i just really like when a

small group of people whether it be two three

four or something like that are everything else

is kind of taken away and you really get to like

just spend time with the psychology of those

people and the human element and kind of decision

making motivations how people feel about themselves

their ideas of different things about you know

just like i said the human condition or their

their role in the world and things like that

so i think this gives us all of that right like

we get a big time look at especially ben and

dan as they're spending quite a bit of time you

know isolated maybe a few characters come and

go throughout the time but they're really kind

of like they're both spending a decent amount

of time trying to analyze and figure the other

person out and kind of dissect what their motivations

are and to see like, obviously Ben Wade is trying

to manipulate Dan and a lot of this. Uh, but

I think Dan's also like at the same time trying

to understand Ben in some ways, like how much

rope can he give him? You know, is he swayed

by some of his, uh, overtures? Can he trust?

taking his eyes off of him like all there's like

a lot of that type of stuff going on where they're

trying to kind of figure each other out and i

think that is something that for some reason

i just really gravitate towards and kind of just

like looking at the human psychology of it so

i really appreciated that i did think that i

was hoping for like dan like the entire movie

which i get this is the point but like the entire

movie i wanted him to stop sweating once i was

like i just want him to get his bearings stop

being nervous for one second stop sweating for

a second i want to see like who he is without

all of this like he was on like if no matter

what happened in this movie i felt like he was

only a couple years away from a heart attack

like he's just like high strung to an nth degree

and i was just like man this guy is like it had

to be draining on this guy to play this part

i feel like at the end of the day he like needed

to just like sit in a hot tub and unwind because

he was he was on 10 for sure um but yeah i just

really enjoyed a lot of the elements that are

like going into it i feel like i've never seen

a delmer dave's movie i've never even heard yeah

that name before today or before we went to go

watch this but i feel like whatever his background

is or his future after this like for this specific

pocket in time, like when, when he was doing

this movie, I felt like he was executing things

in a very surgical manner. Like, I feel like

he just very much had a handle of what story

he wanted to tell and how he wanted to tell it.

And I think he like from a step -by -step execution,

like I'm not going to say necessarily like flawless,

but it felt pretty darn well constructed. Well,

we have seen one downward days, film which one

did he do he did an affair to remember oh okay

so i which i completely forgot but yeah that's

right so that's his best known film but yeah

so that's odd you know an odd connection with

our retrospective so yeah like i don't do that

yeah so seeing you know i i don't see a lot of

connecting tissue with this and 310 to yuma per

se uh you know But maybe if you dug deep enough,

you would be able to find something. But that's

probably his best known film is unfair to remember.

But outside of that, like, I have not seen much

else beyond that. Had you heard the song before

you watched the film? No, I didn't. And I was

actually. But I feel like I have. Like, I know

I have it, but I felt like, oh, yeah, that's,

you know, that's some song I probably heard like

a hundred times growing up. I don't know. I know.

I'm actually like, why didn't they use it in

the remake? I guess. Oh, my God. Yes. Why they

didn't use that drove me nuts. even i guess maybe

it doesn't it's not as you know it doesn't it's

even at the end there's i don't know there was

a there was time where you could have done it

and i feel like it would have been maybe they

were trying to be less like tarantino but i feel

like if tarantino makes the remake like that

song is 100 gonna be in there somewhere yeah

and like it's an interesting story the guy that

did that like he sang a bunch of like different

theme songs for different movies and tv shows

so he's He sang the theme song for 310 to Yuma.

This guy's name is Frankie Lane. He sang the

song in Blazing Saddles. And there was a couple

other that he did. I'm trying to remember. I

looked it up beforehand. But not just movies,

but TV shows as well, where he basically was

known for doing this type of thing in Western

TV shows and movies. So it's kind of a little

crazy. bit like i would like to see like a little

biography of him blazing saddles 310 to yuma

gunfight at the okay corral um and then also

raging bull he sang a song in raging bull um

so like go you go frankie lane yeah that is intriguing

for sure i you know what i one of the things

that really surprised me with this obviously

is that with and what you know remake it's very

much and what we'll talk about it more is it's

a father -son story in a lot of ways where this

is more so a husband and wife story really just

and i was a bit surprised by that but you certainly

see the role and that's that's what i was talking

about when i mentioned like if you were to give

these two plot lines like the the plot that um

we are dana miss you know alice evans like dana

his wife plays like you would think oh that's

the more updated version because they have the

you know the female the wife you know being more

active she comes in and helps almost like save

the day at the end but that's actually this and

i think you know it's i think the most bucking

the trend of the uh the the female role you've

seen thus far in a lot of the westerns maybe

since once upon a time in the west where you

know she's the one that kind of Her relationship

with Dan's interesting because it's not she's

not necessarily she's a little disappointed in

him, but it's more so like she she believes in

him and she's just trying to get him to believe

in himself. And I just found there that I make

it like intriguing and like it ends up being

a bit like heartwarming, of course, at the end

where like you just you see like her. her fulfillment

in him come true at the end like i just thought

that was i thought their dynamic like i did not

expect that piece at the end like she she plays

a much bigger part within this than i was expecting

i was was curious to see what you thought about

her role yeah it was interesting too because

it was like i feel like there was elements of

it that were also stereotypical of how people

communicated in the time period that it's depicting

And I feel like, I feel like at that time, like

a lot of people keep things close to their vest

and they don't say what they, they really are

thinking. And I feel like there's times where

she's saying something that's not exactly a hundred

percent what she's thinking, but the way he takes

it, it's like, if you would have just been more

open with what you were feeling or thinking,

he definitely wouldn't have taken it, how he

took that. Like, so I feel like there's always

that like weird dynamic when you see some of

these, like, especially in husband wife relationships

from older time periods with how they interact

how they communicate and things like that it's

just it's it seems definitely like almost foreign

to us i feel like these days um but it reminds

me of like how my parents and my aunts and uncles

communicate almost too right like it's just something

of like some older generations where they where

they just aren't as open and like honest with

each other i feel like at times i don't know

but like i i Really appreciated her role in this.

I question her actions of going to contention.

That may be not the smartest decision in the

world. But no, I thought it was interesting how

they did that. And it seemed like it was ahead

of its time to kind of explore that and give

her such a focal point. But I definitely appreciated

it. in a way that we'll probably talk more about

how it works, I guess, from the father -son aspect

in the later one, but I appreciated how this

dynamic kind of added to the movie, but didn't

100 % take over the movie. Yeah, I think it really

fed into Dan Evans' self -realization of who

he is. Yeah, it was very complimentary of what

else we were looking at, in a way. Because it's

– regarding this, obviously, like, the plot line

here is pretty straightforward in the sense of,

you know, they start within the – we have a robbery.

