3:10 to Yuma 4K Ultra HD [Blu-ray + Digital HD]

I used to make fun of my mom for watching "westerns" all the time, which was basically anything that had horses or old-timey clothes. Westerns were one of the largest genres of not only film as it transitioned into talkies, but also literature during the 1900s which is still alive and well. My attitude towards westerns at the time was that they were boring old movies, but what western stories did I have growing up? Things like City Slickers, horse movies like Black Stallion, or any number of corny westerns (like kung-fu movies) outside of Unforgiven, Tombstone, etc. which I didn't want to watch until I was older. Westerns were all but a joke, or a setting for some sort of self-referential treatment, or glorification of the genre that ends up being a caricature. James Mangold set out to do more than just make another western, and it shows significantly that he had a good story to tell.3:10 to Yuma is not an original film, nor is it an original story (mostly) in the original 3:10 to Yuma, but in each iteration there have been additions to tell. The story by Elmore Leonard is rather short at around 10-15 pages, and only picks up at the end of the story when our now named Dan Evans (Christian Bale) is but minutes from delivering Ben Wade (Russell Crowe) to the train departing from Contention. The original film starring Glenn Ford and Van Heflin, I would imagine added most of what this film added to that story, which is the lead-up to Leonard's original short story. One thing that director James Mangold added to this film was that Dan Evans was a veteran who had lost his leg in the war, which results in different avenues of story-telling between these characters throughout. Christian Bale plays the good, hard-working farmer well, and it's really the family that plays off of him that give him the emotional resonance from the start.Russell Crowe is brilliant, as he plays the type of good guy that you hate to cheer for. He's dastardly and destructive, wherever he goes there is chaos. But at the center of it is an extremely charming, bad guy in all black who ends up having the biggest arc of the film. Also, Ben Foster shines as his partner and assassin of Wade's gang who is absolutely ruthless and seems to even have a more-than-normal affection for Wade that makes his role all that more entertaining to watch. Logan Lerman plays Christian Bale's son in the film and is perfect for the role, as pointed out by the director in the commentary.The Special Features are great on this release, including a textbook director's commentary from James Mangold. He breaks down working with all of the stars in the film, including all of the small roles that are peppered through 3:10 to Yuma but really add to its excellence. Alan Tudyk joins the group leading Wade to Contention as a veterinarian, whom Mangold points out as only having 20 or so odd lines but it's on great character actors such as Tudyk to do as much as they can with them. This film is bursting at the seams with these character actors, all of which do a stellar job at adding depth and emotional power to this movie. It has a few intense action sequences, but overall it's a well-acted western drama about two men at odds with their own lives who drive each other to be better men.I would argue that this is maybe the best western since the year 2000, other than a few hidden gems like The Proposition. The western genre in film is dead, and James Mangold discusses a lot of how hard it was to finance this film due to the outlook studios have on these films. There have been a few brief flashes of westerns and western crossovers since the release of this film, but none that have even come close to how great this movie is. Even in being a remake, it stands to be one of the better, more popular genre films of the modern era. Nothing has come close since, and stands to prove that all involved are very talented filmmakers and actors, writers, etc.Blu-ray copy came in great condition, but this release did not include DVD or digital copies. I highly recommend 3:10 to Yuma to anyone looking for a great overall film to watch for movie night, and especially to those who are a fan of any of the actors or westerns in general. It's the defining western film of my generation that tells so many stories among its many characters that it's hard not to have some sort of investment somewhere in the movie. You are missing out if you haven't taken the 3:10 to Yuma!

