3:10 to Yuma (2007) User Reviews (709)

A modern day classic of the western genre

[Leofwine_draca · 9/10 · 10 January 2015]

The western genre is all but dead in Hollywood these days but every now and then a film comes along that reminds us of the genre's potential. The last one was Costner's OPEN RANGE, and this one manages to be even better than that thanks to the central pairing of Russell Crowe and Christian Bale. 3:10 TO YUMA is an actor's film from the off, a powerhouse pairing of two Hollywood stars at the top of their game, who can actually act.

Although the rest of the movie is excellent it's these two guys who make it unmissable. Clearly, this isn't some kind of B-movie with black and white characters; Crowe is introduced as the chief villain yet ends up showing a lot more humanity and character than many of the good guys. Bale takes his flawed hero role and runs away with it, turning what could have been a caricature – what with his crippled leg and everything – into a deeply human guy who you just can't stop watching.

The plot works really well because it's fast paced. The story is told through action, which is a very difficult thing to achieve – off the top of my head only the BOURNE films and the TERMINATOR films are similarly successful. There are dozens of shoot-outs, things exploding, showdowns and more – all you could expect from a hi-tech western and all expertly choreographed. Yet it's the script, too, which makes the film, creating thoroughly engaging 'quiet' moments just as riveting as all the chases and shooting. My favourite scene is in the run-up to the showdown, set in a hotel's bridal suite, where the assorted characters ponder their fate and decide their futures. It's tremendously suspenseful and edge-of-the-seat viewing material.

The supporting cast does a very good job – from an almost unrecognisable Peter Fonda as a grizzled cowboy to Ben Foster as another creepy, hateable bad guy. Director James Mangold has proved himself in the past with the likes of COP LAND and he once again shows that he's a master of his craft, able to deliver a solid, exciting and highly entertaining movie despite the familiarity of both the setting and the set-up. 3:10 TO YUMA is a masterful film and one to be enjoyed over and over.

An old fashioned modern western

[harricks · 8/10 · 21 August 2007]

I saw this film last night at a preview in the lead up to the Toronto International Film Festival. Having never been a big western fan (with a few exceptions - Shane, High Noon, The Wild Bunch) and having been rather indifferent to Walking The Line, James Mangold's last directorial effort, my expectations were modest, despite the hype that the film has received. But I was duly impressed. The action and tension remain constant throughout but, more importantly, the plot is compelling and the acting is terrific. No doubt many will be impressed by Ben Foster's affected performance as Russell Crowe's loyal but psychopathic sidekick (think Johnny Depp in the Pirate movies) but to my taste it was much too over the top in a cast that offered a number of subtle and well thought out performances.

Russell Crowe is brilliant as the arrogant, amoral outlaw Ben Wade and Christian Bales infuses his role as a beleaguered rancher and Civil War veteran with just the right mix of pathos and dignity. Iy was wonderful to see Peter Fonda be given a role in which he was allowed to demonstrate his genuine talent, much too long hidden away. In my view, though, it is Logan Lerman who most deserves the accolades that will certainly come his way. He plays Bales' teenage son who comes of age in the course of the film. Initially disillusioned with a father whom he sees as drudge and a failure, he eventually recognizes his father as the hero he is (or at least becomes).

Cinematically, this film ranks up there with the best westerns of all time. It is consistently beautiful to watch and captures the expanse and majesty of the American west as well as any movie I've ever seen.

In many respects this is a traditional western (it is a remake, after all). They really don't make movies like this much anymore and it will be interesting to see whether it finds an audience in this era of dumbed down teen comedies and quirky slices of dysfunctional modern life. I wish it well.

A good movie ruined by a ludicrous ending.

[ikanboy · 7/10 · 29 September 2007]

Reading many of the comments it seems obvious these days that all a movie needs is: good cinematography; good acting; interesting plot; plenty of action. That hooks most people nowadays. The fact that it lacks intelligent plotting, doesn't allow for any semblance of rational belief, and treats the audience as if it's stuck in dreamy adolescence, doesn't seem to matter.

Granted it's great acting by Crowe, Bale, and Peter Fonda. Great evil theatric posturing by Ben Foster. The cinematography is great, and it's based on one of the great "thinking man's" cowboy movies ever made. So how could they screw this up. Simple: by deciding, at the end, to pander to the audience that likes action, and is either too lazy too think, or finds attention to concentration bothersome to the base pleasure of being led by the nose.

*****************SPOILER*********** Up until the last twenty minutes the movie does fair homage to the original, and in some ways fleshes it out satisfactorily. To keep up interest there is way too much escaping/recapturing going on. Crowe gets captured initially not by some fluke, but by his own stupidity, which puts a crimp in the notion that he is a fiendishly clever sociopath. Then he escapes way too many times from supposedly hardened men, who never seem to get it that the best way to transport a sociopath is heavily bound. The fact that he gets recaptured again simply diminishes the "invincible" reputation he has as a badman.

