My take on 2007's 3:10 to Yuma? Ninety-two minutes for the 1957 original versus 122 minutes. Thirty-two listed actors of which 11 are credited (according to IMDb) versus 43 listed actors of which 32 are credited.
Taut craftsmanship with few obvious lessons versus morality Hollywood-style. No angst, just a great Western story versus so much angst (morality, redemption, failure, father/son, husband/wife, and so on) that I thought I'd never get the angst out of my clothes.
A tension-filled duel of wits and stubbornness between Van Heflin and Glenn Ford which ties them closer and closer together versus odd and unnecessary (except by Hollywood standards) hints of an attachment that dare not speak its name featuring Wade's psycho sidekick,
Great character acting versus great character acting.
Two fine lead performances versus two fine lead performances...but for Dan Evans I'll take Heflin's straightforward doggedness over Christian Bale's modern-day intensity. While I like Ford's and Russell Crowe's performances as Ben Wade, just as a matter of personal preference I like Ford's particular style of slyness and charisma as Wade a little better than Crowe's.
An ending that is tidy and quite satisfying versus an ending that tries to carry too much meaning.
Is it fair to judge a contemporary remake against the original? I think it probably is when the remake suffers (in my view) from contemporary Hollywood bloat. The original was a tight, small story put together by Hollywood craftsmen who knew how to tell and present a story on film. There just isn't, in my opinion, 30 minutes of better movie in the remake. I've watched the Ford/Heflin version a couple of times. I doubt that I'll revisit the Crowe/Bale version. For those who like movies, whichever version you wind up liking, watching both might be a worthwhile way to spend three-and-a-half hours.
Taut craftsmanship with few obvious lessons versus morality Hollywood-style. No angst, just a great Western story versus so much angst (morality, redemption, failure, father/son, husband/wife, and so on) that I thought I'd never get the angst out of my clothes.
A tension-filled duel of wits and stubbornness between Van Heflin and Glenn Ford which ties them closer and closer together versus odd and unnecessary (except by Hollywood standards) hints of an attachment that dare not speak its name featuring Wade's psycho sidekick,
Great character acting versus great character acting.
Two fine lead performances versus two fine lead performances...but for Dan Evans I'll take Heflin's straightforward doggedness over Christian Bale's modern-day intensity. While I like Ford's and Russell Crowe's performances as Ben Wade, just as a matter of personal preference I like Ford's particular style of slyness and charisma as Wade a little better than Crowe's.
An ending that is tidy and quite satisfying versus an ending that tries to carry too much meaning.
Is it fair to judge a contemporary remake against the original? I think it probably is when the remake suffers (in my view) from contemporary Hollywood bloat. The original was a tight, small story put together by Hollywood craftsmen who knew how to tell and present a story on film. There just isn't, in my opinion, 30 minutes of better movie in the remake. I've watched the Ford/Heflin version a couple of times. I doubt that I'll revisit the Crowe/Bale version. For those who like movies, whichever version you wind up liking, watching both might be a worthwhile way to spend three-and-a-half hours.