Does the 3:10 to Yuma Ending Suck?

If you visit the 3:10 to Yuma entry on the Internet Movie Database, you'll discover an extensive discussion thread revolving around the ending and the motivation of the characters. Aside from the posts replete with typos suggesting other people are idiots, some interesting thoughts are presented.

I liked the movie though I thought, yeah, the motivations are a little hard to interpret--and Ben Wade's at least as unpredictable as Jigsaw is in Saw III. And some of the writer or director's decisions are a little unsatisfying.

I don' t know that that's bad, though. One critic or another observed that the Van Heflin/Glen Ford version is a little too pat, and that's certainly true for today's world and audiences.

The slightly more murky closure in the new film certainly leaves you mulling it over, contemplating nuances from character conversations and generally keeping the film in mind long after the final credits.

Anyone else have any thoughts?

What I would have done
As a complete aside to the above thoughts, if I'd been Dan Evans (Christian Bale), here's what I would have done. I've had the benefit of seeing more movies than he had access to in the 1800s.

A. Tie or strap the shotgun barrel to the head/neck of Ben Wade (Russell Crowe) and keep a finger on the trigger(s) so if you die he dies.

B. Make that clear by shouting out a window to the annoyingly devoted Charlie Prince (Ben Foster aka Angel in the last X-Men).

C. Carry the horse pistol in the free hand to shoot anyone still foolish enough to oppose you.

D. Walk to the train station at 3:05.

E. Put Ben Wade on the train.

F. Enjoy a latte at the local Starbuck's after the train pulls out.

Hey, would a latte have been any less satisfying than what did happen at the end of the movie?

A Late Addendum - The Proposition
Perhaps because many agree with the sentiment expressed in the title of this post, it's still a frequently hit item here at the old blogstead.

With that in mind, here's a very late additional thought with a spoiler warning before we move head.


The intriguing 2005 film The Proposition with Guy Pearce, which is set in the Australian Outback, focuses on a band of outlaw brothers. Pearce, the middle brother, is presented the proposition of the title, track down and kill his older brother in order to save the life of his younger brother, who's the lesser of the two evils.

Penned by Nick Cave, the script doesn't play out as expected, and Pearce's Charlie Burns doesn't follow a straight path to the destruction of his older brother, Mike.

As the story unfolds, we  get a sense that Charlie's grown weary of the erudite but brutal Mike, mostly in a scene where he's forced to end the misery of a bounty hunter Mike's killing slowly in that darkest of Western film conventions. Still, he doesn't kill Mike on the spot when he tracks him down. He follows him on a mission to rescue the younger brother that grows more vicious as the frames unreel.

By the time Mike's brutalized the issuer of The Proposition, Capt. Stanley (Ray Winstone), Charlie has finally had enough.

He kills Mike, putting an end to brutality in much the way Russel Crowe does in 3:10 to Yuma, but it's an ending that seems much more satisfying because Nick Cave's story has done the groundwork ahead of the decision.

If you haven't seen it, check it out, but be warned, it's often compared to Blood Meridian, so it's no easy ride.