But this is all signaling us for the end when Bale is left as the only one standing to take Crowe to the train station. The gang of seven sits atop their horses outside the hotel in which they are holed up. They sit bunched up - sitting targets - but no that would be too easy. Bale must take Crowe not only past them but half the town that has been offered bounty money. So how does he do it? The Director decides to turn the movie completely upside down and have Crowe aid and abet Bale in running the gauntlet. Not only aid and abet but kill off every last one of his own gang for pissing him off and shooting Bale.

I am so tired of having to sit through movies and suspend disbelief in order to enjoy the movie. I'm willing to do it when the movie doesn't take itself serious, but this one tries to pass itself off as a morality play, and Crowe's latter day conversion to Robin Hood simply insults probability.

Seven/Noon

[JohnDeSando · 21 August 2007]

"The boys dressed themselves, hid their accoutrements, and went off grieving that there were no outlaws any more, and wondering what modern civilization could claim to have done to compensate for their loss. They said they would rather be outlaws a year in Sherwood Forest than President of the United States forever." Mark Twain's Adventures of Tom Sawyer

In 3:10 to Yuma, a few references to The Magnificent Seven and the idea of a train arriving at a specific time when good and bad guys converge, as in High Noon, made viewing this Glenn Ford remake from 1957 a pleasant one. And right I was but for even more good reasons.

Not since Unforgiven and The Quick and the Dead have I been as excited about seeing a Western in its heroic and revisionist forms. 3:10 to Yuma is a true Western in the American film tradition about the 19th-century American West: It has clear heroes and villains (and a mixture of those), wide prairies, dirty towns, fast guns, weak lawmen, cunning murderers, kids on the cusp, and women marginalized, just for starters.

Then ratchet up to the philosophical/post modern/post Eastwood reflections on the profession of being a gunman juxtaposed with being a responsible father, and you have an classic angst-filled clash where villain has a wee bit of heart and hero an equal measure of cowardice. Delightfully mix in a certifiable baddie in the Lee Van Cleef/Jack Palance tradition, Ben Foster (Alpha Dog) as Wade's amoral lieutenant Charlie Prince (as in "of darkness"). Best of all, it is nail-bitingly suspenseful and beautifully photographed.

In order to pickup some home-saving cash, poor crippled farmer Dan Evans (Christian Bale) is helping transport murderer Ben Wade (Russell Crowe) to court via the 3:10 to Yuma from Bisbee, Arizona. Getting Wade to the station is no easy task, even for the several deputies, because Wade's evil gang is in hot pursuit and more importantly, Wade is psychologically working on them from within, alternately charming and brutal; just imagine his roguish smile behind an extremely fast gun and unscrupulous conscience.

It's hard to believe a studio could dump such a winner in the dog days of summer. I will say only that if you have even a modicum of respect for this genre, see 3:10 to Yuma and relive the golden days of straight-up shoot-em ups with rough-hewn characters, electric plot, and revisionist attitude about the romance of being an outlaw or a farmer. Get there on time because that movie train goes fast from the get go.

No western, with courageous sacrifice, can be stunning by accident!

[Nazi_Fighter_David · 8/10 · 30 March 2008]

Christian Bale (Dan Evans) holds the screen as an honest rancher who volunteers for two hundred dollars to be part of a doomed group of guards to take the enigmatic bandit and killer Ben Wade (Russell Crowe) to a train, the 3:10, leaving Bisbee, Arizona for Yuma prison to trial…

Beaten down by an old Civil War injury, and unable to protect his farm and his family from Wade's ruthless gang and humiliated by his teenage son (Logan Lerman) who makes no efforts to hide his disappointment in his impoverished father, and who doesn't try to hide the fact that he admires the charismatic criminal, Dan finds a great quantity of reasons to undertake the perilous trip to Contention City to fight back like a real man and regain his son's respect… The story concentrates on Evans whose unknown destiny tries to paint to his son an unforgettable picture turning up poignant and endearing…

Wade—leader of a murderous band of robbers—had great respect for Dan throughout the film and develops a kind of understanding and appreciation for him… Their short scenes in the hotel room celebrate the virtues of two opposite men who stand up for what they believe stopping on issues in relation with family, dignity, virtue, and admirable integrity… The best scenes are those in which Wade teases Dan: "Your conscience is sensitive, Dan. It's not my favorite part of you."

Crowe's interpretation of a gifted cold-blooded smooth-talking bad man is one of the most compelling parts of the film… Bale is splendid as the struggling, crippled rancher, misunderstood by his whole family… The two actors comfortably inhabit this stunning western…

It is nice to see that there are still good westerns being made lately… And James Mangold's "3:10 to Yuma," a remake of Delmer Daves' 1957 picture, is one of them… It is a Western with realistic violence, great action sequences, breathtaking photography, and an inevitable final shoot-out

Don't Miss This Movie

[teresa-elbin · 10/10 · 3 September 2007]

It's one of the best westerns and best all-around movies I've seen in a long time. That's largely due to the outstanding performances by the cast, ably led by the alpha male, bad guy, Russell Crowe. His protagonist is Christian Bale who turns in a nuanced performance as the down-on-his luck rancher. The scenes between these two men are riveting and a display of acting at its best. The supporting cast are all wonderful and in particular, Ben Foster, Fonda and Logan Lerman as Bale's oldest son.

