Metascore
76

Generally favorable reviews - based on 37 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 35 out of 37
  2. Negative: 0 out of 37
  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. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 75
    An extremely well-acted and well-directed remake of a 1957 oater.
  5. 75
    Maybe this redo didn’t need so many bells and whistles, but Mangold brings it home.
  6. 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.
  7. Reviewed by: Ty Burr
    88
    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.
  8. James Mangold directs it with such energy and passion that it's as if he didn't know it's all been done before.
  9. The strengths of the first "3:10 To Yuma" were enhanced by its proportionality -- an intimate story told in 92 minutes. The story is no bigger in the new version, which goes on for 117 minutes. And it's certainly not better.
  10. Reviewed by: Claudia Puig
    75
    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.
  11. Reviewed by: Ken Fox
    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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. Mangold has been smart or fortunate in casting, and personalities sustain interest even when the narrative flags.
  15. 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.
  16. 70
    More likely to be recalled as a moderately satisfying entertainment than remembered as a classic.
  17. The acting is its chief strength. Russell Crowe brings a cocky charisma to Ben Wade.
  18. 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.
  19. Reviewed by: Todd McCarthy
    80
    James Mangold's remake walks a fine line in retaining many of the original's qualities while smartly shaking things up a bit.
  20. 83
    A fine and sturdy picture, capable of standing alongside the many such films made when Westerns were one of our chief entertainments.
  21. A riveting remake of a pretty terrific 1957 western about manhood, fatherhood and honor.
  22. 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.
  23. 91
    The rousing new Western 3:10 to Yuma has the sweep of an epic and the economy of a stopwatch.
  24. 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.
  25. 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.
  26. The remake adds 24 minutes and subtracts most of the suspense.
  27. 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.
  28. 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.
  29. Reviewed by: David Ansen
    70
    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
  30. 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.
  31. A largely compelling ride on the strength of a powerful cast led by Russell Crowe and Christian Bale.
  32. Reviewed by: Richard Schickel
    80
    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.
  33. 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.
  34. 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.
  35. Reviewed by: Glenn Kenny
    75
    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.
  36. 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.
  37. Reviewed by: KJ Doughton
    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.
User Score
7.1

Generally favorable reviews- based on 331 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 83 out of 130
  2. Negative: 30 out of 130
  1. Jan 15, 2012
    8
    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
    7
    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. Dec 27, 2011
    9
    I cant say much but wow. I wasn't so sure about this movie at the beginning, but as it progressed, it drew me in more and more. The star part of this movie is it's ending. In simple words, suspenseful, amazing, beautiful. Dialog may be a little difficult to understand at important parts, but once you go back and put the pieces together, you will quickly realize this movie is a master piece. I got it on Blu ray for 5 dollars. Best 5 dollars iv ever spent. Full Review »