They, you know, they have this idea of, like,

trying to pull a fast one, and Ben Wade stays

back behind, you know, to – this who the bar

maiden did you get the impression within their

conversation that like they had a history or

is he was it just like an instant connection

because it sure seemed like it it's i'm like

this is a weird instant like if there's no history

like i i don't know like i don't want to call

her any names yeah or whatever but like i'm like

if there's not a history somehow like you were

just instantaneously taken aback by this guy

and Yes, he's charismatic. Glenn Ford is. And

I can see some of it. But it seemed almost implausible

how fast she becomes somewhat taken by him. Yeah,

I got the impression that there must have been,

like, because the way, like, the questions, the

way he was, like, hinting at, like, their, like,

a past connection. So that was my impression

as well in some ways. But I wasn't. I wasn't

fully sure. Or maybe it was just a lot of this

is ambiguous. So I don't know if that was kind

of the impression you got there. Yeah, I got

an impression that they had some sort of history,

but like it definitely was like the definition

of ambiguous. It was definitely something you

kind of had to read into it. But I like to think

that because otherwise I'm like, she just was

very easily taken. I'm curious to like, obviously

we get a yes, there's a limited cast when it

comes to like. some of the main dialogue sequences

and especially in the hotel and things like that

but along the way we do get a decent amount of

supporting characters right like we have charlie

prince who's like ben wade's second deputy or

in command like his number two so to speak and

then we we have you know mr butterfield who is

the guy that was in charge of the stage coach

that's getting robbed that's trying to like orchestrate

all of this we have you know a marshal we have

a variety of different people that are both on

ben wade's side and also trying to help arrest

or apprehend ben wade how do you feel this movie

handled the supporting characters and did any

stand out to you as far as like memorable or

really well executed do you think uh richard

uh jakel as charlie prince was certainly a standout

because you know, that was a role that like,

it could have been nothing. It could have been

like, we've seen a lot of the town drunk roles

like that are played for a lot of laughs, a lot

of just like, you know, they're just there to,

you know, just be kind of cannon father in a

way. But if anything, he had a lot of development

within himself to, to try to like, again, you

see him wanting to prove himself saying that

like, he can, you know, he can do this. He can

be the person he can be relied upon. And, but

also like, his fate like like i didn't this can

got dark at times like seeing like what what

happened to him and then how that fuels dan and

in a way so i certainly thought like what happens

to his character overall was certainly a standout

and mr barterfield i think is interesting too

because he's not just the evil banker like he's

we've seen that like we've seen like the evil

banker a lot you know just within the uh with

once upon a time in the west where he's willing

to at least like do something like he's he is

going on the mission too he's putting himself

out there a bit more so than than most but uh

but at the same time he's also like risking everyone's

life just for does it really need to so it's

he i think he he was an intriguing figure as

well so i do think like every like you said they

pared down the cast so you really got a good

sense of everyone. And ultimately this is obviously

Ben Wade versus Dan Evans, but the other, the

other piece of other people, I feel like got

their due and like even some of those side characters

like Charlie had a good, you know, good development.

The only ones I think that kind of are just there

are mostly Ben Wade's gang where they, they're

kind of, there's no one that really stands out.

They're just kind of this evil, you know, henchmen

that are, that are just, uh nothing really i

feel like they could have done more a little

bit with the the one individual that was like

the sharpshooter yeah like i felt like they could

have done maybe like he seemed like he could

have been interesting but they just really didn't

have time in this film to explore that but yeah

you're right it's really just ben wade and charlie

prince and everybody else is just like the stormtroopers

or you know so to speak i think that's part of

it too because they also want you to not know

So you're not sure who's on his side or not.

When they walk into the hotel and that guy's

sleeping, it's like, is he part of the gang?

Is he not? You don't really know. So I do think

that's perhaps a purposeful choice. And we do

see how that differs when we get to the next

film in the sense of where they give us a bit

more defined characters when it comes to Ben

Wake's, his gang, and the characters within it.

yeah absolutely do you uh have anything else

on the original or should we should we switch

over to the the remake and talk about that for

a little bit maybe just I guess we can talk about

the finale when we contrast them. But yeah, let's

just go over to the remake because I feel like

everything else we can get into when we talk

about the differences and the similarities. We

are on the road again as we're looking at the

2007 version, 310 to Yuma, directed by James

Mangold, starring Christian Bale and Russell

Crowe. And much of the original framework is

here with some new layers and perhaps a different

conflict. Here. Dan Evans is a wounded Civil

War veteran whose failing ranch and financial

troubles have left him desperate and quietly

ashamed in front of his family. especially his

eldest son, who sees him as a weak failure. When

the infamous outlaw Ben Wade is captured after

a daring stagecoach robbery, Evans joins a small

group of men tasked with escorting Wade across

that dangerous territory into a contention where

he must catch the 310 to Yuma train in order

to get him to prison. Evans is motivated not

just by the reward money, but by the need to

prove his courage and integrity. especially to

his older son. The journey becomes increasingly

perilous as Wade's ruthless gang, led by the

volatile Charles Prince, who's played by Ben

Foster, hunts them down. Along the way, the group

is slowly whittled down through ambushes and

betrayals, hiding the sense that the danger is

always there and there's no turning back, and

they simply cannot win the day. Meanwhile, Wade,

intelligent, observant, and perceptive, begins

to probe Evans, his insecurities testing his

resolve, while also developing a strange respect

for his determination to reject all that and

keep going. Their conversations reveal contrasting

worldviews and how they see the world. Wade lives

by a flexible personal code shaped by survival

and self -interest, while Evans clings to a rigid

sense of duty and honor despite his failures.

When they finally reach contention, the situation

erupts into chaos. Wade's gang descends upon

the town, turning it into a war zone as Evan

struggles to get his prisoner to the train on

time in a brutal and desperate push through gunfire

and collapsing alliances. Evans does get some

help from some unexpected sources. First, his

son, who has become enamored with his father's

newfound courage. In a poetic move, he lets loose

some cattle so his father can use them as cover

to get to the train. Wade also decides to go

along willingly, and Evans is able to get him

to the train, but dies in the process. In a surprise

turn, Wade, perhaps moved by Evans' unwavering

commitment, chooses not to escape immediately,

honoring his sacrifice. In a quiet, ambiguous

act of respect, the film closes on the moral

layered note, suggesting that even an honored

outlaw can recognize the true courage when he

sees it. Russell Crowe and Christian Bale were

very committed in building their chemistry as

actors, and off -camera spent a lot of time together

talking about their characters and their psychology.

