3h.10 pour Yuma

When the charming outlaw Ben Wade (Glenn Ford) is captured after the heist of a stagecoach, the stage line owner Mr. Butterfield (Robert Emhardt) offers US$ 200,00 to the man that escorts the bandit to the city of Contention to take the 3:10 PM train to Yuma to be sent to trial. The rancher Dan Evans (Van Heflin) is broken and needs the money to save his cattle and support his family and accepts the assignment. During their journey, Dan saves the life of Ben when a vigilante tries to execute the criminal. Meanwhile Ben's gang split to find where Ben is and then rescues their boss. When they find that Ben is trapped in a hotel room, they put the place under siege and Dan can not find any man to help him.

"3:10 to Yuma" is a classic western from a wonderful time when honor was an important value in a film and even outlaws could have a code of honor. In the present days, it would be hard to believe why Dan Evans is incorruptible and does not accept Ben's bribe. Glenn Ford performs a charismatic outlaw and the moral duel with Van Heflin's character is fantastic. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "Galante e Sanguinário" ("Gallant and Bloodthirsty")

I normally don't comment on movies others have already commented on, but this one's been really bother me because no one really noted just how outstanding the cinematic compositions are. They're eye-poppingly gorgeous and remind me of a western Citizen Kane. In some scenes the Deep Focus technique (lots of hot light so that the background is in sharp focus) is outstanding. The artistry is almost out of place in this exciting but preposterously noirish western. There doesn't seem to be anything else in Lawton's repertoire (maybe parts of Two Rode Together?) as good, but director Daves' respect for good pictorials is evident in most of his efforts. It's a great collaboration, and a pretty good picture that's not as great as the sum of its parts. *** Most of the other comments rightly comment on Glenn Ford's cool acting. Isn't it time for him to get a Lifetime from AFI?

I was accidentally given this movie instead of the 2007 re-make! And I am grateful. For modern students of cinematography the 1950s Western genre may initially seem somewhat arcane, but movies like this demonstrate how movies of that era reach for a higher plane, not just in terms of the craft, but philosophy as well. This effort is almost perfectly constructed, and worthy of a student's close analysis. It could have been 10 minutes longer, to develop the characters of Ford and Heflin, emphasise some of the sexual tension, and to develop the relationship between protagonist and antagonist. Perhaps some back story should have been implied, too, between the gang and its leader (civil war loyalty ?) And incidentally, I was amazed and pleased how briefly, intensely and satisfying was the connection between Ford and the barmaid.An amazing scene, of just a few minutes - which surely must have shocked adult audiences of 1957 (and passed over the head of children).

Farmer Evans looks to avoid conflict and work his farm in peace, when he witnesses a stage coach being held up he doesn't get involved. However due to drought and debt threatening his farm, he takes the job of escorting the leader of the gang to Yuma and prison when he is caught. The sheriffs fool the gang into thinking that Wade has been taken by coach and Evans and Wade stay in a hotel room until the train to Yuma. However with Wade's gang getting closer, the clock ticking and Evans' posse deserting him man by man the stakes rise.

It's a western but it could easily have been in any setting if it was done this well. The story is clever but really picks up once Wade is captured – in both Evans' home and in the hotel room, the dialogue becomes clever and meaningful. The story is kept tense (with Evans getting increasingly sweaty) despite being very talky. Wade works Evans in a Machiavellian flow of dialogue that visually gets to him throughout. However once it is clear that honour is important over money the countdown to the tense walk to the train station is on.

Heflin is great as the farmer who takes a stand only to see pride swell up in his family, in a way he respects the criminal for taking risk and being brave in contrast to his middle road lifestyle. Ford is effortlessly brilliant as the criminal blessed with charisma and charm with a dangerous streak underneath – in one key scene he sets out Heflin's character when he easily casts a spell charming Heflin's wife and sons. However beneath the dialogue he is slightly jealous of the farmer's settled life and this adds spice to the relationship between the two.

Overall this is a fantastic western, but if it was set in the modern day it would be a brilliant cop thriller, or in space, a brilliant sci-fi. The key is the central relationship between the two men – here it is perfect and the tension that builds towards the fateful walk to the station is gripping.

I've liked this movie for a long time. Watching it last night, though, it finally occurred to me to wonder about the character played by Glenn Ford. I don't really understand what motivates him, or his gang.

Some people have commented that the closing scene is unbelievable, but I think that's only true because we never get a fix on Glenn Ford's character. Is he a psychotic killer, or is he a gentleman thief?

The psychotic killer label is supported by his actions in the opening scene of the stage coach robbery. He didn't even try to talk himself out of that situation, even though the driver was one against twelve and couldn't carry out his threat without being gunned down instantly. It's also supported by the fear that his name strikes into the hearts of all the townspeople. A man doesn't generate that kind of fear by simply robbing stage coaches. Obviously, he and his gang have done a lot of killing.

The gentleman thief label is supported by his complete lack of bullying characteristics. In every other situation of the movie except that opening scene, he uses his charm to try to get around people. He doesn't attempt to run roughshod over them. That completely contradicts the image of a guy who shoots first and asks questions later.

As for his gang, they show an extraordinary amount of loyalty to him and each other, which makes the shooting during the stage coach robbery that much more unconvincing. Why would they be loyal to a leader who didn't even try to save one of his own? Maybe that was just an anomaly. Ford tells us later in the movie that his gang will always go to extraordinary lengths to save one of their own, and they do just that to try to free him. Yet, at the end, he chooses to save the life of Van Heflin rather than go with his gang. Okay, so he decided that Van Heflin was a good guy worth saving, even if it did get his second in command killed. I don't mind that. What bothers me is, why is he so confident that, having turned his back on his gang, they are going to try to rescue him again in Yuma??? If I'm in that gang, he's made his choice and he can swing for it.