The action is virtually non-stop which makes for a compelling, exciting story. But what really drew me in were the stellar performances, particularly that of Crowe. He is the bad guy you actually might end up rooting for. He goes from charming to deadly and back again all in the blink of an eye. He carries the film on his very able shoulders, but Bale gives him a good run for his money in the acting department.

This is one movie that any lover of westerns or anyone simply longing for a good movie with good acting will not want to miss. The two hours will go by in the blink of an eye and you'll be wishing there was more.

Good but Unreal

[Bonz99 · 6/10 · 25 August 2020]

The movie is mostly good, up to the ending. The final 10-15 minutes just don't make sense, with Russell Crowe appearing to run to the station instead of taking any of several chances for breaking away from Christian Bale.

Russell is truly spooky in his laid-back portrait of evil, but the "good guys" make it easy for him.

Throughout the movie, the posse bringing in Crowe was incredibly stupid in never tying him down at night or onto his horse during the day, allowing Crowe to murder a sleeping deputy at night, then grab another deputy's gun during the day when the deputy was riding too close to Crowe. I started to sour on this movie after these two incidents, as not making a whole lot of real-world sense. The ending didn't help any.

Shades of gray. The measure of a man and what price he is willing to pay for justice

[bjxmas · 9/10 · 23 September 2007]

Being a fan of westerns from a young age, I really wanted to like this movie and I did. I just didn't love it because of a few too many plot holes and inconsistencies. If you are willing to suspend belief and enjoy the ride, it is a very satisfying movie filled with action, suspense and terrific acting showcasing the intricacies of complicated men.

As most westerns ultimately are, this was a movie about the measure of a man. When faced with extraordinary circumstances how far will a man go to do the right thing and what price separates good and evil. It is a story of youth with a riveting performance by a young Logan Lerman as a rancher's son who doubts his father's worth and struggles to come to terms with his expectations of what makes a man great and who he will idolize. Being a fan of the TV series Jack and Bobby, it was great seeing Logan again and enjoying his work. He gives a sensitive, nuanced performance and holds his own against some powerhouse acting from Russell Crowe and Christian Bale.

Russell is the perfect actor to play Ben Wade bringing a depth and humanity to a character who is established early on as a dangerous, ruthless outlaw. There are indications from the start that Ben isn't your standard villain, and Russell does a great job at showing the shadings in this character while maintaining the threatening nature of Ben Wade. There is a hint of gentleness and sensitivity and even though you suspect childhood damage might have produced a man capable of such evil, you never doubt the viciousness this character is capable of.

Christian Bale turns in another intricate portrayal as the rancher, Dan Evans. Slowly the layers and truths of Dan are revealed until he is laid bare, with all his regrets and failings threatening to define him. As a man trying to provide for his family and gain the respect of his older son, he gives a captivating performance as an average man struggling to do what is right while faced with overwhelming obstacles.

The interaction between these two fine actors and how their characters end up on the continuum between good and evil is the focus of the movie. 3:10 to Yuma is an interesting merging between the old-fashioned westerns of long ago and the new psychological metaphors of modern movie-making. There are lots of dead bodies littering up the landscape, but the blood and guts movie style of Peckinpah is thankfully missing and we are left with a character study wrapped up in an action, chase flick.

Peter Fonda has a wonderful role as a grizzled old bounty hunter and even though I knew he was in the movie it took me forever to recognize him. I kept thinking the character reminded me of Richard Widmark, but perhaps there was a touch of Henry in there too. Alan Tudyk has a nice turn as a quirky doctor and Ben Foster is mesmerizing as the big bad sidekick of Ben Wade. Many will think Ben goes overboard on the characterization, but it was difficult to not watch him as the crazy, vicious killer, Charlie Prince. I think he held back just enough to make the character believable, in an intensely crazed, vicious old-west world.

Ultimately the bad guys were more believable to me than the good guys. There were several instances where I wanted to yell at the screen and tell the good guys they were doomed because of their inept actions, but perhaps they just haven't seen as many westerns as I have and didn't realize these bad guys were truly vicious animals and no mercy would be offered.

Towards the end is when the stretches of believability most disturbed me and the movie lost some of its sheen. I just didn't buy all the contrivances they threw at me and for me, that made the ending less than satisfying. My sister, on the other hand, loved the ending and was actually crying, but don't let the crying scare you off. She tends to get overly emotional when she buys into the story and she had no problem suspending belief and taking the ride they offered.

If you love westerns as I do, then you owe it to yourself to support this western at the theater in hopes the box office receipts will encourage more westerns to be produced. If you enjoy great acting and character development and the wider framework of what makes a man a hero and what forces drive a man to despair then this movie provides ample fuel for further discussion.

3:10 to Yuma could have been a great movie if they would have cleaned up some of the plot holes and reined in the ending, but all in all, it was a nice time at the movies and it certainly offered up some lively discussion afterward. The entire cast was stunningly good, the movie was beautifully photographed and the direction kept it moving at a good pace with no lulls or boring moments.