During filming, Crowe would lean into a lot of

improvisation, and he would sometimes change

the line, add in subtle gestures mid -scene to

keep Bale reacting in the moment. The production

also prioritized practical effects and relocations

over CGI. Much of the film was shot in areas

of New Mexico where the cast had to deal with

intense heat. dust, and unpredictable weather

conditions. It was a bit of a passion project

for James Mangold, who was trying to get this

made for years. Often passion projects don't

work, but it was well -perceived overall, especially

compared to most modern westerns, with an 89

% on Rotten Tomatoes. Box office -wise, it was

successful, but not a huge hit, making $70 million

worldwide, which is respectable for most westerns

of that era. Although not a massive hit, especially

considering the star power of Christian Bale

in Russell Crowe. Over time, the film's reputation

has only improved. It's often cited as one of

the best westerns of the 2000s and part of a

small wave that helped revive the interest in

the genre. But where do Kevin and I stand? Back

once again to us to discuss. So I started with

my thoughts with the originals. Why don't you

start with your thoughts with the remake? I think

you mentioned previously enjoying it when you

first saw it. Now, you know, years later, and

also with the context of the original, what were

your thoughts seeing it this time? So it's interesting

because I definitely remember being very positive,

I think, on all of these remakes that we're about

to cover in our series. So both 310 to Yuma,

True Grit, and Magnificent Seven. I think I was,

you know, different levels of positive on all

of them originally and i i think maybe because

it was speaking to that western genre that i

said like i have a like a soft spot for but i

hadn't really just discovered much or watched

much in the form of movies and there was i think

i felt like there was a while that we just didn't

get western too many western films from like

a modern standpoint right like yeah i feel like

it went from unforgiven I don't know what year

that came out but like yeah like in the 90s and

I feel like it was almost until right around

this time period where all of a sudden we got

like a spattering of like a few more right like

I think this came out along the same line time

of like the the Robert the Jesse James Robert

Ford coward Robert Ford film I think was right

around 2007 maybe as well it was like 2008 yeah

yeah so there was like a few that come out this

time period and then I felt like we started getting

at least one or two every year it seemed like

in the late 2000s early 2010s or something like

that so i feel like you know maybe for a good

10 years it seemed like we didn't really have

much for western so i think i was ready for this

it was like um something that when it came out

i was like all right yeah i'm definitely down

for some like modern westerns and i don't it

didn't at the time trigger me to go watch the

original for whatever reason I don't know exactly

why that was, but I'm glad, like, we finally

got the chance to do that. So, I definitely remember

being fairly positive on this one. Like, I think

even, like, maybe, like, you know, in my top

10, top 20 of that year, if I was to do a list,

like, at the time. Watching it this time was

a strange experience. And I don't know if it's

because it came, like, we watched them back -to

-back, basically. Like, at least... i don't know

what did you watch them in order you watch the

original first and then you re -watch this one

yeah i watched the original yeah like it was

i had like a day or so in between right yeah

yeah so same so i so i definitely watched the

original and waited a day or two and then watched

the 2007 version and i don't know if that necessarily

did the 2007 version any favors for me um i i

appreciate some of it like it was well received

at the time like yeah I think it has 89 % on

Rotten Tomatoes. Most of the reviews that came

out in 2007 about it were positive overall. And

they praised a lot of stuff. And I get Christian

Bale and Russell Crowe are pretty accomplished

and well -regarded actors. And I don't know if

there was any issues with them necessarily, but

something about this film... I don't want to

make it come across overly negative. Like, I

still think there's a lot that you can enjoy

from this film, but watching it right after the

original, I had more issues than I remember having

back in 2007. Interesting. And we can get into

what some of that is in a little bit, but I'm

interested first on, like, as you rewatch this

one after the original, were you still as positive

as the first time, or what was your take this

time around? yeah it it is very it was like watching

the first the original and kind of like i said

it was like a really strong reaction to it and

going back to this you do i don't say it's like

the dumbed down version i feel like that's too

strong but you certainly see how it was made

for a more modern audience and you're like oh

man like how little far we've fallen in a lot

of ways but i also kind of get it because like

like i mentioned this is the this newer version

it is far more action -based like like this first

film could be a play this could not be this is

more high energy they added a bunch to it a lot

of the like the framework is very similar the

general plot line is very similar but i think

a lot is telling from like the opening scene

where the opening scene is like the people they

owe a debt to or like burning down the barn and

i'm like that I'm like, that seems, it just seems

like everything is like turned up to 11 a little

bit in ways that I don't think are necessary.

Cause you also think like, I don't know if that's

not, that's needed. Cause first off, if like

someone owes you money and you want them to pay

you back, I don't know if like burning down their

method of payment, like in how they would do

that would be the best way of getting that accomplished.

It just seems like not the most logical choice.

But overall though, I do think, a lot of what

works for the first still is here. Like, the

core is strong. Like, Russell Crowe and Christian

Bale, again, great actors. And this is, I think,

when they're still very much in their prime.

Not that they're not doing, still doing occasional

good work here and there. Although, I don't,

I feel like I haven't seen Christian Bale in

something in a while. But, and I do like, and

I do like some of the changes that they made,

or like some of the additions, I should say.

Like, I do like the fact that, like, Ben Wade's

gang, The characters are stronger. I like the

addition of Ben Foster's character. I think he

adds a lot to this. He is a different side to

Ben Wade. I love some of the additions they add

to Ben Wade's character with Russell Crowe. He's

a bit of an artist. He has more of a religious

angle. He quotes scripture. they didn't just

settle and just try to do the same thing so if

you're going to remake something i do think it

makes sense to like at least how do you approach

it and so i thought they did try to make some

adjustments and like we mentioned one of the

biggest differences here where the original much

of it is that husband wife story here it's really

a father son story like a son kind of being disappointed

in his father and his father trying to prove

himself and I don't think it's as strong because

I just feel like in a lot of ways, you just you

feel like the kid is being unreasonable because,

you know, but. I do at least like that journey

and like where it ends up. So I think, you know,

I get some of the decisions they made because,

of course, at this time, like a Western is a

hard sell. So I think they had to do a lot of

things like how do we get people interested?

I think they had to do a little like, you know,

they had to. You know, let's add in some explosions.

Let's make a stagecoach that is basically a tank.

You know, all these little things that would,

you know, the casting I think generally is pretty

strong. But I think there are, I don't, I think

ultimately a lot of their additions are a bit

unnecessary in some ways. And I do think, like

I said, just some choices logically aren't as

strong. And the ending, too, makes me wonder.

Like, I think, I don't know if they needed to

go the route they did. I get it, but I felt like,

I don't know if it makes for a better film. But

I generally enjoyed it. But like you, it wasn't

as strong as I remembered it when I first watched

it. But like, you know, when I first watched

it, I didn't have much experience with Westerns.