Although many say the Western is dead, in books as well as movies, it continues to rear its head and make itself known every so often. There's something inherently noble and visceral about the artform and the subject matter, the calm delineation between good and evil, that stubbornly continues to attract an audience.In 2007, the Western showed back up at the box office in a trio of films that came out roughly at the same time. 3:10 TO YUMA was the first out of the gate, but it was followed in quick order by THE ASSASSINATION OF JESSE JAMES BY THE COWARD ROBERT FORD and NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN.The movie had been made fifty years ago, and much of the plot in that version made it into the remake. Both movies were based on a short story by Elmore Leonard, who has had several of his Western and crime novels made into films.Christian Bale stars as Dan Evans, a one-legged, down-on-his-luck rancher struggling to keep a home together for his wife and two kids. Russell Crowe plays Ben Wade, an intelligent and heartless outlaw who's leading one of the blood-thirstiest gangs to ever take up the owlhoot trail.Both stars take turns stealing scenes. Bale has the hard-edged look of coarse rawhide. Crowe possesses some of the deadest eyes ever shown in movies.One of the best portrayals in the movie was a surprise to me, though. It took me a minute to recognize Peter Fonda as professional bounty hunter turned Pinkerton agent Byron McElroy. Fonda reminded me a lot of his father Henry, but part of that is because Fonda has aged. He also delivers a quality of acting and honesty in the character that is just amazing, and he was content to carry the supporting character role and didn't try to upstage anyone.Logan Lerman was another surprise. He stared as William Evans, Dan's 14-year-old son. I'd thought Lerman was much older, but as it turned out he was 14 when the movie was made. He was likeable and intense.When it came to truly cold-blooded villains, though, Ben Foster as Charlie Prince totally blew me away. The hair on the back of my neck went up as soon as he stepped on stage, and within a minute I hated him.The story is simple. Dan is struggling to make ends meet and bumps into Wade during an armored wagon job. Later, after taking Byron McElroy into town for medical attention, Dan confronts Hollander, the man who's trying to run him off his land. When Hollander won't give him an extension on his loan, Dan finds Wade and helps take him captive. Then he agrees to help transport him to Yuma for $200.The movie quickly spins out into the action of the violent road trip. In addition to being one of the fastest gunmen around, Wade is also a skilled psychological warrior, constantly taunting his captors and seeking out their weaknesses.The action involves traveling through hostile Indian lands, meeting up with a team of killers working the railroad coming through the area, and a final showdown in Yuma that is one of the most exciting I've ever seen in a Western.For two hours, I sat marveling at the characters, then tensely awaiting the outcome of the latest danger they were all facing. Even then, the twists and turns of the characters, the back stories they were all hiding till the very last moment, were awesome. No one was quite who I thought they were.Westerns succeed best by having good men with a history of bad violence and bad men who haven't completely gone over to the dark side. 3:10 TO YUMA is one of those.One caveat I will offer to people who have seen the original movie starring Glenn Ford and Van Heflin, this version does NOT follow the same paths or end up the same way. Expect to be surprised and shocked at how things turn out. And you'll be tense nearly the whole way through.