It offers a glance back at the old-time westerns with a few nice improvements. Even if you don't normally appreciate westerns, the acting and action should be enough to make the time spent enjoyable. And if you never appreciated westerns before then maybe it will be enough to make you want to check out some of the greats like High Noon and The Searchers. Westerns have always been a fertile ground for examining the complexities of man, what makes a man great, and the shades of gray that resides in all of us.

Dubious Morality

[Theo Robertson · 6/10 · 3 January 2011]

The Western fell out of favour amongst studios in the early 1970s . Much of this was down to the critical and commercial success of THE WILD BUNCH a shockingly amoral Western that blurred the lines between good and bad . Previously the genre was best known for its distinction between good and evil where the good guy would always seemingly win whatever the odds . With hindsight the reason this very limited concept survived for decades is down to the fact that audiences seem to love happy endings

3:10 TO YUMA is an uneasy mixture of the traditional Western and anti-Western . The story revolves around wanted fugitive Ben Wadee being captured by a posse in Arizona who plan to take him to the rail station at Yuma where he'll be taken for trial at a federal court . Wade's gang now led by Charlie Prince will do all they can to release Wade before he reaches the rail station

The problem with the film is that it wants to have its cake and eat it . Russell Crowe is seemingly well cast as Ben Wade and the audience are asked to emphasise with him . Unfortunately he's the leader of a gang of outlaws and the first glimpse we get of Wade is when his gang raid a coach carrying gold which ends with its escort being shot dead . Why should we feel any empathy for Wade ? Well he stumbles across Dan Evans and his two sons but doesn't kill them out of hand . Let me see now it's okay to kill people if you're carrying out an armed robbery but it's wrong to kill innocent passer bys ?

The film continues with this warped view of morality . Prince is painted as the villain of the piece despite being motivated by a code of honour where his gang will rescue Wade all any cost . Considering the rescue attempts cost so many lives could anyone blame Prnce for forgetting all about his mentor ? The more the film continues the more confused it becomes as to who the good guys and bad guys are and by the time the final climatic ridiculous shoot out takes place you'll be beyond caring what happens to whom

Narrative wise this is the sort of movie that could have been a mini-masterpiece if it'd been directed in the 1970s by Sam Peckinpah but with the ethos of New Hollywood with its radical view of morality dying out in the early 1980s we're left with a rather old fashioned film in a even more old fashioned tired genre

Reminds me of some of the better westerns except with more guts

[socrates99 · 9/10 · 9 September 2007]

There's a scene near the end where Christian Bale is clearing the air, so to speak, between himself and Russel Crowe's character, that suddenly made clear to me what the entire film was about. It also dawned on me that Bale is a bit like this generation's Gregory Peck, only better. He seems able to explore other ways of being on screen without losing sight of reality. That's quite a trick, and key in this film, as it's really all about his character, Dan Evans, a struggling ex-soldier with a family and a marginal farm to take care of.

Courage is the central preoccupation of this film, so it's more than welcome to see it in the film's production as well. There's a sensibility for weapons, dirt, wagons, injuries, even clothing of the period, on display here that's more than just admirable. It makes you wonder why old westerns didn't explore these elements more thoroughly, though I suppose it had to do with expense. But in having spared that expense these older flicks also failed to pull off the kind of true to life drama that this movie manages to delve into.

I also enjoyed the interaction between Crowe, Bale, and his teenage son, William. Though the focus is constantly moving, including generous episodes with a wonderfully nuanced badman played by Ben Foster and some quality time with Peter Fonda and Gretchen Mol, most of the story is in what happens between the ex-soldier, his son, and Crowe's gang leader, Ben Wade. Talk about art imitating life, Crowe is pretty much flawless as the intelligent but amoral Wade.

Don't expect a conventional ending. Think about it after you've exited the theater. Aren't we all a mix of good and bad?

Yuma wanna watch this

[dfranzen70 · 7/10 · 8 September 2007]

This remake of the 1957 oater (that's movie talk for "western") is serviceable largely because of the earnest craftiness of its two leads, who skillfully play off each other in a battle of wills, if not morals. Unfortunately, while the motives of the good guy (playes by Christian Bale) are both noble and realistic, some of the actions of the bad guy (Russell Crowe) may leave you scratching your head, and while nebulous intentions can make for wonderful mystery, in the end you're still not sure why Crowe's dastardly Ben Wade has done what he's done, and what it all means.

Dan Evans (Bale) is a dirt-poor farmer who lost a leg in the Civil War. His farm's about to be foreclosed by an unscrupulous land owner who's taken to damming a river and burning down Evans' barn to force him off his own property. So when stagecoach robber Ben Wade (Crowe) is captured and needs to be escorted to the nearby town to get on the titular train, Evans volunteers, both to gain payment to help save his farm and to save face in front of his two kids, one of whom is sick from tuberculosis and one who thinks his old man is a spineless failure. Saddled by debt and ungrateful kids, Evans' decision and motivation is easy to understand.

