3:10 to Yuma

Christian Bale and Russell Crowe are going to have to perform feats of magic to beat this film. There is no doubt that they have picked one of the toughest westerns to beat in their remake.

There is shooting, but this is not a shoot-'em-up western. It is a thoughtful game of chess between a ruthless outlaw (Glenn Ford) and a farmer (Van Heflin). To see Ford, who we lost last year, try to buy Helflin (Johnny Eager, Shane), and see Heflin grow in courage was magnificent.

Every one else fades as these two play their game. The ending was terrific. I am anxious to see if they change it.

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.

Wherever possible, I like to see the original version of a film before I see its remake. Set to attend a screening for James Mangold's '3:10 to Yuma (2007)' the following night, I quickly decided to rent Delmer Daves' 1957 original, which was adapted from a short story by Elmore Leonard. Unsurprisingly, given its source, the film's plot is extremely simple, unconcerned with the need for a large cast of characters and complicated story lines. After a fatal gold robbery, infamous outlaw Ben Wade (Glenn Ford) is captured in a small town, and a group of honest volunteers agree to transport him to Contention to board the 3:10 train to Yuma Prison. One of these volunteers is Dan Evans (Van Heflin), a poverty-stricken small-time rancher with a thirst to proves his worth to both his wife and two sons. Meanwhile, Wade's loyal gang ride in hot pursuit of their leader, intent on rescuing him and avenging his capture. As the tension mounts, and loading Wade onto the 3:10 train begins to seem impossible, the other volunteers rationally retreat from their task, with only Evans staying true to his word.

It's only recently that I've begun to concern myself with the Western genre, but '3:10 to Yuma' seems an ideal example. The story's brilliance lies in its own inherent simplicity; the interactions between the two main characters form the picture's emotional core, and it's the incredible depth of these interactions that allow the film to rise above its B-movie foundations. In one case, at least, the minimalism of the film's production allows for the perfect atmosphere in the story's climax, as Wade's bandits begin to surround the hotel room in which their leader is being held. Even before the gang rides into town, the streets have become almost completely vacant; Contention has become a ghost town. It seems likely that this was partly a result of the film's low production budget – money spent on extras was probably considered money wasted – but the escalating sense of foreboding created by the chillingly empty streets is perfect, as though, indeed, everybody in town figures that "a storm is blowin' up."

Both Glenn Ford and Van Heflin do a very good job considering the film's straightforward plot, and it is their believable characterisations that prove the picture's greatest asset. At first glance, Ben Wade appears obnoxious, sarcastic and detestable, but reveals more likable trait – and even a streak of nobility – as the film progresses. Likewise, Dan Evans is portrayed as a conservative man {whose logical unwillingness to take risks might easily be misattributed to cowardice}, one who only agrees to escort Wade in order to claim the much-needed $200 reward. However, as the situation continually progresses towards guaranteed disaster, and all the other volunteers back down regretfully, Evans refuses to surrender. In his captor's inflexible perseverance, and unflinching integrity, Wade discovers a man that he himself respects and admires, and the mutual understanding – however tentative – that the two men develop proves crucial in the picture's final moments.

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).