3:10 to Yuma


Generally favorable reviews - based on 37 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 35 out of 37
  2. Negative: 0 out of 37

Where To Watch

Stream On
Stream On

Critic Reviews

  1. 100
    James Mangold's 3:10 to Yuma restores the wounded heart of the Western and rescues it from the morass of pointless violence.
  2. 100
    The new version is a glorious, thrilling throwback that never sacrifices its solid roots in the western genre despite a sharp modern update that actually improves on the original.
  3. The finest American Westerns have a characteristic that 3:10 to Yuma shares. In a way that's almost mystical, they suggest a truth beyond the specifics of the tale.
  4. 91
    The rousing new Western 3:10 to Yuma has the sweep of an epic and the economy of a stopwatch.
  5. James Mangold directs it with such energy and passion that it's as if he didn't know it's all been done before.
  6. 90
    Mangold has time to build sensational, studied characterizations, brilliant pacing (courtesy Mike McCuster, who also edited the director’s previous effort, the Johnny Cash biopic “Walk the Line”), and blistering action.
  7. 88
    The nerve-racking wait at the Contention hotel is no longer the film's centerpiece, but the deeper characterization gives Bale an opportunity to once again sink his teeth into a complex role, and offers a reminder as to why the notoriously difficult Crowe is sometimes worth the trouble.
  8. Unlike Glenn Ford, a soft-spoken studio star who was cast against type as Wade 50 years ago, Crowe is a perfect fit. Not because of his bad boy behavior offscreen, but because he can blend charm and menace better than anyone.
  9. Reviewed by: Ty Burr
    Both actors are among the best, most intuitively creative we have, and whatever transpires offscreen in Crowe’s case, onscreen they only serve their characters. Neither man showboats here, and it’s a thrill to watch them work.
  10. A riveting remake of a pretty terrific 1957 western about manhood, fatherhood and honor.
  11. What Alfred Hitchcock once said about thrillers also applies to Westerns: The stronger the bad guy, the better the film. By that measure, 3:10 to Yuma is excellent.
  12. 83
    Mangold delivers a taut modern take on a lesser classic, preserving the "High Noon" themes about doing the right thing against all odds, and injecting a more modern pacing and urgency without going overboard. His film isn't Leonard's classic, but it's a solid, genre-respecting Western in its own right.
  13. 83
    A fine and sturdy picture, capable of standing alongside the many such films made when Westerns were one of our chief entertainments.
  14. A largely compelling ride on the strength of a powerful cast led by Russell Crowe and Christian Bale.
  15. 80
    In this movie, Fonda really is iconic. 3:10 to Yuma may be familiar, but, at its best, it has a rapt quality, even an aura of wonder.
  16. Reviewed by: Todd McCarthy
    James Mangold's remake walks a fine line in retaining many of the original's qualities while smartly shaking things up a bit.
  17. 80
    Period westerns are so unfashionable and costly that they usually require a top-drawer script to get off the ground -- and this one, adapted from an Elmore Leonard story and its 1957 movie version, travels with an arrow's clean arc.
  18. Reviewed by: Richard Schickel
    Who says remakes are always inferior to the original film? And who says the western is dead? Especially when a movie is as entertaining as this one, you begin to think this formerly beloved genre is due for a revival.
  19. This film is an example of a Western that ought to appeal to a healthy-sized contemporary audience, and is also a remake of the 1957 film of the same name, which is a hallmark of the type of psychological Western.
  20. This is how a Western today tries to give us more bang for the buck. By working this hard to be a crowd-pleaser, though, it may please fewer crowds.
  21. 75
    The 30-minute finale, which includes a tense stand-off with Ben's gang, is masterfully executed. It's perfectly paced, suspenseful, and ends in a way that's both appropriate and satisfying.
  22. 75
    Maybe this redo didn’t need so many bells and whistles, but Mangold brings it home.
  23. Mangold has been smart or fortunate in casting, and personalities sustain interest even when the narrative flags.
  24. Reviewed by: Claudia Puig
    Captures a potent sense of the Old West with its multidimensional raw performances and captivating final shootout sequence. But with its emphasis on emotional truths, it transcends the confines of a cowboy movie.
  25. While the newer version's darker ending lends a more contemporary twist, overall 3:10 to Yuma is reverent to the original – a few more bullets and more spilled blood notwithstanding.
  26. 75
    An extremely well-acted and well-directed remake of a 1957 oater.
  27. Reviewed by: Glenn Kenny
    In the battle of the leading men, Crowe's character has a slight edge, and the actor really makes the most of it, showing us how boyishly mischievous charm and utter venality can exist without seeming contradiction in the same being. But Bale builds to a pretty impressive boil himself after laying back for about three quarters of the film.
  28. Reviewed by: David Ansen
    What this version offers is the chance to watch Russell Crowe and Christian Bale—two of the more charismatic, macho leading men around--duke it out psychologically, while another fine but less well-known intensity artist, Ben Foster, steals
  29. 70
    The movie's best performance belongs to Peter Fonda. Tough, terrific, and totally unrecognizable as a bounty hunter, this cantankerous old hippie is so leathery he deserves his own line of rawhide apparel.
  30. 70
    Under Mangold’s sure if uninspired hand, the new Yuma is reasonably exciting and terse, and, like its predecessor, built around a memorable villain of ambiguous villainy.
  31. 70
    More likely to be recalled as a moderately satisfying entertainment than remembered as a classic.
  32. 70
    Overall, the picture is accomplished, intelligent and, in places, a little dull. Mangold isn't an economical filmmaker, and parts of 3:10 to Yuma suffer from needless bloat. The new version doesn't use the same kind of blunt, visually arresting shorthand as Daves' original...And yet somehow, maybe just barely, Mangold -- succeeds on his own terms, largely because the actors he's working with here.
  33. As Ben Wade, gang leader and murderer, he gives an ironic performance, but Crowe’s irony is more intense than other actors’ obsession. He turns the idea of having so few emotions--of being beyond caring--into a bloody joke. He upstages everyone with his laughing eyes.
  34. The result bears so little resemblance to the original that you have to wonder what happened. It seems more a remake of "How the West Was Won" than 3:10 to Yuma.
  35. The acting is its chief strength. Russell Crowe brings a cocky charisma to Ben Wade.
User Score