Ah, but getting the nefarious Wade to Yuma is going to be a complicated trick indeed, because the rest of his gang, led by Charlie Prince (Ben Foster) isn't going to let their fearless leader be trundled off to Yuma to die. Luckily, bounty hunter Byron McElroy (a gritty Peter Fonda) gets the idea of using a decoy stagecoach to lure the varmints off the trail while he and the rest of the posse, including Evans, schlep Wade in the other direction. The gambit works for a while, allowing the good guys to place precious geographical space between them and the bad guys; it also allows the movie to continue unabated. Because, after all, there are more people in Wade's gang then there are trying to bring him to justice - all they'd have to do is find him, shoot the hell out of the place, and grab him.

Although there's plenty of gunplay and death by bullets, this is much more of a psychological drama than anything else. Wade, as played coldly (but not charmlessly) by Crowe, has two goals in mind: gain the mental upper hand on Evans, an untrained rancher, and gain his escape from the clutches of law and order. Meanwhile, although Evans' intentions are less murky, he's not some squinty-eyed sharpshooter whose aim is always true; he's not an iconic hero who you just know is gonna save the day. Bale is terrific; you can really see the anguish he feels as a supposed failure in the eyes of his sons. In the hands of lesser actors, these two complex roles would have seemed less symbiotic and therefore less sincere. For example, apparently Movie Guy Tom Cruise was initially supposed to have Wade's role; if that had come to fruition, we would have been distracted by Movie Star Tom Cruise, and the movie would have suffered terribly as a result.

But despite the wonderful performances by Bale and Crowe, the movie's shortcoming is that Ben Wade's intentions seem rather inscrutable. I don't mean that they're simply ambiguous (is he going to flee or help the good guys fight off Navajo Indians?), I mean that they don't make much sense. One minute, Wade is all set to get away from Evans and escape to the safety of his gang, but in the next he's actually fending off his gang as it attacks Evans. There's no explanation given for this change of heart, but the new attitude is gone as quickly as it arrives, leaving the viewer a little puzzled. Sure, some may explain this as "Wade comes to respect Evans and so doesn't want to see the rancher killed," but Wade's actions were much more than that. He wasn't just trying to save Evans, you see, he was actively trying to knock off members of his own gang, and the reason for that escaped me completely.

Still, 3:10 to Yuma is firmly entertaining, benefiting from two gritty, believable performances by Crowe and Bale, although it's marred by some unexplained actions on the part of its charismatic villain.

Thoroughly Enjoyable Remake of a Classic Western

[mstomaso · 8/10 · 11 September 2007]

Long ago, I saw the original 3:10 to Yuma featuring Van Heflin and Glen Ford, but I don't remember it well enough to compare it with James Mangold's new remake. Instead, my review will focus exclusively on the new film.

Mangold's film is a tense, traditional western based on an Elmore Leonard story. Leonard is a solid writer, and gave the material upon which the film is based enough background and characterization to permit willful suspension of disbelief. Mangold's film does the same. Our protagonist and antagonist are, respectively, Dan Evans (Bale) and Ben Wade (Crowe). Evans is a would-be rancher and family-man whose family is suffering from a drought and a merciless landlord. Evans and his boys cross paths with notorious outlaw Ben Wade and his gang on their way into town to confront their landlord, and Wade whimsically lets them go. But the connection between these two men and Dan's eldest son is far from over. Eventually Dan will accept an offer made by a railroad agent to help escort Wade to a train headed to Yuma prison, while Wade's crew of murderers dogs their every step.

Two performances stood out for me - Bale and Ben Foster (Charlie Prince). Crowe was good, but it's not clear that he engaged with his role with his usual intensity. There are several very talented actors in supporting roles, and they each pull off the transition to the western genre quite nicely (Alan Tudyk, Logan Lerman, Gretchen Mol, Peter Fonda and others). The film showcases the acting talent very well without losing sight of its straightforward but interesting story.

More often than not, good westerns are at least as much character studies as they are 'shoot-em-ups'. After all, it pretty close to impossible to enjoy a film in which anybody might drop dead at any given time without caring about the people you are watching die, or those doing the killing. Mangold achieves this by drawing on the simple strengths of the original material and allowing relationships to dominate both the story's development and the cinematography. For a western, there is a tremendous amount of dialog in this film, coupled with the usual meaningful stares. Wade is so wily and unpredictable that you really never know what to expect out of him, and his crew is headed up by his loyal and equally nihilistic protégé Charlie Prince. Dan Evans is his polar opposite, and Dan's son is an unusually accurate and complex Hollywood portrayal of a teenager. These and other relationships are the strengths and the medium of the film. When the camera isn't being used to build tension before a battle or showing us a gun-fight, it is establishing relationships and character. And many of the characters and relationships we see are surprising, ambiguous and more than a little ironic.

Highly recommended for western fans.

Great Western

[specialkat · 7/10 · 23 August 2007]

I, too, saw a preview (at a press screening) and truly enjoyed the film. The performances ooze class, charisma and depth and for someone who is not so into Westerns I found myself lured into this tale of complex morality. Crowe is especially dashing in the film as a truly bad man who we want to believe to ultimately be good. He is really quite incredible and delivers such a complex performance, with complete ease. However none of the performances lack, not Bale's, not Foster's, not Fonda's. There is really an old school Western here, with a modern edge to it. 3:10 to Yuma is also quite stunning when it comes to cinematography and set design, but these elements merely help tell the story, they do not distract from it. It's definitely worth seeing. James Mangold (Walk the Line) is definitely a very talented director. I have this a 7 because I'm a film critic and am tough, but I think fans of the genre will likely rate it higher.

