User Score
7.3

Generally favorable reviews- based on 387 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 44 out of 387
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. Nov 13, 2013
    6
    3:10 to Yuma soars.
    The movie begins well and continues to hold the viewers interest. The character motives in certain parts are a bit sketchy, but with that being said the premise and acting are acceptable.
  2. Jun 9, 2011
    6
    Beautifully filmed! This one has a really great look to it on screen. Russell Crowe is great as ever, and Christian Bale gives a good one as well. Still, I found this film slow and tedious. Several parts of the film work, but still something didn't feel right. If you want a lackluster, medium-low grade western, this is for you.
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. Dec 10, 2012
    5
    Great actors bad story, the first time that I saw the movie somehow it seemed like I have seen it before, that was maybe because to me, it offered anything new to the old west movies same thing, heartless assassins, and the unknown guy trying to make some good. Very slow paced and not as much action as expected.
  6. Jun 4, 2011
    6
    In most regards this is a very traditional western. Well cast, well acted. There is a little too much moral ambiguity with a central character, to a degree which for me was not credible. Overall a little lacking in substance
  7. Feb 26, 2012
    6
    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 anIts 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. Expand
  8. Aug 18, 2013
    5
    It seems as though the director was let down by the script. The film has some interesting sequences, such as the stagecoach robbery at the beginning. The two main characters are interesting and we see how their relationship develops during the film. However in some respects the script seems to have been cut and stitched together, there are several events which do not make any sense andIt seems as though the director was let down by the script. The film has some interesting sequences, such as the stagecoach robbery at the beginning. The two main characters are interesting and we see how their relationship develops during the film. However in some respects the script seems to have been cut and stitched together, there are several events which do not make any sense and that push ones imagination beyond the boundaries of a satisfying and coherent narrative. Expand
  9. Feb 16, 2014
    6
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This is a great movie. I love Christan Bale's and Russel Crowe's characters. In fact, I loved all of them. The only one I hated to the core of my body was Logan Lermans character. He was Stubborn...well, that is about it. But he is tooo Stubborn. But that really doesn't matter. His character isn't as bad to where it could kill the movie. The ending was the best! I loved the ending but what I did not like ***SPOILERS*** Was Christian Bale's Character dieing at the end. But the ending was still good. I give this a 6 - 10. Mainly because 2 / 4 of the movie was just talk and riding horses. But again, it was still good. Expand
  10. Feb 10, 2015
    5
    Such a disappointing movie! Two off my favorite actors ever and they are miscast. Crowe and Bale are unable to bring any life to there roles. Director Mangold just paints by the numbers. A better director could have done something interesting with this movie and gotten better performances from his actors. It doesn't help that the screenplay is terrible. It 's one big cliche. The onlySuch a disappointing movie! Two off my favorite actors ever and they are miscast. Crowe and Bale are unable to bring any life to there roles. Director Mangold just paints by the numbers. A better director could have done something interesting with this movie and gotten better performances from his actors. It doesn't help that the screenplay is terrible. It 's one big cliche. The only bright spot in the film is Ben Foster. He is very good and steels the movie. Had the movie been about his character it might have been good Expand
  11. JohnM.
    Sep 14, 2007
    6
    Too violent, too long, implausible ending.
  12. BillyP.
    Sep 7, 2007
    5
    The treacherous ending immediately erases all the very substantial accomplishments in the film. Shame. Go rent the original first at least.
  13. RowanJ.
    Sep 9, 2007
    5
    The acting was solid but the script was DREADFUL... more holes in it than the shot up bodies in the film and that ending??? Save your money and rent "Unforgiven"-- which deserves the reviews this bad movie seems to be racking up. Sorry, just not good -- again, despite many terrific performances.
  14. Eoin
    Sep 23, 2007
    5
    Distracting, entertaining at times, but overall an insignificant addition to the genre, and also guilty of having an antagonist whose unbelievable actions only exist to place twists in the plot. Diasppointing
