User Score
7.2

Generally favorable reviews- based on 378 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 44 out of 378
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Jan 2, 2015
    4
    I found this film not bad, but just pretty underwhelming. Performances are best by Russel Crowe, with Christian Bale doing fine in his role but not being a conflicted character he is meant to be believably. The morals behind all of Crowe's actions seem a little twisted really, and you're still not really concices you should like him towards the end. There isn't that many real western fightI found this film not bad, but just pretty underwhelming. Performances are best by Russel Crowe, with Christian Bale doing fine in his role but not being a conflicted character he is meant to be believably. The morals behind all of Crowe's actions seem a little twisted really, and you're still not really concices you should like him towards the end. There isn't that many real western fight scenes in the film which is what i was looking forward to about this, it tries to become over sentimental. A fine enough film to watch but you shouldn't feel bad if you miss it. Expand
  2. Mar 6, 2015
    4
    Fun cast...short movie.....once again we have a cuckold type scenario here in the beginning...we even see a woman that looks like the wife with Wade...The end is pretty enticing.....The rest is well shot and its fun but its not so much that I can easily watch it three times .....The problem with this movie is that its not as fun as you think it will be....I don't think that's the moviesFun cast...short movie.....once again we have a cuckold type scenario here in the beginning...we even see a woman that looks like the wife with Wade...The end is pretty enticing.....The rest is well shot and its fun but its not so much that I can easily watch it three times .....The problem with this movie is that its not as fun as you think it will be....I don't think that's the movies message on adventures either.... Expand
  3. Feb 24, 2014
    3
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I like westerns, and I like modern westerns. I like the dust and sweat and the "hard" men, following in the footsteps of Eastwood's High Plains Drifter. This film is good to look at and has all the makings of a good movie, but the way the characters behave just become more and more unbelievable until in a climax of illogic for both the characters and the audience we are supposed to suddenly find Ben Wade a likeable chap, and he is expected to kill the remnants of his gang with a sparkle at his eye teeth.

    How many times were the good guys to let Wade kill one of there number without doing anything about it? Every time. How often was Dan Evans going to turn his back on Wade without being killed? Innumerable times. And why oh why, in one of the final scenes when the baddies are all lined up in the street like ducks at a fair, and they kill the unarmed Sheriff and all his men, and Dan is a sharp shooter and has his rifle in an upstairs window, why does he just sit there and let it happen? No idea.

    Lucky to get a three score really. That's for the grime and sweat :)
    Expand
  4. BrianF.
    Mar 31, 2008
    0
    Absolutely ridiculous all the way through. From the needlessly bloody and ill-handled stagecoach robbery, to the mind-numbingly insipid ending, the entire film was an exercise in credulity assault. The bad guy escapes as often as he wants and kills as he goes because his captives mindlessly do not secure him, outside of some handcuffs. Sharpshooters are killing moving stagecoach drivers Absolutely ridiculous all the way through. From the needlessly bloody and ill-handled stagecoach robbery, to the mind-numbingly insipid ending, the entire film was an exercise in credulity assault. The bad guy escapes as often as he wants and kills as he goes because his captives mindlessly do not secure him, outside of some handcuffs. Sharpshooters are killing moving stagecoach drivers from improbable distances with deadly accuracy but in the final sequences can't seem to hit the broad side of a barn while standing right in front of it. I could not get past the miserable storyline to enjoy any 'psycho drama' said to be unfolding along the way. Even watching the film for free, I felt violated. Expand
  5. jwh
    Sep 11, 2007
    1
    This movie is a farce. If you are looking for a movie so unrealistic that it is comedic - go see this. Example: a group of lawmen are in an upstairs room looking down on 7 bad guys (all of whom are known murderers) who are ALL LINED UP in front of them, but they don't open fire. Instead, they hold up their hands and walk out in their own straight line so they can be shot down and This movie is a farce. If you are looking for a movie so unrealistic that it is comedic - go see this. Example: a group of lawmen are in an upstairs room looking down on 7 bad guys (all of whom are known murderers) who are ALL LINED UP in front of them, but they don't open fire. Instead, they hold up their hands and walk out in their own straight line so they can be shot down and butchered. It is a movie with NOTHING to offer and the reviews here mystify me. Go rent Unforgiven to see a class act western. This is dreck. Expand
  6. BM
    Sep 14, 2007
    1
    Worst movie ever. melodramatic, non-westerner, nothing to look forward to. Bale and Crowe can't even hide their accents.