Right. And I think with... the knowledge of understanding

of that, a lot of his strength that's borrowing

from the original. I don't know if that impacted

me in some way. I still think it's a successful

film. I still think there's a lot to take out

of it, but I do think it's not nearly as strong

as the original, just to, I guess, spoil that.

that that piece but um but i think that's pretty

obvious in in our in our conversation yeah yeah

so for sure no i think you hit on a lot of the

things for me like i think it does have it does

keep a lot of elements from the first one and

i think that's possibly where it's it's i don't

know i don't want to say that's possibly where

it's at its strongest because it does it in such

a different way i think in some cases that it

it's like it's the same movie but then so different

at the same time like yeah it's an interesting

thing like obviously we um have a little bit

more of an expansive setting right like we're

not spending nearly as much time in the hotel

we are spending a lot more time on the kind of

the chase right like the chase and the journey

are way more uh focal in this one compared to

the original one we definitely ramp up the not

just the action but the violence like specifically

like it's not just that there's more action and

more explosions and things like that but there's

definitely like more deaths and more graphic

violence in this one than there is in the original

one which i get is a product of its time right

it's not going to have as much although we have

seen in our westerns some some violence right

like we have seen some some torture for yeah

you know different films we've seen some people's

hands get messed up and things like that but

like uh you know people's ears getting cut off

and fed to them so we have seen that type of

thing i guess but we definitely don't get a lot

of that from the 1957 version and you definitely

get like the more action and more violence in

this one and then they obviously expand the cast

right like it's not just the uh the ben wade

posse and the gang that we get more of we definitely

get a larger group of people surrounding dan

evans like it's not nearly as limited as the

1957 version where it's you know just a few folks

that were i mean there's others that we see in

different times but like the main journey is

is a much more limited uh group of folks and

this one we get quite a few people involved right

like we'd still get the butterfield character

but then we get alan tudyk as a doctor we get

peter fonda as like an elderly bounty hunter

involved we get kevin durant who's kind of like

a sadistic ranch hand and things like that. So

we get all these other different people. We eventually

get a whole other group of people that we encounter

that we didn't the first time around with Luke

Wilson and his gang. His trio of people that

have a small role, but that's definitely a new

added element. And like you said, obviously the

biggest change is the Logan Lerman character

as far as Dan's eldest son, William. and kind

of the part that he plays as he gets much more

involved than the son does or than the the children

do in the original one the children still exist

in the original one but it's obviously it's more

about a few comments they make in the original

one whereas here we get a much more expansive

like depth of their relationship and kind of

back and forth so i think there's there's parts

that i can appreciate with that but at the same

time i couldn't help but think like we're making

the same film where we are trying to modernize

it. So I get, you're trying to make it appeal

for a newer audience and you're trying to like

make a Western successful, which hasn't been

done in a while and things of that nature. So

I guess I get, I get what you're going for and

why you're doing some of the things, but it's

like, it's that thing that you're always like,

ah, Hollywood, like do we have to add more explosions?

Do we have to add like all of that type of stuff?

I still think you get a good film and I would.

i think this is one that you can recommend to

folks that like westerns don't know if i would

recommend this to somebody watch them back to

back yeah watch this one enjoy it maybe later

on down the road watch the other one or vice

versa let there be some time that passes don't

watch them back to back because unless i don't

know like for me it definitely diminished the

2007 one yeah i would say like the the the 2007

one is one i'd recommend like I said like the

general audiences to those that maybe don't typically

like Westerns. I think this one's people are

going to probably enjoy more. It's easier, especially

because you're going to see actors, you know,

I do think like you meant like one pieces. I

do think the side characters aren't as strong.

The journeys aren't as fulfilling. Like Alan

Tudyk is probably who I love as an actor, but

like. You know, he's, you do get that great moment

where it's like, you know, he's the doctor and

he's working on him and he looks around and he

sees that, oh, he's actually a veterinarian in

that, you know, that piece. And you have Peter

Fonda, who's a great, you know, iconic actor,

but I don't think like his character has much.

He's just kind of just there, I think more so

because he's Peter Fonda. But yeah, it is a bit

more bloated. I forgot completely, honestly,

about the sequence with Luke Wilson when they're

in the train sequence. You can kind of remove

that sequence in a lot of ways. And I guess you

could say that's where he saves him so he owes

him a favor and adds to the relationship a bit.

But I think you could kind of remove it. It becomes

even a bit of a tighter film in some ways. But

what I did like, though, I do think, like, one

of my favorite, like I mentioned, I do like,

like, I like Ben Foster as an actor. Yeah. I

actually feel like, I don't know, I remember,

like, being a huge fan of him because he, like,

he showed up on a lot of stuff around this time.

He was in the Terminator, not the Terminator,

the Thomas Jane Punisher movie. He's, you know,

he's in a bunch of, yeah. And The Messengers.

I love, you know, he was like. around this time

he was, he's in hell and hell, hell and high

water. Um, so, uh, but, uh, so I, I was great

seeing him again and he does play like menacing

really well. Like he, and he, in a way he's one

dimensional, but I think that actually works

because it makes Ben Wade even more intriguing

because Ben Wade's a bit more complex and then

kind of see how that plays out in my head too.

Like I, in my head, I had this thought that,

like, by the end of it, actually, that Ben Foster's

character was actually trying to kill Russell

Crowe's character for some reason. That obviously

wasn't the case. I don't know why I thought that,

but that obviously didn't happen. But I did think

that he did bring something to it. And also,

I do think you do lose a lot when you have...