Elmore Leonard was a famed writer of westerns and crime fiction. Early in his career, he wrote a short story for a pulp magazine "The 3:10 to Yuma", This short work has been filmed twice. The first film, in black and white and from the golden age of westerns in 1957 was directed by Delmer Davies and starred Glenn Ford as the notorious outlaw gang leader Ben Wade and Van Heflin as the poor rancher, Dan Evans, charged with bringing him in. This second version dates from 2007, long after the western genre was thought to have died. James Mangold directed this latter film which stars Russell Crowe as Wade and Christian Bale as the rancher, Dan Evans. I was familiar with Leonard's story and with much of his other western writing, I took the opportunity afforded by stay at home time to watch both versions of the "3:10 to Yuma".Films generally vary from and interpret the original work on which they are based. The 1957 film changed many details of Leonard's story but captured its spirit. The 2007 film does not take a new look at Leonard's story; instead it works from the 1957 film which, in its turn, it interprets and modifies. The two films have essentially the same plot but the latter film adds many details and scenes. It runs about one-half hour longer than the 1957 film.Both films tell the story of a struggling rancher who becomes involved in taking a violent outlaw, Ben Wade, from Bisbee to Contention, Arizona and putting him on a train to the notorious Yuma prison. Both films also follow Leonard's story in emphasizing the developing relationship between the outlaw and the man hired to bring him in. The 2007 film intensifies and exaggerates the story. For example, in the 2007 film, the rancher is not only poor and struggling, but he has only one leg as a result of an injury he sustained during the Civil War. At virtually every turn, the 2007 film is more violent and has more people being killed than does its predecessor.The largest difference between the two films is one of tone. In both films, the outlaw and the ranger form a grudging respect for each other. Both films explore honor, loyalty, and courage and proving oneself, as the rancher feels he must regain his own self-respect as well as the respect of his wife and two sons. The 1957 film focuses on these positive elements. The 2007 film, however, is nihilistic and pessimistic. The values of honor, honesty, and courage are present, but they are rendered almost meaningless by the level of violence and senseless killing in the film, both in the climactic final scene and throughout. The 2007 film is what has become known as a "revisionist" western. It takes the values and ideals of the traditional western from the early 1960s and before and questions them and even stands them on their heads. The violence of the film is far more meaningless and pointless than heroic. Thus the 2007 film, while telling the same story, has a different view of its meaning than its predecessor film or Leonard's story. The difference, of course, is largely due to a change in social norms between 1957 and 2007, and with the rise of cynicism and skepticism about earlier ideals.It is valuable to watch both films and to see their similarities and differences. Both films are well-acted with established stars and have realistic scenery and an enhancing musical score. Both films create a sense of dramatic tension as the story unfolds. Both films are outstanding, in the different messages they convey, and they compliment each other and Leonard's story..I found it a worthwhile and enjoyable use of time during the current pandemic to watch both versions of "The 3:10 to Yuma", and to think about both films and about the United States and about changing ways to understand our country and the West, through the context of the western.Robin Friedman

I could hardly wait to see "3:10 to Yuma". With all the high ratings it has received so far, I was really looking forward to seeing it. But I was disappointed after the first viewing. I had expected something different. But then after the second and third viewing I began to enjoy it. While watching the movie for the first time I expected to see a serious and realistic film. But realism is not what this is about. So what's it about? It's neither a drama due to the lack of realism nor is it a comedy, too many sad moments. Maybe it is best described as a Western movie with lots of action scenes that tries to convey some kind of moral.The best of 3:10 to Yuma is definitely the brilliant performance of Russell Crowe. Without him in the leading role this movie wouldn't be as half as good. His character is nicely developed, just as the one of Christian Bale, who has the other leading role. This might sound strange when on the other hand a lot of the actions in this movie are not quite understandable. The reason for a few escaped me completely especially in the last twenty minutes. The viewer is left to his or her own guesses. Only in the end when Crow whistles to his horse at least some sense comes to the last scenes.Although the story is highly unbelievable and in many parts strange, the dialogue is interesting and even now and then amusing.Besides the great acting it's the well done cinematography, the beautiful scenery and the great sound track that make up for most of the flaws.Of course there is a lot of shooting like in many Western movies. Sometimes it looks as if they were shooting blanks because nobody gets hit. Then on the other hand when someone gets hit there is of course the never missing Hollywood bullet fallacy - one shot drops and bodies flying through the air by the impact of the bullet. If a bullet had the power to nock down a man, the shooter would also be flying backwards. Simple physics. The scene I really got hung up on while watching the movie for the first time was when one of the "good" guys who was shot in the stomach gets treated by a vet who just pries out the bullet and a couple hours later this same guy is back in the saddle. Give me a break! That's ridiculous. But as I already said the whole story is not realistic. As long as you keep that in mind and concentrate on the good parts of the movie it will be very enjoyable to watch.