  7. DWilly
    Sep 18, 2007
    3
    Oh, Lordy, this is a mess. Mildly effective at times, but jaw-droppingly bad much more often. Ridiculously overrated, especially if you like westerns or what you thought was Russel Crowe's work ethic (he smirks his way, Burce Willis style, through this). [***SPOILER***] Character's constantly switch loyalties without real motivation, Peter Fonda is shot in the solor plexis, yet Oh, Lordy, this is a mess. Mildly effective at times, but jaw-droppingly bad much more often. Ridiculously overrated, especially if you like westerns or what you thought was Russel Crowe's work ethic (he smirks his way, Burce Willis style, through this). [***SPOILER***] Character's constantly switch loyalties without real motivation, Peter Fonda is shot in the solor plexis, yet responds as if merely bothered by a 24 hour flu, Russel Crowe is treated like a prince when he's captive and offered repeated oportunities to kill, one by one, his meaner captors, while the nice ones react with chagrin; at one point the menacing, one dimensional bad guys cluster like a shooting gallery in the open, but, nope, our lug headed good guys don't take a shot, they're thinkin' on what to do. At one point, I swear, I thought a reel had been skipped. You've been warned. Expand
  8. MylesHay
    Jan 31, 2008
    4
    This is a woeful film - I wanted to like it and really thought i would enjoy it. But the story is rubbish and the characters consistently do things which don't make sense - it fails even on the ground of basic narrative plausibility. The acting isn't bad, but that really means little if your characters and events have NO credibility or authenticity. Overall, this film is fatally This is a woeful film - I wanted to like it and really thought i would enjoy it. But the story is rubbish and the characters consistently do things which don't make sense - it fails even on the ground of basic narrative plausibility. The acting isn't bad, but that really means little if your characters and events have NO credibility or authenticity. Overall, this film is fatally flawed by Poor writing and should have never been sanctioned as fit for production. Shame on these critics for praising it so.... Expand
  9. FrankL.
    Feb 12, 2008
    3
    Good acting, but character decisions make no sense at all. Not from objective point of view, and not even from viewing the character development during the movie. Why should Croves character make a turn around ? Only because he saw a father and his kid ? Because he saw a stupid Farmer without leg taking stupid decisions bringing his family in jeopardy ? Nah, I couldn't even say from Good acting, but character decisions make no sense at all. Not from objective point of view, and not even from viewing the character development during the movie. Why should Croves character make a turn around ? Only because he saw a father and his kid ? Because he saw a stupid Farmer without leg taking stupid decisions bringing his family in jeopardy ? Nah, I couldn't even say from whom this western would be likable, but for anyone having a little spirit for a story it certainly is not. Expand
  10. RobS
    Feb 19, 2008
    3
    3.10 to Yuma perpetuates the naive myth cold blooded psychopathic criminals are charismatic, surrounded by beautiful women and capable of becoming good. Having worked in in the criminal law field, I can tell you this is far from reality. Criminals or anyone who's been in trouble with the law for serious crimes are not capable of empathy (their brain wiring is different) or change. 3.10 to Yuma perpetuates the naive myth cold blooded psychopathic criminals are charismatic, surrounded by beautiful women and capable of becoming good. Having worked in in the criminal law field, I can tell you this is far from reality. Criminals or anyone who's been in trouble with the law for serious crimes are not capable of empathy (their brain wiring is different) or change. Furthermore they surround themselves with skanky money hungry women who are insecure (because of their self-perceived ugliness). They have no charm as the only thing in life they chase is sex and money. They are not interested in history, art, travel, or gain any enjoyment in the the world or the human experience. 3.10 to Yuma could have been a great film (beautifully filmed, multilayered conflict, great actions sequences and performances) but sadly it was cliched-bad person gets a conscience. Expand
  11. DavidD.
    Feb 24, 2008
    3
    Fairly well made movie _until_ the last scene, as it totally went against the orginal 3:10 to Yuma movie (rent it) and the character played by C Bale lives (with his wife looking on, no less)! The ending of this remake is absolutely foolish, and the writer and director should be given a 1 year suspension for silly and useless graphic violence for the sake of blood letting. Why not let the Fairly well made movie _until_ the last scene, as it totally went against the orginal 3:10 to Yuma movie (rent it) and the character played by C Bale lives (with his wife looking on, no less)! The ending of this remake is absolutely foolish, and the writer and director should be given a 1 year suspension for silly and useless graphic violence for the sake of blood letting. Why not let the Hero (Bale) live and let the repentant murderer (Crowe) be judged willingly? It is just plain silliness for box office receipts. Expand
  12. ChristopherS.
    Feb 20, 2008
    3
    Pretty awful stuff this. Followed it up with the equally dreadful Michael Clayton. Has American cinema reached its nadir? If not it soon will.