Gretchen Moll, who plays Alice Evans, who clearly

played a huge role in the last film. But here,

she doesn't really... She kind of gets a couple

scenes, but doesn't have much else to do. But

you also... One thing we see in this that we

don't really see in the other film... We see

Ben Wade kill a guy in the first film. It's his

first big act. He shoots somebody. But at the

same time, he's also... That person has a gun

on someone else. Here, he kills someone in cold

blood. with a knife like it's it's pretty like

so like i feel like in a way there's this idea

like like how bad is ben wade like i think i

don't know i wonder if like does that at all

change does that answer that question or is that

just part of the the progress of his character

by the end yeah that's kind of getting into i

guess in a way this gets into like comparing

those a little bit more like directly but like

i feel I appreciated more that the Glenn Ford

version has a little bit more gray. He's bad,

but he's not the same type of bad as Russell

Crowe. So I feel like there was ways that you

could see the... dan evans character in the original

one starting to consider ben wade's overtures

right like he he's just a down on his luck desperate

you know rancher or whatever you want to call

him that is looking for a way out and he's you

can see that like the more time he spends with

him like it helps blur that line of conscience

right like what do i have to sacrifice about

my conscience to take this guy's offer and take

a whole bunch of money and like be good with

my family yeah right and i think that works more

when ben wade's character is a little bit more

ambiguous like we know he's bad but then in this

specific sequence we're not seeing him outright

like slaughter somebody in front of you yeah

where you know when russell crowe is doing that

i feel like it takes that away from christian

bale and you're never going to have a thing where

you're thinking like how is this dynamic working

to a point where christian bale could actually

help him in a way or could take the bait or could

do that like that's out the window in the 2007

version because russell crowe's just outright

like violent yeah violent and bad there's no

gray area and i'm not saying that you ever think

that ben wade in the original is good but it's

a little more underspoken yeah it's a little

more subtle and i feel like that added a lot

to the dynamic between the two characters where

i wish we would have got that because i think

christian bale and russell crowe were definitely

capable of doing that same thing in a way but

then you know i don't know like i also get that

they're trying to be more violent i get that

like they're trying to not 100 mimic the entire

original movie but i feel like that dynamic between

those two is definitely very drastically different

between the two films yeah it's interesting i

i think in some ways because like i i get what

you're saying but i think in a way i wonder if

like as a character it's more like he carpenter

uh wow i can't say that word but he almost like

shuts his brain off for certain parts of it because

like like i mentioned he he has this more of

a religious angle that he takes he like he has

this introspective way of looking at life he's

he's a drawer he loves drawing nature and people

but it's almost like when he gets into a certain

state like he doesn't he's a different person

in some ways so yeah it's i don't know i think

that works that can work and it adds depth to

the character but i think it's hard like it's

almost better if we see that side of him outside

of dan evans view yeah like i almost wish like

yes we saw him do some of those things like show

us him doing that before they come into contact

with each other which explains why the posse

is after or why they're trying to arrest him

and then have dan evans come in kind of not witnessing

that firsthand outside of maybe like the robbery

or something like that and then i think it adds

more because like we know how bad he is but then

we can see like him manipulating or trying to

work that relationship between himself and dan

But like when it's when you wake up and you see

someone stabbing somebody like 100 times in front

of you, it's like, OK, that's out the window.

I don't feel anything for you anymore. Yeah,

that's that's a valid point, which I think also

when we get to the point where. Which is why

when we get to the point and he does make that

turn and you see him kind of pleading with Ben

regarding him having to go through this and Ben

eventually like. kind of succumb to his plea

and basically goes on willingly. I don't feel

like his turn is as convincing this time around.

It definitely wasn't. Because I feel like obviously

he has elements of morals in a sense, and you

could see why he has sympathy for Dan in some

ways, but I don't know. It was a bit of a leap.

I don't know. It wasn't as, I think, because

it was so much more of, he had so much more time

to think about it compared to the original, obviously,

where it's this almost kind of gut instinct where

it's literally just a few seconds there, the

train's going, they're in the smoke. It's like,

maybe he's doing it just for fun. There's more

questions behind it. It's more in the moment

where with that moment, it's, it's not, not so

much because he's, he's in control. There's no

immediate threat. Like he has a really technically

all the time in the world. So it's just like

him having the sympathy to, to make that decision.

So, yeah, I, I, I think it, it, I think you can

make the logic, you can put the logic together

to understand it, but I just think it's not as

strong of a choice compared to where we, where

we get to. yeah i think that leads like you know

obviously the ending specifically that we're

talking about here is to me like one of the biggest

differences between the two films that i didn't

like yeah in the 2007 one like the ending just

does not land at all for me in the 2007 version

compared to 1957 um so obviously you know spoiler

alert i guess but like in talking about the ending

one like I find the original one, you know, much

more haunting, I guess, or morally ambiguous.

Like there's an uncertainty and kind of an emotional

unease that you have where the film doesn't try

to over explain motivations. It doesn't try to

give you like this emotional payoff or redemption

or any sort of like significant thing, which

I get a lot of viewers want the emotional payoff.

They want the redemption. They want the, you

know, that mythic significance thing. But for

me, the original leaves you with something that

is different. It's a quiet question about whether

morality matters in a world like this where that

rarely rewards it. And to me, that's much more

of a thing that's going to linger with you longer

than just whatever satisfying ending you want

to have because this, that, and the other. And

I just thought like... between their choices

of who dies in the in the 2007 one and kind of

how that all takes place and then obviously you

have the son involved you have it you know where

he calls the horse in the 2007 one to run aside

the train i guess for as long as it's gonna go

like yes we get the mention in the original one

that like you know just let you know dan i've

broken out of this prison twice already yeah

like you get that and so you're left with like

okay that's probably one of the reasons why he's

willing to go and we can draw our own conclusions

but like it's like anything in modern audiences

right like we can't we can't leave it ambiguous

we gotta like we gotta whistle for the horse

and have the horse chase the train like do we

really do we really have to do that so like to

me i was just i wasn't expecting to dislike the

ending as much as i did this time around for

the 2007 one not that it was like terrible but

it was just like i just really wish they would

have stayed a little bit more true to the 57

way, because I felt like it left you with better

questions, right? Like, instead of escalating

the events, the original one escalates the conscience

and, like, the morality, and I would much rather

deal with that than, like, explosions and action

and kill shots. Yeah, it was less a question

and more so almost, like, a thank you, I guess,

more of an appreciation, right? Because it's,

you know, we see Ben obviously a big difference

which we i guess we should talk about directly

of course is in this dan dies you know he gets

there and seems like all is good and then foster's

character like murders shoots shoots dan and

at first i'm like oh i guess he could make it

i'm like oh no then like shots keep coming and

oh no he's dead dead um and then of course which

is a flip from the original one because in the

original one dan shoots charlie prince yeah yeah

So it's, it's, and then of course, then Ben makes

that choice of then mowing down his entire gang,

which again, like, which I do also kind of question

too, because it's like, I don't know, like kill,

I can, I understand killing, you know, Charlie,

but like everyone, they were kind of like, but

I guess again, that's the character that he is.

And then again, he's just making the, you know,

feeling in debt. him makes a choice to get on

get on to get on the train and then go through

i don't know but i will say i do like the journey

of that you know of a son seeing his father and

getting that the faith in him and going through

like that part i didn't enjoy and it is it is

different and like you said it's not it's not

a question of of what what morals mean it's more

of a question of appreciation or not even a question

an act of appreciation in some ways but of course

you know appreciation to a point where it's like

i'll do it but like i'm gonna you know maybe

for a few moments and i'm getting out of here

getting on this getting on this horse because,

you know, I won't, I won't be on here for long,

but yeah, that's, but outside of that, the, you

know, talking about what's the same, that the

endings are very just in how they're shot. Very

similar. Like that, when the moments they get

in the hotel, the way they use the window, a

lot of that is like scene for scene mangled clearly,

clearly, you know, just looking at the similarities,

like very similar structure wise, like that seems

very similar, like similar, same way of like

when they have the dinner scene, And Dan Evans'

house. A lot of the same dialogue. The interaction

with Emmy and Ben in the balloon is almost identical.