Plot holes, no grit

[conorsheehan-89113 · 5/10 · 10 January 2022]

Lots of big plotholes. Biggest complaint is when ben wade is basically free, choking out dan, then just fully u turns and starts capturing himself? Running towards the prison train and helping dan because dan told him he got his leg shot by friendly fire. Made no sense. Then goes and kills all his men because one shot dan, after letting them kill half the town they were hiding in. Cherry on top is wade whistling and his hose coming out from nowhere to follow the train, as if it'd hear him from that far away over the sound of a train.

Felt forced, plenty of cliche. Watch true grit instead.

A Modern Classic

[alexkolokotronis · 9/10 · 18 February 2008]

This is the best western since Unforgiven. Every aspect of this film is great.

The acting was superb. Russell Crowe continues to give great and much overlooked performances. He delivers a great performance as outlaw Ben Wade. Crowe just keeps on putting me in shock with his spectacular performances. Crowe brought a mystique to his role that would of fit in with the old westerns. He seems as if he play anything and was a joy to watch here. He needs to be given much more and was definitely worthy of an Oscar nomination. Christain Bale also gives as a surprise to me a great performance as Dan Evans. He is on the verge of losing everything he's got. Bale displays his desperation and his willingness to feel that he has a purpose in life. He is definitely turning into a very good all around actor. I think he also deserved an Oscar nomination. Peter Fonda and Ben Foster also give very solid performances in their supporting roles.

I have heard some people say that this western was to talky but I don't believe so. I think this was filled with great dialog and was engaging for the length of the movie.

The directing by James Mangold was probably the best I have seen from him. He was able to bring back the old western style but yet mix it together with a modern effects and etc. He did not fall into the trap of making it boring or to violent. He carried the movie all the way through keeping the viewer entertained. The cinematography was amazing. The sceneries were spectacular and many of the shooting scenes were delivered with such excellence with the acting, directing but the cinematography brought those scenes and this movie to another level. The music was great as well. It did not become cliché but instead made you feel like you were back watching Clint Eastwood, Gary Cooper or John Wayne. It just captured me like no other western has in a while.

This movie is truly a modern classic.

Great film

[jerseyred · 8/10 · 16 August 2007]

Just saw a screening of this movie in New York. Amazing. Bale continues to prove that he is quickly becoming one of the best lead actors out there. Crowe exudes cool throughout the movie as a heartless, smooth talking, Bible quoting killer. Of course...Ben Foster. Yes. Ben Foster. Welcome him to the bigtime, cause he made this movie. There hasn't been a western with a character so badass as the one Ben Foster plays in this movie. Story-wise, the movie is an opposite Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, with the good guys trying to run away from the bad guys in order to make a 3:10 train to Yuma. What ensues is an awesome movie you wanna watch till the last battle.

Doesn't totally play to all its potential strengths but is still a very good modern western with solid delivery across the board

[bob the moo · 23 April 2008]

Dan Evans is a struggling rancher being pushed off his land by men he dare not stand up to. An amputee from his part in the war, Evans longs for the respect of his sons, but all they see is his refusal to take up arms for his land. Evans is in town to try and reason with the landowner for more time to pay off his debts when he stumbles across outlaw Ben Wade in a bar with his guard down. Wade is captured and a posse is put together to transport Wade while a decoy draws off his gang. With the money and the moral aspect, Evans joins the posse and sets out, with the time pressure on them from the very start.

I missed this film at the cinema but I did want to see it as I had greatly enjoyed the original and had indeed commented in that review that the film would work if done well in any setting, so I figured the remake could work as well. The simplicity attracted me to the original and this remake, for all its Hollywood production values, is still a solid and simple tale. The heart of the film is the battle between good and evil as it occurs both between Evans and Wade but also within Evans himself. This comes out best in the final scenes (the waiting for the train is a smaller part of the film than the original) and it did make me wish that more had been made of this. However, what makes up the majority of the film does still mine this theme, albeit not as effectively because of the sense of space and action tending to take away from the pressure cooker of the hotel room with the ticking clock.

IMDb currently has this within the top 250 films ever made, which needless to say I disagree with but will say that it is a strong modern western and a very engaging film all round. Director Mangold does a sterling job of keeping the material the focus and succeeds in making the climax very tense, even if he cannot drag it across the whole film. I did like the way that the film is restrained in regards the cinematography; too often westerns will feel obligated to have sweeping landscapes and make the most of them just because it is what the genre does. Here though the locations are impressive without ever being forced onto the viewer as if they were the focus – Mangold and his crew keep the focus tighter and the characters don't get lost in wide shots.