  13. DaveR.
    Oct 1, 2007
    3
    The longer it went on, the more it lost me. Good acting and atmosphere, but the characters made choices that made less and less sense, culminating in an absolutely unbelievable ending, and the pace alternated between being too slow and jumping over sequences and leaving us confused. James Bond can do that stuff and get away with it, because James Bond is a cartoonish character and we The longer it went on, the more it lost me. Good acting and atmosphere, but the characters made choices that made less and less sense, culminating in an absolutely unbelievable ending, and the pace alternated between being too slow and jumping over sequences and leaving us confused. James Bond can do that stuff and get away with it, because James Bond is a cartoonish character and we expect him to be over-the-top, but this lays claim to a more reality-based framework. It's a forgettable diversion at best. Expand
  14. BarfoB.
    Sep 10, 2007
    2
    The first 2/3 of this film were fairly entertaining but the last part made no sense and the climax preposterous. How did the Christian Bale character expect to make it from the hotel to the train station with the whole town gunning for him? Why was the Russell Crowe character assisting him? [***SPOILER***] Okay, the RC character had a change of heart but does that mean he is going to blow The first 2/3 of this film were fairly entertaining but the last part made no sense and the climax preposterous. How did the Christian Bale character expect to make it from the hotel to the train station with the whole town gunning for him? Why was the Russell Crowe character assisting him? [***SPOILER***] Okay, the RC character had a change of heart but does that mean he is going to blow the whole gang away for trying to spring him? I must be dense, but I didn't get it. The whole Chinese rail camp thing was also kind of a waste of time...a sidebar, if you will. Disappointing. I don't understand all the good reviews. Expand
  15. WoodyD.
    Sep 13, 2007
    2
    trite, entirely predictable, and poorly directed. A reel bore. Tried to be a classic western. Tried, without the tension, without the eery awkward silence and slower pace...basically crap.
  16. JohnK
    Sep 14, 2007
    4
    The first two-thirds of the movie is entertaining and Crowe, Bale, Fonda, and Foster are great actors and fun to watch. But [***SPOILER***] as the men approach Yuma the story becomes more and more absurd, and the last ten minutes are an insult to any intelligent mind in many ways. Bale's character shifts motivation (make money, impress son, do the right thing) from scene to scene; The first two-thirds of the movie is entertaining and Crowe, Bale, Fonda, and Foster are great actors and fun to watch. But [***SPOILER***] as the men approach Yuma the story becomes more and more absurd, and the last ten minutes are an insult to any intelligent mind in many ways. Bale's character shifts motivation (make money, impress son, do the right thing) from scene to scene; and the actions of Crowe's character make no sense at all. Major disappointment, especially for fans of the original movie. This movie is much longer and less suspenseful. Expand
  17. Kurt
    Sep 25, 2007
    4
    Implausible. Inconsistent actions taken by the characters. What else? Oh, how about some good acting (Bale/Crowe) mixed with soap opera level acting (Bale's wife)?
  18. BillC.
    Sep 30, 2007
    4
    Remember when Nick Cage made good movies? It's been quite awhile hasn't it? Is the same happening now to Russel Crowe? He can act with the best of them, so what's he doing it this film.It starts out slow,follows the standard 1950's TV western plot, but then goes off the rails with a ending that makes no sense at all. Disapointing to say the least.
  19. RogerD.
    Sep 8, 2007
    2
    This movie was boring and pretentious. It took forever to "start" and once the real part of the story began it moved at a snail's pace. The director loaded the picture with unneccessary quick cutting and ominous close-ups of people's faces. The ending was totally unbelievable!