Yeah, saying grace. But although, again, it's

a little bit different because Ben has more of

a knowledge of religion in the remake compared

to the other one. So they do plenty of homages

within that. And like I said, the structure itself

is very similar in how it goes through. And Dan

having the same type of problems, but going about

it in the same way, trying to get the money.

Although having that same conversation in the

bar with Ben about getting paid for his day work

in this very similar dialogue again. But I think

what's different, within the remake, though,

is that I got the sense that Dan wasn't aware

that the people were going to arrest Ben. I think

he was not part of that decision. He kind of

just got caught into it compared to the original,

where it was clearly the plan from the start.

Yeah, go ahead. It adds something, too, about

the Dan character is very different in the two

movies. as much as he's the same and doing similar

actions and things like that like in the original

one it's always about his like he's an average

guy right like he might be a good shot or something

like that but like outside of that like he's

not built up as like this you know brave person

it's like he's just he's just an average person

he's an average guy he's an average just worker

and things like that. And like, it seems like

the whole movie is him struggling with courage,

right. Struggling to find his courage and what

that means. And like his, and his moral conscious,

right. Or his, like his, his, his view of himself,

like how he views himself, how he views him as

far as being a successful husband or father and

not, and like his worth, which is obviously called

into question by both his, you know, both his

kids and his wife in a, in a way like are showing

disappointment. in different respects with him

and it's kind of like all of that struggle towards

that and i feel like you know from the go he

sees somebody did something wrong and he wants

them to get justice and so like there's a motivation

there and then it's so he has that part going

for him and then he has like the financial side

going for him so he's got like two different

things that are drawing him into this um and

it's like kind of his struggle with that throughout

whereas in the new version we completely rewrite

that character to be a former uh you know member

of the army or whatever with the with the union

or whatever and then you know he's lost a leg

and so like it's a whole different situation

like he's no longer this as much as he's an average

man he's also like this person that formerly

fought in a war that like has a legit reason

for feeling questioning his worth because he

doesn't have a leg and he can't do certain stuff

and you can tell that's weighing on him so it's

like a completely different dynamic where it's

like less about it's more about him being a very

like he's shown as someone who was capable right

like he at one point was a very capable person

and now it's like his journey to rediscover that

like capableness compared to like just an average

person who's just trying to like get the courage

to do what his mind says is the right thing versus

like fading into the background and so it's interesting

i'm not saying one's better than the other i'm

just saying it's it's an interesting way to have

like a different take on this same character

what was your kind of reaction to Dan Evans and

kind of how he's played in both films. I'll disagree.

I guess in the sense of, I think that's more

of a red herring, the sense of him being a soldier,

because you think he is, he isn't this regular

guy that he was a soldier. Like, how did he lose

a leg? He must, was it in battle? Was it, you

know, did it get blown off? And then you kind

of find out it was basically by his own man.

He would never really, he never fought in battle.

Like he never, like he, you know, he basically,

you know, he got shot by his own man. He went

home. So he never actually got the opportunity

to fight for the North. He was, you know, he

was so in a, in a way he's living, not a facade

per se, but he's always trying to kind of make

up for that. And he, because of that, he's never

been able to be the person he thought he could

be. It's almost like he feels like a part of

him was taken away literally and figuratively.

Yeah. So I thought that to me, At first, I was

like, oh, they made him a soldier. I forgot about

that piece. But I thought, in a way, I liked

the way they approached that, though, because,

like I said, I thought, actually, no, he's just

as... He's a soldier, but really in name only,

in the sense of he actually never got to go through

it. So I thought that dynamic, at least, was

a good way of subverting expectations in some

ways. So I didn't mind that. I do think, though,

I think the progression of Dan in the original,

I feel like it makes more sense. And I do think

in the sense of it's more of a straight line.

Like, you can piece out just why he's doing the

things he's doing. Right. And I feel like he

makes the decision regarding why, like, him taking

charge, like, him going through it. I don't like

the fact that in the remake, that decision's

kind of taken away from him, and it's really

just Russell Crowe making the decision to go

along with it. I feel like that's less of a powerful

choice in a way, because he gets, again, he gets

the drop taken off of him, and once again, it's

not him making the decision, it's him having

to... have someone come come along and basically

save the day so i feel like it makes it less

satisfying and then again at the end he ends

up like he he i guess he's successful but then

he gets killed by the end so right i don't know

like i felt like his character arc in the the

way it progresses and where it leads to you know

it's great the fact that his son gets to actually

believe in him and feel that he actually you

know has a dad to like be respectful of even

though in a way it's kind of false because ben

wade was really you know kind of doing it on

his own um but then it's also short -lived because

he gets killed yeah yeah absolutely so yeah another

thing that is definitely noticeable is that the

original one you spend a lot more time in the

hotel right and you do have the sequence where

uh ben wade is telling him like these five guys

that have gathered up like none of them are going

to be around to actually walk walk me to the

to the train including butterfield like even

he's going to abandon you and he kind of like

is it has that prophetic uh sequence where he's

basically telling dan like it's going to be just

you like just so you know that like it's going

to be just you and that's it and like in the

remake we still get that but we also since we

added all of these people to the group you know

alan tudyk's character and and fonda's character

and dougar and dougar and uh whatever that guy's

name is what's his name um kevin durant kevin

durant's character like and it felt like all

the only reason we added so many more people

to this was so that we could have this big long

journey instead and just kill them off one by

one um in a way to add like more tension or more

action i don't know how much i appreciated that

aspect versus like i thought it was i don't know

like it felt like they were just being added

so they would have more more reason to show violence

and killing the guys one by one until it's just

dan at the end by himself and i that was definitely

a difference and like even to the point where

when we get to the hotel instead of the other

individuals just having a crisis of conscience

or like a fear for their life and like abandoning

on their own we have this like really weird sequence

where ben wade or not ben wade uh is it ben wade

or charlie prince whoever offers i think charlie

prince offers all the money to like anybody in

the town like anybody that kills these guys like

it's basically like a john wick style they put

a they put the bounty on these five individuals

and just anybody who kills i'm gonna get two

hundred dollars which to me like ended up like

you you walk yourself into a corner then by making

it to a point where you're really gonna have

to suspend your disbelief on how anybody gets

out of this because all of a sudden there's just

countless people coming out of the woodwork trying

to kill these five people where in the original

it's a ghost town right like there's nobody around

it's just the folks that are trying to get him

there and then it's just the gang of ben wade's

gang who's coming after him and that alone is

enough to scare him when it's like eight against

five or when it's whatever the case may be and

so it's definitely a different dynamic when when

they go to that what was your kind of feeling

as far as like number one having the larger cast

of characters trying to get ben wade to contention

and getting killed off one by one and then kind

of like how they handle like the the bounty on

them like did you prefer one over the other yeah

i guess when those characters i just didn't die

i didn't really feel much because like i like

alan judic as an actor again his character like

i felt like his character once you have that

joke about him being a veterinarian like that's

as much as we get about him like they're just

kind of there we don't really learn anything

else there's no progression there's nothing additional

um and you know so i don't think there's you

really like you said they're just kind of there

as an opportunity for more action compared to

like again going to like charlie prince and seeing

this guy kind of wake up You see, you know, he

wakes up in the afternoon when everyone's gone.

