| Author |
Message |
|
| Marj |
 Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 3:09 pm |
 |
|
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 10497
Location: Manhattan
|
| Now I am pissed. 3:10 to Yuma was on TCM around the time the new film hit theaters. Not much of a western fan, I chose to miss it. But I do so like Van Heflen. And now after all of this discussion, I'm miffed that I did! |
|
|
| Back to top |
   
|
| billyweeds |
| Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 3:11 pm |
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 20618
Location: New York City
|
Marj wrote: Now I am pissed. 3:10 to Yuma was on TCM around the time the new film hit theaters. Not much of a western fan, I chose to miss it. But I do so like Van Heflen. And now after all of this discussion, I'm miffed that I did!
It always comes back on TCM. Next time it's on I want to see it too. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| carrobin |
| Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 3:17 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 7795
Location: NYC
|
| I haven't seen the new 3:10 to Yuma, but I saw the Glenn Ford one back when I was a teenager, and still remember Ford's wry "I've escaped from Yuma before" line at the end. I'd like to see that again and the new one too. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| grace |
| Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 3:22 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 3215
|
Well, in that case....if you get the Encore package of channels, the original 3:10 to Yuma is on at 8pm (Eastern) on Friday, November 9.
http://tinyurl.com/355n4y |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| ehle64 |
| Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 3:48 pm |
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 7149
Location: NYC; US&A
|
| Oh, ish. |
_________________
It truly disappoints me when people do something for you via no prompt of your own and then use it as some kind of weapon against you at a later time and place. It is what it is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| lady wakasa |
| Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 4:57 pm |
|
|
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 5911
Location: Beyond the Blue Horizon
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Marj |
| Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 9:52 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 10497
Location: Manhattan
|
| Halle Berry could get a nom this year too! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| gromit |
| Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 11:30 pm |
|
|
Joined: 31 Aug 2004
Posts: 9016
Location: Shanghai
|
Two lines I liked in 3:10 TY
"Even bad guys love their mothers."
&
"I've busted out of Yuma twice before"
(in both versions, but held to the very end in the original)
Btw, the entry over at Imdb for the original 3:10 to Yuma has a very detailed plot summary. I skimmed it, but seems the main difference is that the role of the son is expanded a lot and the wife reduced in the new version And of course the ending changes after everybody meets up at the train. |
_________________
Killing your enemies, if it's done badly, increases their number. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| billyweeds |
| Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 12:44 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 20618
Location: New York City
|
lady wakasa wrote: Not quite sure where this should go, but there's an interesting thread about the Academy's biggest Oscar(TM) mistakes of the decade:
http://goldderbyforums.latimes.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/1741008511/m/5841007902/p/1
It's been running since June 2005, but there's quite the hate for Crash and Halle Berry.
It's actually an interesting subject. Not sure where I'd even begin with a list of mistakes, because there are so many...
Begin with Naomi Watts not being nominated for Mulholland Dr., not to mention that the movie was snubbed as well. (This is the year that Halle Berry won Best Actress.)
Reaching way back, continue with Angela Lansbury's loss to non-supporting Patty Duke as Supporting Actress in 1962.
Michael Douglas's non-nomination for Wonder Boys fits in, as does Mark Ruffalo's for You Can Count on Me.
Boogie Nights not nominated as Best Picture, and Julianne Moore losing to Kim Basinger.
Jean Hagen (Singin' in the Rain) losing to Gloria Grahame.
The list is endless. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| jeremy |
| Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 1:15 am |
|
|
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 6794
Location: Derby, England and Hamilton, New Zealand (yes they are about 12,000 miles apart)
|
| I guess it is a clear sign that I am getting old that they are now making rock films about acts I cared or care about. 24 Hour Party People was an affectionate look at eighties music scene in Manchester and It's All Gone Pete Tong was set in raving Ibiza. Ian Curtis and Joy Division are the focus of Control and now Joe Strummer: The Future Is Unwritten is receiving star billing at a multiplex near you. |
_________________
I am angry, I am ill, and I'm as ugly as sin.
My irritability keeps me alive and kicking.
I know the meaning of life, it doesn't help me a bit.
I know beauty and I know a good thing when I see it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| billyweeds |
| Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 7:41 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 20618
Location: New York City
|
Interesting exchange in yesterday's Roger Ebert Answer Man column, about the horses in Michael Clayton. Ebert in his review of the movie called Clayton's viewing a happy accident or something. This was the response (in WHITE because of SPOILERS).
Q: In response to the Answer Man item about the significance of the horses in the field of "Michael Clayton," the reason Clayton stopped at the horses and the tree was because this was a significant image in the red book his son had given him to read -- the book he couldn't find time for. The image of the tree and the horses gave Clayton reason to pause and ponder his son and his life, which ultimately saved him, since it removed him from the vehicle.
L. Brookes, Kamloops, British Columbia
A. Your answer was one of 38 I received! Dondi DeMarco of New York City wrote: "That book was about a post-apocalyptic world in which every man is not merely on his own, but is in fact unable to tell who are his allies and who are his enemies. At the same time, it's a fantasy world that is far more colorful and life-filled than the world of gray pragmatism in which Michael has found himself for so long." |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| gromit |
| Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 8:23 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 31 Aug 2004
Posts: 9016
Location: Shanghai
|
jeremy wrote: Joe Strummer: The Future Is Unwritten is receiving star billing at a multiplex near you.
I saw the Joe Strummer doc a week or two back.
Somewhat of an interesting style, as they use a voice-over of Joe Strummer as a DJ late in his career, along with a campfire sing-along/chat among famous musicians, actors, and others who knew him, interspersed with raw footage of the band in performance and mucking around. It does allow a chance to hear Strummer's wide-ranging musical taste, while the campfire is a sort of re-creation of parties Strummer liked to lead.
But I never got a real sense of the man, or where his musical ideas/interests came from. I kept feeling like I wanted something more, but maybe that's what punk was all about.
Back in the day, I bought the London Calling double album when it first came out, which was when The Clash first broke in the US. Though I eventually checked out their earlier and later albums, I never really got into The Clash or thought they were that talented or interesting. Did see them open for The Who (along with Santana) in Philly in 1983, I guess it was. They had good energy, but weren't really made for a huge stadium concert. |
_________________
Killing your enemies, if it's done badly, increases their number. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| Ghulam |
| Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 10:26 am |
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 4742
Location: Upstate NY
|
Bart said, "I recommend another viewing of this fine film." (3:10 to Yuma).
Thanks for telling me why you liked the film, but a second viewing for me? I don't think so. It is a very well made film, but I did not care for the story at all. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Ghulam |
| Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 10:33 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 4742
Location: Upstate NY
|
| Stephanie Zacharek pans American Gangster. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| bart |
| Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 11:54 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 05 Dec 2005
Posts: 2381
Location: Lincoln NE
|
Ghulam, I wasn't recommending a second viewing for you specifically. My comment was meant to say that there were several interesting plot points and telling details that I took more notice of in addressing your comments, which led me to think it was a film that might yield something useful on a second viewing. Of course, if you didn't like it, there would be utterly no point in following this course of action.  |
_________________
Former 3rd Eye Member |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