  20. EdD.
    Jan 22, 2008
    3
    I recall in Network, or some such film, a scene in which a wealthy Texan makes it clear that he is in the market for "big" art. The American public likes big movies as much as they liked big cars in the 70s. This movie had virtually no plausibility, as it crowbarred morality and meaning into coldblooded killers and down and out ranchers. What made it an absurd movie? The one staggering I recall in Network, or some such film, a scene in which a wealthy Texan makes it clear that he is in the market for "big" art. The American public likes big movies as much as they liked big cars in the 70s. This movie had virtually no plausibility, as it crowbarred morality and meaning into coldblooded killers and down and out ranchers. What made it an absurd movie? The one staggering question as to why Crowe wasn't simply shot out of hand and brought in dead; scenes where hugely powerful bad guys wiped out everyone in the vicinity virtually at will ; igniting dynamite thrown in the air with a shotgun fired from the back of a galloping horse; leaving the coldest of coldblooded killers alone with Christian Bale's wife; shootouts of one to 20 or more proportions; a plot which went to ludicrous lengths to wedge Christian Bale into the last man standing role; and the totally unexplainable actions of Russel Crowe as he repeatedly assists his captors and finally gets on the train himself--the movie's makers have failed miserably to make a morality play out of an BIG western. This is a movie that can only make sense as a load of crap sold to a public that demands it, and pushed by critics who don't know what it smells like. Expand
  21. John
    Jan 23, 2008
    0
    This is one of those films that makes a farce of the entire movie review system. It got very good reviews from almost all sources, and it is so horribly bad that I really had to ask if the I had seen the right movie. The acting, the directing, and everything else about this piece of garbage is almost remarkable. Have a clue. those of you who review films. This thing is a very bad joke. If This is one of those films that makes a farce of the entire movie review system. It got very good reviews from almost all sources, and it is so horribly bad that I really had to ask if the I had seen the right movie. The acting, the directing, and everything else about this piece of garbage is almost remarkable. Have a clue. those of you who review films. This thing is a very bad joke. If there could be a rating lower that 0 I'd use it here. Expand
  22. MickG
    Jan 27, 2008
    4
    Great Picture, some great acting by Ben Foster. Crowe and Bale did some fair acting. However, the story is so ridiculous that I have to shave 6 points off it. The logic is absurd. I tried to wrapped my brain around why Crowe killed his own gang at the end. I guess earlier in the movie when he killed 1 of his gang members for not finding the Pinkerton in the stagecoach is why.? In other Great Picture, some great acting by Ben Foster. Crowe and Bale did some fair acting. However, the story is so ridiculous that I have to shave 6 points off it. The logic is absurd. I tried to wrapped my brain around why Crowe killed his own gang at the end. I guess earlier in the movie when he killed 1 of his gang members for not finding the Pinkerton in the stagecoach is why.? In other words, his gang had to die because they couldn't find him quick enough.??? So he killed his whole gang cause a rancher could outlast them for a while. This still makes no sense. And the many times Crowe could had escaped made the movie unbelievable. Expand
  23. TruthB.
    Jan 28, 2008
    0
    Terrible, This movie makes me sick. 3:10 to disloyalty.
  24. DSBelievin
    Feb 2, 2008
    0
    Rented the DVD. I usually find something to like in most movies. This movie, however, actually made me angry several times. It tried to play up reality and emotion, yet the characters respond completely unrealistically. Crowe's character is obviously a charismatic psychopath, yet, all characters respond to him as if he was Yoda. It is insulting to the 'good' characters in Rented the DVD. I usually find something to like in most movies. This movie, however, actually made me angry several times. It tried to play up reality and emotion, yet the characters respond completely unrealistically. Crowe's character is obviously a charismatic psychopath, yet, all characters respond to him as if he was Yoda. It is insulting to the 'good' characters in the film and insulting to the good sense of the audience. Finally, when the film does reveal that it wants to be both drama and action, the action is totally devoid of creativity and is as implausible as a one-legged man jumping from rooftop to rooftop. I hated this movie!!!!! Expand
  25. BobL.
    Mar 24, 2008
    2
    Back in the 1880's in Arizona Territory, people were really dumb. They allowed all of their decisions to be made by moviemakers whose only interest was sensation and bloat. There is little logic in this movie. The shoot-out at the end, while thrilling in a ho-hum sort of way is particularly stupid, as is whoever wrote this and expects the audience to believe anything. If you want a Back in the 1880's in Arizona Territory, people were really dumb. They allowed all of their decisions to be made by moviemakers whose only interest was sensation and bloat. There is little logic in this movie. The shoot-out at the end, while thrilling in a ho-hum sort of way is particularly stupid, as is whoever wrote this and expects the audience to believe anything. If you want a good and thrilling--not to mention realistic--shoot-out, take a look at the ending of the made-for-TV "Open Range." Expand
  26. Aaron
    Apr 1, 2008
    2
    The movie sucked, the critics are pathetic in applauding a film which is riven with plot holes, illogical developments, hammy acting, & a dire script. The film was an absolute mess and boring to boot.