He's, you know, he's kind of a loser. And then

him trying to like actually prove everyone wrong.

And you think you actually like, oh man, he's

actually going to do it. And then he, the tragedy

of what occurs that is, you know, far more impactful

than anything that happens. I feel like with

any of the additional characters in the remake

by far. So, and you also get that cool sequence

where Ben Wade, like. in the original one tells

dan evans like how did you know like it was contention

i was like i didn't we we have a we have it like

already it's like an unwritten rule we all go

to the nearest cities eat one person each and

we're gonna figure out where you're gonna take

whoever gets captured like you you didn't stand

a chance from the get -go like all of your attempts

to be slick and to like disguise where you're

going was going to be pointless because we had

somebody at every town anyways i thought that

was like a cool moment it was like a cool like

wow this guy is kind of a mastermind and It also

goes back to the whole way that they concocted

taking the coach to Dan Evans' house, doing the

switcheroo. That was all much better laid out

and executed in the original one. Yes, it's very

similar in both, like the actual action, but

the way they set it up in the original one makes

it seem like it's much more of a thing. We're

all going to go this way. We're going to send

that over there. We're going to do a switch.

I was totally following with it. I'm like, okay,

I get what you're doing. I'm here for it. I want

to see if it's a successful or not and then like

the new one it just seemed like it was i don't

know if rushed is the right word but it was just

like it all happened but there was no setup for

it was just kind of like we're going there and

doing this and it was like oh i guess we're doing

what we did like without seeing the original

one like we we had the benefit of just having

seen the original one so we know what's happening

but i feel like without that it's not as clear

like that there's this like strategy involved

yeah trying to outsmart ben wade and his gang

and like make like there's a reason why we're

going to dan's house there's a reason that only

those people are going to contention we're going

to keep it a secret like i feel like it's not

handled as well in the new one but maybe that

was just And maybe just because of the recency

of how soon I had watched the original. Yeah.

I don't remember it being an angel. I think probably

that that's part of it. And I think also that's

why we get the scene of them following the stage

coach and then getting to it, like in falling

for it and then getting, but then, but then they,

I don't think they thought that through and like,

okay, they fall for it. And then what happens?

Oh, they kill us. Everyone dies. That's not,

that's not a good plan. That's not a good plan.

So. yeah so i think the original one like made

it made it a point to like try to make make it

seem like they were so like the gang was going

to be so far away that it they may not get here

in time right like they were playing with the

time a lot more in the original one like i don't

think they have time to get here whereas they

may have made a brief mention of that in the

newer one but like it didn't seem like it was

as important like the race between time as they're

sitting in this i really like that it was a ghost

town in the first one and that nobody was there

compared to like this whole town of people yeah

it definitely feel like you had time was far

more limited and because obviously with the remake

we we go through indian country we have we have

more going on like there's there's more in between

the different you know from pointing to point

b to point c point d so With, you know, with

the remake, there was more time in between. I

think that's why we... So I guess that is kind

of why we needed those additional scenes, because

you needed to have scenes to explain why Ben

Wade's gang was able to then kind of catch up

and get to them. So, yeah. So I guess that is

a legit point. But, yeah. I didn't have an issue

with... I do think it was executed better in

the first one, because you do get the... little

brief of like okay this is what we're doing but

i do think at the end of the day it made sense

because we actually get the see the repercussions

of what happened at the end but it also makes

them seem kind of stupid because it's like do

you not do you not think of what would happen

if they caught up with you like you didn't think

that one through but you know is it the worst

pair of handcuffs they ever put on somebody as

far as they look really uncomfortable that's

like they stopped him from doing nothing yeah

There was never a point where Russell Crowe was

restricted in any of his actions. Yes, he was

trying to get him off at one point and things

like that, but there was so much of the film

where this very dangerous, ruthless leader of

a gang of outlaws that is being transported was

just free to do almost whatever he wanted to

do in this whole situation. Even the time where

he does get the crap beat out of him by, I think

McElroy punches him like 17 times, and the next

day he has no marks on his face whatsoever. He

has one scratch left. I'm like, really? He's

got an iron chin. The weirdest thing for me in

watching this was at first I'm watching it and

I'm like, oh, this is going to be a shot -for

-shot remake. They are using exact same sequences

outside of you get the barn set on fire, which

is the first thing you see, which is obviously

different from the original. But then all of

a sudden it goes into this situation where the

camera angles are the same. the dialogue and

the lines are the exact like word for word they're

saying the same lines and it's weird like it

was such a crazy feeling for me that a film that

was literally using the same angles the same

shots the same dialogue the same lines and moments

from the original somehow was also able to feel

like such a different film to me yeah it was

like a weird dichotomy of like all of this is

exactly the same and then all of this is so much

different yeah And it was, like, trying to balance

those two was really interesting. And I almost

wonder, like, why, if you're going to change

so much and you're going to modernize it, why

use word for word some of the same lines? Like,

I'm not talking about just, like, a few really

well -written lines. I'm talking about every

line of dialogue for certain sequences was exactly

the same. Yeah. I don't know. I mean, to be fair,

like, they're both coming from the same source

material. So I don't know if that's also part

of it, too. So, you know, so. i wasn't saying

it was wrong i just was like if you're gonna

modernize and modernize it and like yeah i get

having a few like homages and like references

but it was weird when it's like a sequence where

it's like back and forth back and forth back

and forth and like there is not a single word

changed like i'm not saying it's bad it's just

something that struck me as like you're changing

so much of the other stuff but like you're keeping

these lines like die hard like i get it i guess

yeah i guess yeah it didn't me per se i guess

you know in the sense of it in this sense i never

felt like the dialogue never fit the scene that

they were in per se like it never felt antiquated

like you know right you know so even in the original

like the dialogue didn't because sometimes we

get the west that some of the westerns where

it feels like that the dialogue feels very of

the time or um where but i think it all kind

of was just so well written that they wanted

to use it i feel like a modern some modern critics

though had these not been 50 years apart, like

would be having the same type of like reaction

that they get to like force awakens in a new

hope. Right. Like it's like, or maybe that's

a bad example. Cause star Wars comes with a lot

of other stuff, but like the, the shot for shot

remakes versus like things that feel the same.