The cast is one of the main draws for the modern viewer, with the star pairing being a big selling point. Crowe is a solid Wade but I never felt like he was doing more than playing the character rather than totally being it. Bale on the other hand is much more convincing and this did make it work very well. The two men do play off one another really well and again it just added to my desire that the film had allowed them more time with just the two of them and a ticking clock. Lerman is a device character but he works well within the demands of the script. Foster enjoys a simple but memorable character by being simply evil throughout. Support is solid as well with some good turns from people such as Mol, Fonda and others.

Overall then a solid and enjoyable western. The things that made the original so strong are not quite as well delivered here but they are still present, with strong delivery across all aspects making for a very good, but not brilliant film.

Over-hyped movie as the plot makes no sense.

[youmecinema · 7/10 · 27 April 2014]

To be honest, even though I appreciate the acting & cinematography departments of this movie, I could not fail to notice, there the direction/screenplay/editing are not up to the mark. To take a few steps back, I do not even understand the entire plot of the movie - "more than 50 - 60 people get killed in the process of taking one Robber/Killer to board a train which goes to a prison, from where the killer has previously escaped twice." It felt as if his life was more important that any other nice person or even all of them combined. There was no such progress in the screenplay as to why Ben would connect on an emotional level with Dan all of a sudden (just because the movie is drawing to a close) , and in the end he kills all his gang members including Charlie who was in his side and has traveled from far just to rescue him, no questions asked. All style no substance. Pretty disappointed from a person who likes to watch Bale and Crowe.

Who knew that an Austrailian and a Brit can make such great cowboys?

[Smells_Like_Cheese · 10/10 · 10 September 2007]

I know this has been brought up before, but it was such a question with me on how they picked Russell Crowe and Christian Bale to be American cowboys? But then I saw 3:10 to Yuma this afternoon, to be honest, I don't know who could have done a better job! Christian and Russell clicked so well and brought together an awesome western film, probably the best since Unforgiven. James Mangold captured the perfect feeling of a classic western film and brought together this great cast. This is one of the first films of the summer that I'm giving a perfect 10 rating, I couldn't find one complaint about 3:10 to Yuma. The casting, the picture, the whole surrounding of the film was just incredible. To be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if this is going to be nominated for a couple Oscars.

Ben Wade is an outlaw killer/thief who is on the run with his gang, but he is captured one day. The problem is that he has a reputation for being the fastest gun swinger in the West, so the policemen ask a man, Dan Evans if he brings him to the 3:10 prisoner train to Yuma for two hundred dollars. One problem, Ben's gang wants him back and will chase him, his son, Doc, and Butterfield throughout the West. Ben is just charming his way through the journey, Dan's son, William, is convinced that maybe Ben isn't all that bad, but Dan knows better and is willing to do anything to get Ben onto that train.

3:10 to Yuma is one of the year's best, to be honest, I'm thinking about the films this past year, and I would probably rank this as the number one movie. I was never really into western movies, except for the good, the bad, and the ugly, and unforgiven, but 3:10 to Yuma is a guaranteed classic. I am very much recommending this film to anyone, even those who are not into the Western films, because this is just all together a terrific film. The script, the acting, the picture, the look, 3:10 to Yuma is a fantastic film that should not be missed.

10/10

3:10

[RobTheWatcher · 7/10 · 28 December 2022]

3:10 To Yuma is a somewhat modern take on a Cowboy Western film. It's absolutely stacked with great actors who all portray their characters well and really sell the plot and the time period. I will say, I'm not a big fan of western movies in general or this time period but despite that, I would say this was very well done and enjoyable. There were some really good action scenes and it was fun to watch throughout. There were certainly some unrealistic scenes and events but nevertheless it was worth the watch. I would highly recommend it to anyone who hasn't see. It before. IMDb chill with the character minimum.

How I Miss Frankie Laine

[bkoganbing · 8/10 · 7 September 2007]

It seems as though back in the fifties every other western seemed to have Frankie Laine singing the theme song. The 1957 version of 3:10 to Yuma is one of my favorite westerns. Part of the reason is that theme which echoed through out the film.

What I liked about 3:10 to Yuma is that the hero/protagonist is an ordinary man trying to support his wife and two sons through some very hard times. When a killer is caught and because he needs the money he agrees to help transport him to Yuma State Prison on the 3:10 train from Contention. A lot happens between the capture and the boarding of that fateful train.

Russell Crowe and Christian Bale make admirable updated substitutes for Glenn Ford and Van Heflin. Though Ford's performance as the sly rogue of a gunman is good, the previous film was driven by what I always considered Van Heflin's greatest screen role.

The original holdup was hardly the violent affair that this one was. Only one shot was fired and that was by Ford when the shotgun guard momentarily overpowered one of the gang. That's here too, but the holdup itself was taken from The War Wagon.

One part was totally eliminated and that was the part of the town drunk, played by Henry Jones in the original version, who was the only other man to volunteer his services. Jones was killed in a gut wrenching scene then, but in fact my favorite scene from the original was when Heflin's wife Leora Dana pleads with him to let Ford go, he responds with a heartfelt speech about how he couldn't look himself in the face after the sacrifice the town drunk made. I've seen the 1957 version dozens of times and am never failed to be moved by that scene.