  27. TubbyS
    Apr 16, 2008
    4
    Clever story, good acting, solid themes; but, too many glitches. The film oozes unbelievability from start to finish.
  28. GabeK
    Jul 12, 2008
    1
    I am sorry to say but good acting and visuals do not save a film from a horrible plot. This movie makes no sense. Besides the fact that no one can properly detain a prisoner in this movie, the ending made no sense. This whole movie was laughable.
  29. DaveP
    Feb 20, 2009
    2
    The characters kept making decisions and doing things that just are not plausible! How do movies like this get made? In pre-production does nobody ever say "hey lets change the script to make it more plausible or not insulting to someone with a brain". How does Russell Crowe or SOMEBODY not have a little chat to the director and change a few things so i don't have to roll my eyes and The characters kept making decisions and doing things that just are not plausible! How do movies like this get made? In pre-production does nobody ever say "hey lets change the script to make it more plausible or not insulting to someone with a brain". How does Russell Crowe or SOMEBODY not have a little chat to the director and change a few things so i don't have to roll my eyes and think 'are you kidding me! you expect me to swallow that! Expand
  30. MartinZ.
    Oct 26, 2007
    4
    I'm baffled by the high ratings this has received. Filled with unresolved or unmotivated subplots, cod-Freudian psychological motivations and a level of pointless violence which not only became boring, but worked against some of the weaker elements of plot and character, this is one of the dumbest Westerns of recent years. Worse, it gives in to the tendency, already endemic in almost I'm baffled by the high ratings this has received. Filled with unresolved or unmotivated subplots, cod-Freudian psychological motivations and a level of pointless violence which not only became boring, but worked against some of the weaker elements of plot and character, this is one of the dumbest Westerns of recent years. Worse, it gives in to the tendency, already endemic in almost every other action-oriented genre, towards an endless succession of frankly boring, one-pace action sequences. A waste of potentially fine acting and a solid premise. Expand
  31. JamesL.
    Sep 11, 2007
    4
    [***SPOILER***] I was going to overlook all of the implausibilities in the plot and say that I enjoyed this film, then they reached Yuma and the film was an insult to my intelligence. The whole ending was so unbelievable that it actually made me angry. Crowe bonded with Bale, dodging bullets while Bale runs with one leg, Crowe kills his entire gang, hops on the train, and then the damn [***SPOILER***] I was going to overlook all of the implausibilities in the plot and say that I enjoyed this film, then they reached Yuma and the film was an insult to my intelligence. The whole ending was so unbelievable that it actually made me angry. Crowe bonded with Bale, dodging bullets while Bale runs with one leg, Crowe kills his entire gang, hops on the train, and then the damn train has no guards which makes it even worst. I should have known that the film would end like this when he seduced the barkeep or killed the dastardly renegade Indians by himself.. Sorry but this film was a joke on the audience. Expand
  32. HerbF.
    Sep 12, 2007
    1
    I think I saw a different film from the one reviewed. "Yuma" was as weak as any western I have seen. fonda lives although gut shot, Evans runs on roofs with a wooden leg, and a totally unattractive Bales seduces a gratuitous barmaid. The can-can would have been a welcome break in the absurdity, especially if they were really professional in this one-horse town in the West. Then there is I think I saw a different film from the one reviewed. "Yuma" was as weak as any western I have seen. fonda lives although gut shot, Evans runs on roofs with a wooden leg, and a totally unattractive Bales seduces a gratuitous barmaid. The can-can would have been a welcome break in the absurdity, especially if they were really professional in this one-horse town in the West. Then there is the change of heart in the train station. Yuk. What was it with the Crucifix on the pistol grip? What a total stinker! Expand
  33. GerryK.
    Sep 15, 2007
    1
    This was the most disappointing hyped weatern ever. The end with Christian Bale running like a track star with only having one leg was utterly ridiculous. The ending was along the same lines. Where do these critics get paid from??? It is a real stinker
  34. JudyT.
    Sep 15, 2007
    4
    What was the point? A really bad TV episode of a B-rated western.