Like, I don't know. Like, I feel like sometimes

critics are not very nice to those films. but

like this one generally got a pass for most of

it like it's very well received it's got 89 on

rotten tomatoes the the remake and like not much

bad was said about it really yeah i also think

probably because like it was coming at a time

where you know westerns aren't super popular

so like even like a western being a cash grab

isn't it's not like it made a lot of money i

think it's if anything they just saw it as you

know an opportunity to do something western wise

and it's not like 310 to yuma It's not like up

there in the top echelon. You ask the average

person the name of Western. It wasn't like a

remake of Citizen Kane. Or like The Searchers

or some of the other ones. Honestly, if it wasn't

for the remake, I don't think I would be aware

of the original, which I think is one of the

benefits of remakes sometimes. shine a light

and if it wasn't you know we may not be talking

about the original if the remake never happened

within the retrospective so i think there are

some benefits there and i'm happy that it came

out for what it let i'm not saying like it solely

was responsible because there was a couple other

westerns that were being worked on simultaneously

but like i am happy that it is part of a collection

of films that kind of reintroduced westerns to

you know the the film world and like probably

helped lead to some of the other westerns we

get you know over the last 10 to 15 years because

there was a time like especially when we were

you know back doing more modern reviews like

on a regular basis like where we were getting

a pretty good i know you used to do like the

awards at the end of the year and like some of

them were genre related or different stuff like

that there was a good stretch where there was

like three or four or five years i think that

both you and i would have had like a pretty easy

pick for like a a best western of each of those

years. And like, I don't know if that like resurgence

of those films happens without films like three,

10 to Yuma coming out. Yeah. Cause like this

comes out in two, seven, seven, like 2008, we

get Appalozo, which is not huge, but it's pretty

good. There's good, the bad, the weird, which

is, you know, a Korean film. So I don't know

if that counts, but we'll get into true grit

next week, which is a few years later. And, you

know, it usually takes a few years for, you know,

the impact to happen. But when we get into 2010,

we have True Grit, we cut off Jonah Hex. But,

you know, even though it's not a great movie,

it was at least them putting money behind something.

I do think we see more Westerns in the 2010s

with True Grit, Django, and a few others. And

we see it kind of coming back. It's still obviously

not what it once was, but we definitely get more

throughout the years. only like 2015 we got slow

west yeah i remember that one and then i want

to say there was a couple years we got heller

high water in in 2016. the revenant and there's

also the question of like those like hateful

eight of course bone tomahawk um and um we we've

gotten you know first cow is uh which i've still

haven't seen the buster strugs the coen brothers

film within the 2010s as well and then like the

more modern westerns like the rider which is

like i don't know if you'd call it a western

per se but it's a bone tomahawk and then you

know even like more recently like the power of

the dog which was like really highly regarded

so um you know i'm not saying like the this remake

led to all of that, but no, I don't think we're

seeing them much more in consistent basis because

before 2007, you know, not, not a huge amount,

but, um, and we'll get into some more recent

ones even within our retrospective, but, but

yeah. Um, anything else you had wanted to say

regarding either the, no, I mean, I think it's

pretty clear that if we were like picking one

over the other, like that, that we felt a little

bit like, better about i think we're both picking

the 1957 original film as like the one that we

would we would feel the strongest about i don't

want that to take away from like i still think

2007 version is a decent film i think you're

right like it's it is one that you can recommend

more to like a modern audience and feel pretty

good about like having it work for a modern audience

whereas maybe the original one wouldn't um i

think the original one is something you would

more probably recommend to like cinephiles that

haven't seen it and things of that nature so

i think they both they both have they're both

good movies like i'm the modern one is not a

bad movie i just think it didn't do it any service

for me to watch it directly after i watched the

original one because i was pretty taken by the

original one and i didn't expect that like i

a lot of times when some of these remakes of

like these when it's a lesser known film like

there's a reason for it and you're like well

they're just like doing it better like i like

i anticipated more of like a django right like

something that was like not great but had enough

there that someone could take it and like try

to make a better version of it and i was not

expecting the original 310 to yuma to work as

much as it definitely did for me it's going to

be you know near the top of the ones we've seen

so far yeah and i guess to kind of put in layman's

terms like 310 to yuma is more like the summer

blockbuster where you know the uh original is

more like the oscar even though it didn't get

nominated for any oscars but like right you know

it's you know so i i yeah so it's interesting

because i wonder what's going to happen next

week because we'll get into true grit with you

know which did i know the original one an oscar

because that's you know john wayne's infamous

role where i think he won his first one his first

and only oscar i could be wrong but i also know

that the remake did get nominated for best picture

which i think so i'm curious to see how well

that holds up but what's your what's your experience

with the films next week so i definitely have

seen the 2010 version just like uh with 310 to

yuma i saw the modern one but i have not seen

the 1969 version i haven't seen I think I've

seen True Grit, the 2010 version twice, but it

has at least been a decade, if not more since

I've seen it. So I feel like it's going to be

very similar to this one where I get a first

time watch of the original 1969 version. And

then I'm going to go into the 2010 one, remembering

that I liked it a lot when it came out and seeing

like, how does this one play watching them back

to back? And will I have a different reaction

than I did the 310 to Yuma? I'm definitely like

intrigued about what about yourself? Yeah, it's

been a while. Last time I saw it was probably

2011, where maybe after that, I might have seen

it in 2011 again. But the first time I saw it

was during the Best Picture Showcase for AMC,

when they used to do that, where they would show

all the best pictures. And so that was part of

that. So that was the first time I saw it. And

I was a big fan of it when I watched it. And

I watched it, I think, couple times after that

like when it was on tv and stuff i don't but

it's been a you know so now maybe 15 14 years

since i've seen it from beginning to end and

i don't think i've seen the original at all so

that'll that'll be interesting it's interesting

you know the original john wayne glenn campbell

robert duvall and dennis hopper in the original

one along with the voice of um Piglet from Winnie

the Pooh. So he's in there as well. So that's

going to be interesting for sure. And the Coen

Brothers one obviously has Jeff Bridges, Matt

Damon, Josh Brolin, Barry Pepper, Haley Steinfeld.

So I'm intrigued. I'm ready to go. I'm interested

and anticipating watching both of these and looking

forward to our conversation on this one as well.

So Dan, how can people keep in touch with you

or check out anything else you're doing on the

interwebs? Um, you can check comic concierge

on most social media platforms, or I am on a

letterbox as movie revolt. So, all right. And

you can search me out at optimist solo or Kevin

1981 on letterbox. You can also search out the

cinema geeks by searching cinema geeks or cinema

geek cast out there. And you can check out the

website that a lot of our stuff is hosted on

as well by going to the geek cast radio network

or geek cast radio .com. So that does it for

this episode. Tune in next time for another chance

to listen to more of The Cinema Geeks.