Generally favorable reviews- based on 399 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 75 out of 137
  2. Negative: 30 out of 137
  1. Jan 15, 2012
    Human fleshed out characters with motives and a history to them, even if imagined off screen (that's how well they are written and played).Human fleshed out characters with motives and a history to them, even if imagined off screen (that's how well they are written and played). Excellent performances, quiet moments of reflection, cruelty and understanding, great action sequences and a sly but honest script. You can forgive the somewhat unrealistic ending to quite a large degree if you apply the fore mentioned motivation and understanding.

    Ben Foster deserved best supporting actor for this film.
    Full Review »
  2. Mar 26, 2012
    This review contains spoilers, click full review link to view. James Mangold's remake of the stellar 3:10 to Yuma is a mixed bag - there's some great acting, and beautiful camerawork, but also a fairly implausible script. Christain Bale and Russel Crowe star as a poor ranch owner Dan Evans and the infamous highwayman Ben Wade. Ben Foster and Peter Fonda strengthen the otherwise lacklustre supporting cast, both giving powerful performances. A lot of users have rather harshly critiqued the lack of realism in the script and if it weren't for Bale and Crowe's strong acting the implausibility and holes in the script might have shone through even moreso. For example, the bizarre ending - Crowe suddenly decides to allow himself to be captured, but rather than simply call off his gang he further endangers himself and Bale by being chased by the bloodthirsty gang to the train station. If he was trying to make Bale's character look like a hero, this would make some sense, but then all logic is thrown out the window as he shoots every remaining member of his gang. This really held back the film for me, and I otherwise would have scored it an 8.
    It's a little hard to score 3:10 to Yuma, because there's a lot of conflicting elements holding back the film from legend status, but despite these frustrations it's still a very entertaining watch.
    Full Review »
  3. Feb 26, 2012
    Its something that we've seen before, its almost impossible to have an actor whose so high powered (Crowe) play the bad guy, he can do "bad"Its something that we've seen before, its almost impossible to have an actor whose so high powered (Crowe) play the bad guy, he can do "bad" things but he must always have a reason. Ben Wade (Crowe) is like that he can kill anybody but he's kind of excused because he likes to sketch and has that I'm not all bad look. Its pretty much Collateral but with horses and dirt. Its a remake of an imperfect movie having the imperfections of the original, but with better actors and more emphasis on the journey. There are some shining moments from the supporting cast, but the movie is all about Bale and Crowe. The relationship present is more due to the actors rather than the characters. Bale manages to make Evans very likable as he comes to terms that the journey is for something more than money. Despite all this Crowe overshadows everybody, presenting a character that's interesting and humane. Although the actors have their shining moment, the action is not all that great especially the final shoot-out. Its a shame to see a solid movie being spoiled so late. Full Review »