3:10 to Yuma (James Mangold, 2007)


(Phantom Stranger) #1

Mangold Directing 3:10 to Yuma Next
Source: Variety
February 21, 2006

Walk the Line director James Mangold and his wife, producer Cathy Konrad, have set the Columbia Pictures remake 3:10 to Yuma as the next film he’ll direct. Variety says the film will shoot in the summer.

Mangold and Konrad boarded “Yuma” after getting a new draft from Collateral screenwriter Stuart Beattie, who rewrote scripts from Michael Brandt and Derek Haas.

The original 1957 Western, starring Glenn Ford and Van Heflin, is about a sheriff determined to bring a captured desperado to justice. Elmore Leonard wrote the short story on which it was based.


(Lanky gunman) #2

Good news! with bandidas, the castellari on the way, western movies are coming back!


(Phantom Stranger) #3

Sony Puts 3:10 to Yuma in Turnaround
Source: Variety
June 23, 2006

Director James Mangold’s western 3:10 to Yuma was ready to start shooting this summer for Sony Pictures, but after four years of development, the studio has put the film in turnaround.

“This is deja vu all over again,” Mangold told Variety, referring to the fact that his last film, Walk the Line, was also set up at Sony and ready to start shooting when the studio pulled out. Mangold shopped that film all over town and was turned down by every studio but Fox, where the film went on to be a critical and commercial hit.

Now producers Cathy Konrad and Mangold are in discussions with other studios to make “Yuma.” Mangold says he plans to start shooting in October. Russell Crowe is attached to star.

Because Sony owns the rights to the original 1957 Glenn Ford Western, it will still be a profit participant in the movie.

“This is a very middle-priced movie,” Mangold said. “I’ve never made a movie that has exceeded $60 million, and this one won’t either.”


(Phantom Stranger) #4

Bale Faces Crowe in 3:10 to Yuma
Source: The Hollywood Reporter
August 4, 2006

Christian Bale is close to a deal to star opposite Russell Crowe in James Mangold’s 3:10 to Yuma, says The Hollywood Reporter.

Relativity Media is stepping in to finance the film, which has been without a home since Columbia Pictures put it into turnaround earlier this summer. Columbia spent four years developing the Western remake, which it had hoped to start filming this summer. Relativity is currently in negotiations with Columbia to distribute.

3:10 to Yuma is based on the 1957 film that starred Glenn Ford as captured outlaw Ben Wade, who finds himself in the custody of small-time rancher Dan Evans. The rancher is secretly trying to take the outlaw to a railway station to catch a train to Yuma for the outlaw’s court date. A battle of wills ensues.

Mangold’s take sees Crowe as the outlaw and Bale as the rancher. Michael Brandt, Derek Haas and Stuart Beattie have all contributed to the screenplay.

The movie is on track for a fall shoot. Mangold has directed Walk the Line, Identity, Kate & Leopold, Girl, Interrupted and Cop Land.


(helu0302) #5

http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1809781728/video/3053783;_ylt=Anvi3IVrA6HG4RU9bfFz.VVfVXcA


(Phantom Stranger) #6

Awesome!!! I can’t wait.


(Phil H) #7

Oh yes. I’m up for that.


(alk0) #8

I simply hate the way they make trailer nowadays. They’re always the same. They begin with some guy with a deep voice saying ‘this spring/summer/fall/winter [put some catchy phrase here]’, them there’s a section with some dialogue and at least one scene where someone is whispering. Then in the end they show all the action scenes with some dynamic music. Old trailers are fun to watch those ones are not.


(Yodlaf Peterson) #9

doesn’t look that bad at all, will soon find out when it comes out.


(helu0302) #10

Have you actually seen old trailers? They would literally show all the action scenes, not just clips but the entire thing.


(Phil H) #11

Yes, trailers are trite and predictably constructed and the man with the deep husky voice is laughable but to be honest I’m just too damn happy that someone has made another western that I refuse to let them put me off. What’s more I like Christian Bale a lot and although Russell Crowe is a bit hit and miss he can be very good at times and on the whole I think this film looks pretty promising. And what the hell, if it’s half as good as Delmer Daves’ original it will be worth seeing.


(Bad Lieutenant) #12

Having seen the original, which I liked (apart from the ending), this looks rather disappointing. Hopefully I’m wrong and it’s just a bad trailer.


(seanmallory) #13

Uhhh… this terrible, typical trailer-music… it could have been 300… :-\ :stuck_out_tongue: And why are they so much whispering? Is this a fantasy? ???

