Reviews: 3:10 to Yuma Poster
3:10 to Yuma (2007)
User Reviews (688)
Add a Review
Leofwine_draca10 January 2015
9/10
A modern day classic of the western genre
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.
26 out of 30 found this helpful
Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
jdesando21 August 2007
Seven/Noon
"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.
358 out of 492 found this helpful
Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Nazi_Fighter_David30 March 2008
8/10
No western, with courageous sacrifice, can be stunning by accident!
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
Wadeleader of a murderous band of robbershad 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
101 out of 140 found this helpful
Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
socrates999 September 2007
9/10
Reminds me of some of the better westerns except with more guts
Warning: Spoilers
ikanboy29 September 2007
7/10
A good movie ruined by a ludicrous ending.
Warning: Spoilers
mstomaso11 September 2007
8/10
Thoroughly Enjoyable Remake of a Classic Western
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.
129 out of 210 found this helpful
Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
classicsoncall12 September 2007
10/10
"You done it Pa, you done it..."
Warning: Spoilers
Tweekums9 July 2019
9/10
A solid western remake
This western, a remake of a 1957 film, is centred on two men. One is honest rancher, Dan Evans, a man who is in financial trouble and fears losing his ranch and letting down his family. The second is Ben Wade, the leader of a band of gangsters, who is captured after a raid on a stagecoach carrying railway wages. Needing the money, Evans volunteers to be part of the group escorting Wade to the town of Contention where he is to be put on the 3:10 train to Yuma. It won't be an easy journey; they will pass through territory occupied by renegade Apaches and have to face members of Wade's well-armed gang who are determined to set him free.
Having enjoyed the 1957 version of the film I was interested to see how this would compare... I think it compares well. The story might be relatively simple but that doesn't lessen the film. It provides several impressive action set pieces; from the stage coach robbery at the start to the gunfight in Contention as Wade's gang try to stop Evans getting him to the train. Despite the impressive action it often feels character driven as we learn more about Evans and Wade. Both are interesting although Wade is slightly more so as there is a degree of ambiguity about the character... he is an unapologetic villain but can be kind at times. The cast is impressive; particularly Russell Crowe and Cristian Bale who are on great form as Wade and Evans. Overall I'd definitely recommend this to anybody who enjoys westerns.
8 out of 10 found this helpful
Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
bob the moo23 April 2008
Doesn't totally play to all its potential strengths but is still a very good modern western with solid delivery across the board
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.
11 out of 15 found this helpful
Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
rmax30482319 June 2009
5/10
Remake
Warning: Spoilers
Smells_Like_Cheese10 September 2007
10/10
Who knew that an Austrailian and a Brit can make such great cowboys?
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
31 out of 49 found this helpful
Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
bkoganbing7 September 2007
8/10
How I Miss Frankie Laine
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.
17 out of 26 found this helpful
Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Theo Robertson3 January 2011
6/10
Dubious Morality
Warning: Spoilers
alexkolokotronis18 February 2008
9/10
A Modern Classic
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.
100 out of 162 found this helpful
Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
claudio_carvalho21 July 2008
5/10
Absurd, Corny, Incoherent and Overrated
Warning: Spoilers
harricks21 August 2007
8/10
An old fashioned modern western
Warning: Spoilers
dfranzen708 September 2007
7/10
Yuma wanna watch this
Warning: Spoilers
Gorbo18 May 2008
1/10
an insult to a film viewer's intelligence
Warning: Spoilers
joiningjt17 September 2020
10/10
A masterpiece of a western a TRUE classic!! Top 5 movie!!
I've watched all the westerns pretty much from back in the day my favorite was high plains drifter, most of the older westerns I had to watch because it's all my dad would allow on TV. So never really was a western fan but since tombstone I've become a fan not if the genre or say but if the characters they have in the west, tombstone was amazing every character in that movie was phenomenal!! This is the same not 1 weak actor every character is memorable and seems like they came right out of a Louis lamour book. I've watched it 3 times now and like any true masterpiece it gets better the more you see it!! Flawless western with flawless performances!!!
5 out of 6 found this helpful
Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
teresa-elbin3 September 2007
10/10
Don't Miss This Movie
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.
329 out of 500 found this helpful
Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
moonspinner556 October 2011
3/10
Begins excitingly before losing steam (and coherency) in the second-half...
Struggling Arizona rancher and family man near Bisbee, deep in debt and about to be thrown off his land, volunteers to join group of men escorting sharp-shooting, womanizing, Bible-quoting gunslinger to Yuma train station for a fee of $200. Elmore Leonard's short story, the basis for the very fine 1957 western directed by Delmer Daves, has hence become a bloodthirsty yarn filled with psychopathic villains, dead bodies, and a runaway teenager. As the silver-tongued killer, Russell Crowe initially appears to be giving a subtle yet sharply-etched performance--but this portrait degenerates as the film goes on, as does just about everything else here. Director James Mangold leaves no western cliché unturned; by the time we get a surprise attack by gun-toting Apaches (whom, we're told far in advance, "enjoy killing"), the movie has spread itself too thin, and all evidence of a suspenseful, character-driven western has been negated. Christian Bale as the rancher has one strong scene discussing the family-predicament with his wife. Most of the supporting players get stuck portraying brainless, mangy people--who tend to fit right in with the illogical scenario. *1/2 from ****
16 out of 28 found this helpful
Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
tomcat9146814 September 2007
1/10
Just awful
Warning: Spoilers
bjxmas23 September 2007
9/10
Shades of gray. The measure of a man and what price he is willing to pay for justice
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.
120 out of 177 found this helpful
Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
real_hiflyer8 November 2007
1/10
Don't buy a ticket to Yuma before checking the refund policy
Warning: Spoilers
robertblanton7 September 2007
4/10
"Ahm gonna keel me sum law-men, Mabel!"
Warning: Spoilers
Load More
HelpSite IndexIMDbProBox Office MojoIMDb Developer
Press RoomAdvertisingJobsConditions of UsePrivacy PolicyInterest-Based Ads
© 1990-2022 by IMDb.com, Inc.