There have been many attempts to revisit the Western genre. Happily, this one works and I think the sparse, but exquisite use of language and the vivid setting (which, thank goodness, was filmed outside and not on a studio lot) adds much to the movie. There were some key sentences that jumped out of this film and I've noted them below. If you see the film, try to listen for them and see if they resonate as strongly for you.I found 3:10 to Yuma to be primarily a character-driven movie, although there is no denying that there is plenty of action as well. To my mind, this is Christian Bale's strongest, most mature and multi-faceted performance to date, although fans of his other roles might find that point debatable. If so, I'll concede the point since I'm wavering on that position anyway. Still, if I had to choose right now - today - I'd say this is his seminal film, if only for the way he manages to convey the ambivalence at the heart of a world-weary man, trying to find the energy to pull off one last desperate move.The basic plot of the movie is simple. Dan Evans (played by Bale) is a rancher who is having a hard time making ends meet. He is at a pivotal point in history, just before trains were commonplace everywhere. Evans is hoping to take a renowned criminal, Ben Wade, to the Yuma train (the 3:10 to Yuma, hence the title) and collect a $200 reward for his efforts. Russell Crowe brings Wade to life, quite skillfully.Both Russell Crowe and Christian Bale are well-matched, each playing off the other perfectly. Director James Mangold made the choice to use a lot of close-ups and this works well to emphasize the character studies in this film. Pay special heed to Bale's portrayal of a tormented man whose facial expressions are just as important as his words. The pivotal words of his? To me, they are these: "I"ve been standing on one leg for three damn years waiting for God to do me a favor - and he ain't listening." Still, he wants to be a good man, wants his wife and sons to respect him and see him as honorable. That is a key element of his life. He is also more drawn to the dark side of things than he cares to admit.Russell Crowe has a particularly risky role because he has to play "the bad guy", but not as a simplistic one-dimensional criminal. He has to make the part his own. That he did so still amazes me. His key words won't make sense till you see the film but they are: "I read the Bible from cover to cover. It took me three days. She never came back."Before moving on to the special features available on the DVD, I'd like to give a nod to Peter Fonda's strong performance in this film as well as other actors who I don't have time to describe in detail here.The theme of the movie revolves around the complicated and very difficult path to righteousness and all the ways that one can veer away from that path - as well as muddy the waters. It is a very slippery slope, a point driven home by this movie.Okay, the special features: I have to say that even if this movie had been terrible, I'd have considered buying it for the features alone because of the historical information contained in them.After making a western which often gives sway to the mythological, even fanciful aspects of history, the features focus on the truth behind the fiction. The whole Western genre is explored as well as such famous outlaws as James Younger and his gang and Black Bart. Particularly noteworthy was the detailed information about how Western outlaws and Civil War veterans connected, particularly those who'd fought for the South.This one is absolutely jam-packed with special features, including a look at how the film was made. The section on the actors and their connection to the horses was intriguing. While two of the actors loved being on horses and riding, one did not. I won't spoil the suspense of finding out which actor in this film said that he hated riding. It was amusing. Also fascinating? Describing how they got a train on location.One of the best films I've seen in awhile, highly recommended, although typically bloody and gritty, as you might expect. After seeing this, go have a look at the original movie and think about what this one says about our contemporary culture, based on the aspects of morality and other issues explored in the remake.

"3:10 to Yuma” breathes new life into the Western genre. Christian Bale and Russell Crowe deliver powerhouse performances as Dan Evans, a struggling rancher, and Ben Wade, a charming yet ruthless outlaw. Their complex relationship, filled with tension and mutual respect, drives the film’s emotional core. The chemistry between the two actors is electric, making every scene captivating. Bale’s portrayal of a man desperate to prove his worth is heart-wrenching, while Crowe’s layered performance blurs the lines between villainy and humanity.The film’s pacing is exceptional, keeping viewers on the edge of their seats. Each moment is laced with a sense of impending danger as the clock ticks down to the 3:10 train’s arrival. The action sequences are exhilarating, but it’s the quieter moments that truly set this movie apart.Visually, *3:10 to Yuma* is a treat. The sweeping landscapes, combined with the musical score immerse the audience in the harsh beauty of the Old West. The film’s exploration of themes like honor, sacrifice, and redemption adds depth, making it more than just a typical Western.In short, *3:10 to Yuma* is a riveting tale of courage and morality, elevated by stellar performances and impeccable direction. It’s a must-watch for fans of Westerns—or anyone who appreciates outstanding filmmaking.