  35. StuA.
    Sep 16, 2007
    2
    Poor movie - too long - boring - simplistic plot.
  36. ChaquitaKid
    Sep 21, 2007
    3
    DWilly and many other user critics are correct; there are some movies with events that stray so far from logic as to become nonsensical, this is one of those movies. Characters often react and do things that are 'uncharacteristic' or simply make no sense at all, and that really ruins the movie. Do not buy into the massive amounts of praise this movie has received.
  37. DS.
    Sep 23, 2007
    3
    The real villains in the film are the filmmakers who totally betray the audience with their laughable, insult-to-the-intelligence "plot" developments. You can almost feel the contempt the screenwriters have for the moviegoer in the insane choices made by the characters in the last half of the film. ("Oh, they'll believe anything") [***SPOILER***] Christian Bales's character The real villains in the film are the filmmakers who totally betray the audience with their laughable, insult-to-the-intelligence "plot" developments. You can almost feel the contempt the screenwriters have for the moviegoer in the insane choices made by the characters in the last half of the film. ("Oh, they'll believe anything") [***SPOILER***] Christian Bales's character isn't courageous at the end, he's incomprehensibly suicidal. Crowe's part looks like it was written by his manager. "Yeah, he's a psychopathic murderer who will viciously kill anyone including his buddies, but make it so he's really likable by the end. Oh, and don't forget to write in some love scenes for the ladies -- this is Russell Crowe after all!" Expand
  38. Orson
    Sep 23, 2007
    3
    "Wanted:Dead or Alive!" Somehow, those in this film, those who wrote this film, never got tis message. THERE WAS GOOD REASON for this message - to prevent stupidity from being followed is one reason. This is merely good logic. As an example of motivated drama, this film simply fails. But if you are among the lame-brained who believe the Old west was a lame-brained Hell Hole, you'll "Wanted:Dead or Alive!" Somehow, those in this film, those who wrote this film, never got tis message. THERE WAS GOOD REASON for this message - to prevent stupidity from being followed is one reason. This is merely good logic. As an example of motivated drama, this film simply fails. But if you are among the lame-brained who believe the Old west was a lame-brained Hell Hole, you'll enjoy this vision of excess. As for myself, I just walked out. Expand
  39. TomS
    Jan 29, 2008
    2
    I don't know what movie everyone else saw, this was an awful movie. As has been pointed out, the characters choices made little to no sense. Also, if we ignore that aspect of the film and focus on it simply as a morality tale or something deeper than simply a shoot em up western, the movie is still rubbish. Crowe's eventual moral turn is so minor in comparison what he had been I don't know what movie everyone else saw, this was an awful movie. As has been pointed out, the characters choices made little to no sense. Also, if we ignore that aspect of the film and focus on it simply as a morality tale or something deeper than simply a shoot em up western, the movie is still rubbish. Crowe's eventual moral turn is so minor in comparison what he had been doing throughout the movie that it doesn't really change anything. If you like westerns, and you gave this film anything higher than a 5, please watch Unforgiven and tell me it's not twice the movie that 3:10 to Yuma is. Finally, Ben Foster, Crowe's second in command character, never seemed a plausible fit in that role, and I am shocked that critics pointed to him as a bright point in the film. Expand
  40. AlexB
    Feb 12, 2008
    0
    quite funny to see such positive reviews from the "professional" reviewers. Its really a benefit that their importance clearly diminished in web2.0 times. I read the critics here before, decided to give it a try, and stopped after the plot became laughable at the end. Makes you believe the good writers were already striking when this plot was done. An "user critics" LOL 2.0 to this movie.
  41. LarryB.
    Feb 25, 2008
    1
    Really sad when I compare this movie to the 1957 original version. The original movie was about a man who faced difficulties with dignity and who was loved and admired by his family. The 2007 version was about a man who was basically a loser, had already lost the respect of his family, and who died at the end, for what exactly I don't know. The original had a wonderful screenplay Really sad when I compare this movie to the 1957 original version. The original movie was about a man who faced difficulties with dignity and who was loved and admired by his family. The 2007 version was about a man who was basically a loser, had already lost the respect of his family, and who died at the end, for what exactly I don't know. The original had a wonderful screenplay where not a moment was wasted in excess dialog; the remake just went on and on with silly banter, and nothing believable. Expand
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. 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.
  2. A largely compelling ride on the strength of a powerful cast led by Russell Crowe and Christian Bale.
  3. 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.