Generally favorable reviews - based on 37 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 35 out of 37
  2. Negative: 0 out of 37
Watch On
  1. 91
    The rousing new Western 3:10 to Yuma has the sweep of an epic and the economy of a stopwatch.
  2. 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.
  3. 100
    James Mangold's 3:10 to Yuma restores the wounded heart of the Western and rescues it from the morass of pointless violence.
  4. 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.
  5. Reviewed by: KJ Doughton
    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.
  6. James Mangold directs it with such energy and passion that it's as if he didn't know it's all been done before.
  7. 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.
  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. A riveting remake of a pretty terrific 1957 western about manhood, fatherhood and honor.
  10. 83
    A fine and sturdy picture, capable of standing alongside the many such films made when Westerns were one of our chief entertainments.
  11. 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.
  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. Reviewed by: Ken Fox
    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.
User Score

Generally favorable reviews- based on 378 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 85 out of 135
  2. Negative: 30 out of 135
  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 »