a great movie, one of those like tombstone you can watch over and over. the plot problems ive read here are more about movie goers who are ignorant of black powder weapons, horses and fighting for your life.wade is complex with a wierd moral code who meets up with a flawed man he comes to respect. their interaction is what this movie is about. the ending is superb, when crowes character acts violently because of a newly developed friendship that is based on 'respect' rather then time and familiarity.edit below:i feel compelled to defend the film in certain areas so i have made comments to some of the reviews. here is a synopsisthe ending first:if this had been a movie about a outlaw who spent a week seeking revenge for the murder of his best friend by a gang of outlaws he had ridden with before, there would be no problem understanding the plot, or in this case the ending. but since the murder of the bale character (who had become wades best friend) took place so quickly and the revenge followed even more quickly people are confused by it. the ending is the one part of the film that is truly crystal clear. great friendships can happen quickly sort of like love at first sight. wades character was missing a relationship in his life with someone he truly could 'respect' when he found that person and he was murdered right in front of him, he reacted violently after all he was a killer.on the fonda charater getting shot:the black powder cartridges being fired in the converted black powder muzzle loader pistols did not contain much stopping power (wades colt might have used more powder). maybe 8 to 12 or even 16 grains of black powder, these projectiles did not have much velocity or foot pounds of energy on the target and the energy drops drastically with distance so when they hit it was about like poking a hole in someone with a sharp stick, this is why many old time outlaws survived multiple gunshot wounds and continued to fight. Jesse James survived being shot in the lungs. therefore penetration through a tough abdominal wall could indeed slow the bullet enough to not do much damage internally but it was a good idea to get the bullet out, and since there was no real shock or trauma just a hole a person could indeed get up and pursue their mission. the old mountain men survived much worse wounds and still survived on their own, as have men in modern combat. did you see masters and commanders? was mark wahlbergs character having a sucking chest wound in 3 kings realistic?the exploding horse incident:dynamite concussion does not carry well through the air, if it is confined then its expansion is catastrophic, or if it is wrapped with a chains or other objects it will cause damage with the flying shrapnel, otherwise its just a really big shove, so the horse and rider carrying it would be blown to bits by the concussion and the shock wave that is left would reach out and do little damage.the other plot twists are explainable and believable for people under stress for their lives. which includes why the sherriff abandoned the bale character, and why they didnt expose themselves to being shot by leaning out a window to shoot into the street etc. even the burning stage coach incident is believable, i'm sure in hindsight the person in the stagecoach wished he had done things differently but thats how people die in combat or law enforcement, mis-judging the enemies capabilities can be fatal.the burning stage coach guy not doing the hollywood scream:this isnt really a problem, did you ever see the monks burning in vietnam while protesting back in the 60's? not a squeal, people who are rapidly burned to death often dont scream because their body shuts down and they can not respond. many fatal burn victims are found in a completely rigid state with their fists tightly cleanched, that is the body shutting down. some burns that are less damaging are more painful and therefore allow more responce.(edit: my son a doctor reminded me of a couple of other points:1: if the oxygen is burnt inside the stage coach rapidly there is no air to expel a scream.2: if a person breathes super heated air the lungs throat and larnyx are toasted and no longer function. the movie got it right.)the limp problem: i have to review the film to look for it but since the amputation was well below the knee he may have only limped when the prosthesis was irritating. but its not that big of a deal in my opinion.the difficulty that i see is that when people see an event depicted in film that is close to reality they dont recognize it because their lifes experience is based on other hollywood movies. spend some time watching the discovery, history and military channels, the truth is out there.the only question i have is how the horse heard the whistle over the train noise, and why they didnt just shoot the horses of the stagecoach they were robbing but robbers chasing down a stage coach is very old hollywood tradition, beyond that i found this movie to be very believable.for those determined to not like this film because of plot problems and continuity alone, i am afraid you are destined to a life without the imagination of our fellows, entertaining us. movie makers do ask that we lower our credulity meter at least a little. the naysayers may be better off reading the tax code of the u.s. for entertainment, thus keeping it very real.