In its place the part of the oldest son is built up and conversely the wife's part is cut down. Young Logan Lerman plays the older son who tags along after the group taking Crowe to Contention. Lerman is 14 and he and Bale have the usual father/son issues. Lerman feels his Dad to be a failure with things going so wrong against them. Bale and he bond during the shared experience and you know no matter what the outcome of things, he'll leave a good legacy for his children.

The usual tension between Bale and Crowe is present as it was in the original when Ford kept trying to bribe Heflin. Added to this is a whole lot of violence, most of it started by Ben Foster who's part as the young punk outlaw in the original was played by Richard Jaeckel. Foster is one murderous thug in this film, only Crowe is able to keep him somewhat in line.

The characterization is still there, the violence is expected in this day and age even though a lot of it is gratuitous. This version of 3:10 to Yuma is fine, but it can never take the place of the original in my affections.

This review is dedicated to young Harve Stewart of Stephenville, Texas and one of the Professional Bull Riders best young stars. I saw an interview with him where he mentions this is a film he likes. I liked it too, but I would commend him to watch the original 3:10 To Yuma which is just one of the best western dramas ever made. It was out in 1957 and I was 10 years old at the time. I'm old enough to be Harve's grandfather and I'm sure back in the day 3:10 To Yuma was enjoyed by his real grandparents in the theater.

A Solid Modern Western With Incredible Performances By Russell Crowe And Christian Bale, But It Suffers From Wayward Screenplay

[dommercaldi · 6/10 · 18 March 2021]

Pros: 1. The score, specifically the violin plucking and the acoustic guitar strumming, helps to harden the tension. 2. Russell Crowe (Ben Wade), as a cold, calculating serial killer and Christian Bale (Dan Evans) as a stoic and determined husband and father, deliver fantastic performances. 3. The violence is gritty and uncompromising, particularly as the unwavering close-ups force you to take it all in. 4. The editing adds a lot of vibrancy and kinetic energy to the action scenes. 5. The brilliant costume design mirrors the differing personalities and socio-economic statuses. For example, Ben Wades' illustrates his darkness and proclivity for style and flashiness, whilst Dan Evans' demonstrates his poor, dogged and plain sensibilities. 6. The cinematography, especially for the action scenes, is great. It does a good job of mixing between close-ups and shaky cam to slow and quicken the pace when needed.

Cons: 1. There are a couple plot inconsistencies and illogical happenings: A) In the beginning heist scene, why does Ben Wade send four of his men to die, when he could have just used the cattle - as he ended up doing? B) After the heist, Ben Wade and his gang leave Byron McElroy (Peter Fonda) alive even though it's established that they hate having loose ends. 2. Most of the characters are not well fleshed out at all, so a lot of their deaths feel empty and hollow. 3. The score is at times needlessly overused. 4. The film never explains why Ben Wade was so careless in the beginning by getting himself caught, or why he only tried to escape once on the trek to the 3:10 train to Yuma.

Saw First Preview

[poopy · 10/10 · 19 June 2007]

Just saw the first preview for this, and it was absolutely awesome. Most incredible was in a cast including Christian Bale and Russell Crowe, Ben Foster turned out a mesmerizing performance. He owned the screen in every scene he had. I think this is the beginning of a long and illustrious leading man career for him. The movie was well paced with great music and a hint of humor here and there. I loved this thing from start to finish. It was a taught and thoroughly entertaining film. If you like westerns you'll love this. Christian Bale continues to impress me in every role hes in. He is terrific. The directing is masterful, I really enjoyed this, real action packed. I'm glad I didn't have to wait 4 more months to see this.

Good western but a silly ending.

[wg123456789 · 6/10 · 6 September 2020]

The actors, directions, location and story were superb until the last five minutes then it went into bizaro land.

Just awful

[tomcat91468 · 1/10 · 14 September 2007]

I have to think that I am so out of step with the masses. What can others be seeing that I missed. I will say that in the restroom after the movie the other women were laughing at the movie and shaking their heads in disbelief of the hype. There will be many spoilers below. First of all, the acting was fine...that's about all the good I could see. The screen play was illogical. Why would Russell Crow's character continually miss opportunities to escape and the good guys continually miss opportunities to kill the bad guys? Why would they sit around a roaring fire in Apache territory and why wouldn't the Apaches just kill them as they most certainly would have? Why would Russell Crow's character kill all his guys who risked life and limb for him? Why would the writer put a stupid schtick in a chase scene where one character throws an explosive and another character shoots the explosive in mid air while riding full out on a horse? Why would the mine team just stand there and wait to be shot by men they knew to be psycho killers? Why would Russell Crow risk his life jumping over roofs just trying to get to the train? Why would the good guys miss the opportunity to shoot the bad guys in the street with a perfect shot from the bridal suite? How did Peter Fonda recover completely in a 24 hour period after being gut shot? How did Russell Crow's mouth heal completely after being beaten unmercifully by Peter Fonda? Why was Russell Crow's hands handcuffed in front and not in the back? I could go on and on, but I've already wasted enough time and money on this complete mess of a movie.