3:10 to Yuma - Review

Comment on “3:10 to Yuma”

Note: This website is not intended for use by minors. The views expressed in this comments section are not necessarily our own. Comments that we deem to be poorly worded, off topic, or threatening will not be published. For free, uncensored discussion visit our forum.

1. Luminella Says:
   August 20th, 2007 at 21:06

   OOOOHHHH! I can hardly wait for this movie! I've been a Russell Crowe fan for many years, and it's so great to be hearing so many NICE things being said about him in this film! Only two weeks, and four days to go!

1. striderdemme Says:
   August 21st, 2007 at 00:55

   Awesome. Being a fan of Crowe, Bale, and especially, James Mangold, I've been looking forward to this for a long time. Glad you liked it!

1. diztrek Says:
   September 3rd, 2007 at 20:25

   We saw this last night and I was slightly disappointed, not so much with the performances but with dialog and overall direction of the movie. The original with Glen Ford and Van Heflan is a much better movie and much more believeable.

1. logan lover terri <3 Says:
   September 5th, 2007 at 15:15

   I cant wait till I can see this.
   WOOP!! Logan lerman is sooooo hot!!!
   I cant wait to see him in action again :D
   
   It's gunna be awesome I can sense it!

1. Tim Says:
   September 9th, 2007 at 12:24

   Excellent movie by itself. Relative to all the other total trash around, it would rate ten stars. I should think it will get at least 3 award nominations: picture, actor (Crowe) , supporting actor (Foster). The thinking man's western. Crowe's acting is sublime.

1. Jeri Saboe Says:
   September 9th, 2007 at 20:39

   My husband and I are big Russell Crowe fans and were anxiously awaiting this movie. The actors, scenery, and photography were all excellent, but.... it is a bit hard to get past the sophisitcated movie goers of 2008 with the mentality of a 1957 movie. Countless times you had to ask yourself, why is Jack Web, the prisoner, able to have his hands free at all times (like why didn't they tie his hands behind his back?), he talked too much (so why didn't they stick something in his mouth and gag him?), and why oh why did no one shoot him or his gang the multiple times they had an easy chance? I don't believe the characters were developed enough or we weren't allowed to get acquainted with their inner thoughts for the end to be as satisfying as it might have been.

1. harry georgatos Says:
   September 10th, 2007 at 22:55

   This is a standard assembly line pulp western that Hollywood used to make in the 50's and 40's. It seems like it came straight out of a factory line of formula driven movies within the western genre. Still there are worthy moments in the movie that make it stand out. Give me "Silverado" any time of the day.

1. Jerry wray Says:
   September 13th, 2007 at 22:05

   What a disappointment! Three quarters of the time the screen was filled with gigantic close-ups of the faces, with almost no even cursory looks at the surroundings. When the Apaches attacked, had to laugh at the stupidity displayed when western range men stood up front of the fire so that they were perfectly situated to be killed. And when the guns were blazing the citizens were still sitting in their chairs and walking around the railroad depot. A great waste of acting talent by a director who has not the least clue of how to make anything but an artsy movie. Too bad he couldn"t just tell the compelling story, but had
   to "enhance" it with endless close-ups and poor camera work. He should rent "Bad Day at Black Rock" to see how it was done right. I rate it a 2 out of 10. Save your money.

1. Bryan Says:
   September 19th, 2007 at 13:59

   This is a terrific remake, a rarity. It deals with the characters effectively, expands the story in the right ways, and is a treat to watch.
   
   The ending makes perfect sense if you pay attention to the exchanges between the lead characters. Wade comes to admire the tenacity and dignity of his adversary, sees his son as himself years ago, and sees his gang through the eyes of the boy he once was. That is why he takes the action he does. In my opinion, that was quite plausible given his displayed abilities throughout the film. (I might be a bit vague here, but I don't want to give away the ending to those who have not seen the film).
   
   "3:10 to Yuma" is among the best Westerns of recent years, including "Open Range," "The Three Burials of the Melquides Estrada" and "The Proposition." Looking forward to "The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford" starring Brad Pitt and Casey Affleck.

1. braedan Says:
   October 5th, 2007 at 16:49

   Very good movie, saw it yesterday, I would give it 5 stars no problem, a must see.

1. Deb Says:
   October 20th, 2007 at 11:51

   It was fun to watch up until the final scene when Ben Wade suddenly decides he's going to help Dan Evans put him on the train. I don't know if the fault was the script, the actors, or the director, but it seemed such a sudden switch in character that I asked the person next to me, "What is he doing? Why is he doing that?" It was a pretty good story up to that point. Christian Bale was actually believable as a western rancher, but Russell Crowe? He didn't seem at all believable as a western man. He just seemed out of place.

1. Mauz Says:
   January 12th, 2008 at 02:54

   Alright, So I rented this movie and I sat down to watch it, I have to admit that I wasn't anticipating its release too intensly but I was pretty stoked when I popped it into the dvd player....
   
   im gonna jump straight to the point on this one, the acting was good(not great) and dispite the fact that I really like christian bale and russel crowe's acting (and they DID do a good job on this one) the movie totally sucked donkey balls. everyone you want to root for chumps out....
   its ghey.

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Security Code (required)