Call it sort of a renaissance with the cowboy lifestyle becoming more eminent again. Westerns were part of movie culture for many years. The stories were often exaggerated but made for great action. Now comes the remake of the classic Three Ten to Yuma made in 1957. The story is much the same with great actors making this remake a future classic.The story starts off violently as you would expect many Westerns to do. One of main characters Dan Evans who is played by Christian Bale is behind on his land payment. The owner of the land comes in with his posse and burns down his barn. This would cause most to seek revenge. Although Dan isn't going to do anything stupid. With a wife and two children he just wants to make sure his ranch will survive.Next comes our other main character, Ben Wade who is played by Russell Crowe. Ben Wade has become legendary for his crimes. Ben and his gang get a classic introduction in the stage coach scene. The coach is loaded with money and armed guards. Ben's gang comes out shooting and eventually wins. This scene ends up bringing Dan and Ben together.The action that follows in intense to say the least. The acting is really excellent and the story stays interesting. I don't want to get to involved with the story to spoil anything for you. Let's just say there should be more movies like this out.The Blu-ray version of this movie is excellent. With a superb picture it is also balanced with great sound that will make any home theatre sound like you are in the middle of a gun fight. This movie is also packed with tons of extras. The disc is load with featurettes and documentaries including an Inside Yuma: Exclusive Blu-ray disc experience.The Western has returned in a great way. This movie is sure to become a classic. From it's superb gun fights to the great storyline. 3:10 To Yuma will no doubt bring the romance between man and the old open west back. This is a great film and even better on Blu-ray. So if you want to partake in a classic experience this movie should be up your ally.

Great product

This movie 🎥 is one ☝️ of the best top 🔝 10 westerns ever. Christian Bale and Russell Crowe performances 🎭 were absolutely incredible 👍The storyline is amazing 🤩 The action and gun fights were really great 😊 So, get your popcorn 🍿 ready, strap in 💺 and get ready for a roller coaster 🎢 ride of pride, loyalty, adventure, gun fights, magnificent scenery and fantastic acting 🎭 Giddy 🐴 up 🆙 partner, 3:10 train 🚂 is coming 👍🤗💺🐴🎥🎭🍿🎢🤩

I came to this film through a Amazon recommendation, every now and then I work my way through the work of one actor/actress. The past few months this has been Christain Bale. He has quite a body of work to go through. I wasn't really a fan of the genre (westerns) but after watching this I've changed my mind. Performances from all the cast are thrilling, moving, emotional and beautiful. A visually rich film that depicts the era very well. The story is a simple one a struggling rancher (Christain Bale) agrees for a price to take a captured robber (Russell Crowe) to the train, where he will be taken to Yuma to be hanged for his crimes. A lot happens along the way and an unexpected tentative friendship is formed, which leads beautifully to the ending. I've yet to see the original ( I will seek it out, as I love old movies!) but older family members who have seen it and have viewed this have rated this version higher. Well worth a watch, so glad I've added this to my ever growing collection of DVDS (streaming is fine but personally I prefer physical media). As I have enjoyed this so much I have just purchased 'Hostiles' DVD starring Christain Bale.