But I hope the film would be good, with a good western music.


(alk0) #14

[quote=“Sean Mallory, post:13, topic:219”]Uhhh… this terrible, typical trailer-music… it could have been 300… :-\ :stuck_out_tongue: And why are they so much whispering? Is this a fantasy? ???

But I hope the film would be good, with a good western music.[/quote]
They just love putting a lot of whispered dialogue in trailers nowadays


(JONAH HEX) #15

The trailers for this look great! i cant wait


(Yodlaf Peterson) #16

I have seen some great looking posters of it in bus stops, i’m tempted to smash the glass and get one! ;D


(Phil H) #17

Having received the 2007 version of this film on DVD for my birthday I thought it would be worthwhile to watch old and new on the same day.

The problem with this is always, of course, that any remake will inevitably be judged against the original rather than as a stand alone film but, trying to put this aside as much as possible, I must say I came away with mixed feelings. Not really mixed in a bad way, rather that I haven’t made up my mind whether the changes made in the new version add or detract from the story and themes of the piece.

I have to say at the outset that I am a big fan of the westerns of Delmer Daves and believe him to be one of the most important directors of westerns full stop. Consequently I have always felt a great fondness for the original 1950s version of this film. However, I have always had some reservations over the completely happy ending and felt that this was always the one failing I would hold against it. The new version changes this ending quite drastically but, I’m afraid to say, I’m not sure it actually helps improve things.

The other main feature that stood out in the new version was that despite holding on very firmly to the core pyschological struggle at the centre of the story they seem to have decided that it needed a lot more action and pizazz than the original and I’m not convinced this was a good idea either. Characters are added in a way that seemed to offer nothing other than the possiblity of a greater body count and regular bouts of violent action. For some this will be an improvement, as the original is very low on action and centres almost exclusively on the pyschological battle of wits between Evans and Wade. Apart from the opening and closing scenes there is very little gunplay in Daves’ film. Mangold’s, on the other hand, has a prodigious body count and also includes multiple explosions and even a stagecoach crash complete with CGI effects. To be fair, the extended role played by Evans’ teenage son is clearly designed to add drama not just action and this helps keep Evans’ need to impress his family at the centre of attention.

At the end of the day I would have to say that the 2007 version is a perfectly fine western made for a modern audience. The actors all do a solid job, the characters are kept interesting and are well developed. Visually it looks good and it seems to me that Mangold has a solid grip on what westerns should be all about. My wife watched this one with me and (having not seen the original) enjoyed it thoroughly. She is not a big action and violence fan so the fact she wasn’t put off says something for the balance Mangold found with this piece. I also enjoyed it but, overall, would say I prefer the original whose slower pace I found more gripping. Horses for courses I guess and I’m sure there will plenty who feel the opposite. What I would say is that despite prefering the original I still thought Mangold’s film was a good addition to the genre and, considering how few westerns actually get made these days, he is to be applauded for the effort.

Just my thoughts. Anyone else want to add their two cents worth?


(Cian) #18

I haven’t seen the original but recently bought the remake. My impression was a well made, enjoyable Western, but not particularly memorable. I can’t put my finger on exactly why it doesn’t grab me, I just won’t be re-watching it any time soon.


(valenciano) #19

Well, I also did not see the Original so far. I saw the remake in a sneak preview, so i did not really decide to see it and had few expectations. I found the psychology and the battle between the main actors quite good. Most actors were pretty good in this one, no doubt. But the pace of the movie is just not good, especially at the end. The big fastly cut shootout in the end is just way too much. Him against everybody, very stupid. And that The russel crow character changes his mind and does what he does in the end to help the Baile character to impress his son; just plain stupid and out of character in my eyes. So a nicely shot western is literally ruined by a poor ending. Kind of sad.
But the scenery is quite nice, and showed that western are allways nice to watch. So i hope we will see more westerns, hopefully with a better script, though


(AceHigh) #20

I quietly disagree valenciano. As soon as Wade met Evans, the viewer gets the feeling that Wade, for some reason, likes and/or respects Evans to some degree. This ‘one-sided friendship’ grows throughout the movie so, no real surprise ending for me. I enjoyed the remake very much. I also like the original “3:10 to Yuma” but have one major beef; Van Heflin basically plays the same guy that he played in “Shane.” That has always bugged me. Wish another actor would’ve taken that role…