Uno de los grandes westerns de la era moderna, en este bluray , cuya imagen de video raya en lo perfecto y audio 7.1 hd-master igual de excelente, pura grandeza , Crowe, Bale, Fonda.clásico instantáneo, con mucho mejor ritmo que la versión original...el precio? un regalo , 24 julio de 2015.............

...sagen wir mal 4 1/2 Punkte. Und die sind auch total verdient.4 wäre zu wenig, deshalb dann doch die 5 Punkte.Abzüge am Ende beim Showdown, den ich an manchen Stellen für etwas chaotisch und vielleicht für ein bisschen zuviel des Guten empfunden habe.Aber ansonsten war das ein klasse Western, so wie er sein muss.Mit zwei klasse agierenden Hauptdarstellern Christian Bale als ambivalenter "guter Held" und als Gegenpart den brutalen aber intellektuell etwas überlegenen Gangster und Bösewicht, grandios gespielt von Russell Crowe.Bale ist der vom Pech verfogte Landwirt, dem der Verlust der Farm droht, weil er nicht mehr zahlen kann und er dadurch das Gefühl nicht loswird, dass seine Frau und seine beiden jungen Söhne ihn als Versager sehen.Mit den beiden Söhnen sieht er zufällig einem Überfall auf einen Geldtransport zu, der von Ben Wade (Crowe) und seiner Gang verübt wird und wo es reihenweise Tote gibt.Hier begegnen sich die beiden Männner zu ersten Mal, Wade lässt aber die drei Zeugen am Leben, knöpft ihnen nur die Pferde ab.Einige Stunden später wird er aber doch in der Stadt gefasst, seine Bande kann entkommen.Bale bietet sich für 200 Dollar an, sich einer kleineren Eskorte von Gesetzeshütern anzuschliessen, die den Gangster nach Condention, einem Ort mit Bahnstation, bringen soll, wo der 3 Uhr 10 Zug nach Yuma fährt und somit Wade an den sicheren Galgen bringen soll.Die Reise hat mehrere Haken:1. Die Gang von Wade will den Boss befreien2. Evans (Christian Bale) pubertärer Sohn folgt den Convoy und will dem Vater helfen, erschwert aber mental das Unternehmen für den Vater, der3. von Anfang an eine gewisse emotionale Beziehung zum Gangster eingeht und diese auch erwidert wird.Also die beiden Gegenspieler stehen sich ambivalent gegenüber, sie entdecken Gemeinsamkeiten und Sympathien.Diese Zutaten geben dem Film natürlich nicht nur den besten Unterhaltungswert, den man sich vorstellen kann...sondern auch eine Story mit grosser Spannung, emotionaler Tiefe und ner Menge guter Charakterzeichnungen, nicht nur die der Hauptdarsteller - auch die Nebendarsteller Peter Fonda oder Logan Lerman als Sohn von Bale, um nur zwei weitere eines grossartigen Ensembles zu nennen.Und alles ist in total stimmige Bilder integriert, gute Western leben ja auch von der Grösse ihrer Bilder, die sie vermitteln können.Und auch in diesem Punkt haben die Macher ganze Arbeit geleistet.Höhepunkt ist am Ende dann auch dieser Showdown, manche mögen ihn dann vielleicht noch als das Nonplus-Ultra sehen, ich war wie erwähnt ein bisschen enttäuscht...aber wirklich nur ein bisschen.Und beim Abspann hatte ich trotzdem das Empfinden wieder mal nen richtig guten Western gesehen zu haben.Es werden ja tatsächlich in der letzten Zeit reihenweise Meisterwerke des Genres wie "Proposition" oder "Seraphim Falls" gedreht, sie kriegen auch klasse Kritiken, man macht sogar wieder etwas Kinokasse, leider bleibt der letzte Trumpf, nämlich mal absoluter Blockbuster wie in früheren Zeiten zu sein, weiter auf sich warten.Aber so ganz totzukriegen ist das unverwüstliche Genre auch nicht...ein Glück, ich liebe gute Western.