  15. 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
  16. RickS.
    Feb 20, 2008
    6
    I'll admit, it was a great movie. Cristian Bale was great, whatever. Now that I have that out of the way, I do want to say this, it could never touch the caliber of The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford. Criticize me all you want. There was no powerful cinematography, the script was almost useless, and there are some major pacing issues here. Jesse James may have I'll admit, it was a great movie. Cristian Bale was great, whatever. Now that I have that out of the way, I do want to say this, it could never touch the caliber of The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford. Criticize me all you want. There was no powerful cinematography, the script was almost useless, and there are some major pacing issues here. Jesse James may have been slow, but it's pace was consistent. I'm sorry, but the 3:10 pace is, at one moment ultra-fast, the next, so slow that it puts you to sleep because you are accustomed to the quick pace. However, I did like the storyline and the acting was...good. Can't touch Jesse James. Expand
  17. MichaelP.
    Sep 12, 2007
    5
    Strong acting and competent direction it may have, but from the opening sequence contrivances and absurdities mar the story (Bale's one-legged character running over rooftops is perhaps the peak there) culminating in an ending that is possibly the most implausible climactic change of heart ever seen in a Western or any buddy pic (which is what this is, except the two leads never Strong acting and competent direction it may have, but from the opening sequence contrivances and absurdities mar the story (Bale's one-legged character running over rooftops is perhaps the peak there) culminating in an ending that is possibly the most implausible climactic change of heart ever seen in a Western or any buddy pic (which is what this is, except the two leads never quite convincingly connect--a fatal flaw). Rent "The Searchers" or "High Noon" and skip this one. Expand
  18. 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
  19. 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)?
  20. 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.
  21. RitB
    Sep 8, 2007
    6
    This is a great movie --- except for the last 20 minutes. When the movie ended I looked at the faces of my fellow movie goers as they exited and they all looked as confused as me. The ending was very exciting but also improbable and unbelievable. This movie could have been on par with High Noon if it had a better ending.
  22. MikeN
    Sep 9, 2007
    6
    One liners were a hit every time. Whether being gut shot or burned alive, people were just tougher in the old west. Apparently even cold blooded killers have hearts of gold. I did see some people reload, so I do have to give props there. If you
  23. RalphS.
    Jan 26, 2008
    5
    Your viewer Ed D. has it almost exactly right: it amazes that none of the mainstream reviewers remarked on the extraordinary implausibility of the plot, which weakens the story to virtually laughable. It also surprises me that all reviewers thought Russell Crowe's performance excellent. He came across as Russell Crowe having a great ol' time, not as a 19th century villain. All Your viewer Ed D. has it almost exactly right: it amazes that none of the mainstream reviewers remarked on the extraordinary implausibility of the plot, which weakens the story to virtually laughable. It also surprises me that all reviewers thought Russell Crowe's performance excellent. He came across as Russell Crowe having a great ol' time, not as a 19th century villain. All the other actors were excellent, the scenery beautiful and the psychological play between the two protagonists interesting. The ending sequence between Crowe and his gang makes no sense whatsoever and is utterly implausible. Expand
  24. 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
  25. SteveT
    Feb 2, 2008
    5
    A solid, but maybe a bit slow-moving western, up until the last 15 minutes. The ending is a real head-scratcher and knocked at least 2 points off my rating.
  26. TubbyS
    Apr 16, 2008
    4
    Clever story, good acting, solid themes; but, too many glitches. The film oozes unbelievability from start to finish.
  27. 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
  28. 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
  29. GaborA.
    Sep 13, 2007
    6
    (6.5) This movie simply relies on too much of a suspension of disbelief. The ends each character reaches are interesting and emotional as well as necessary for they are their destinies. However, the means to get to those ends are too defiant of logic both physical and mental.
  30. JudyT.
    Sep 15, 2007
    4
    What was the point? A really bad TV episode of a B-rated western.
  31. [Anonymous]
    Sep 24, 2007
    6
    The ending made no sense at all.
  32. SusanS.
    Sep 26, 2007
    6
    Okay, so maybe like a 6.75. I'll be the first to admit that I went to see this movie only because it was advertised as a western with Christian Bale, both of which I love. I did enjoy this movie a good bit, but also found it too predictable (even beyond my large tolerance of predictability) and preachy, and much of the dialog was just wretched. Fortunately, there's not much Okay, so maybe like a 6.75. I'll be the first to admit that I went to see this movie only because it was advertised as a western with Christian Bale, both of which I love. I did enjoy this movie a good bit, but also found it too predictable (even beyond my large tolerance of predictability) and preachy, and much of the dialog was just wretched. Fortunately, there's not much dialog. The landscape was beautiful (the plains of "Arizona"), and the acting was more than passable--Bale and Russell Crowe do their jobs well, and most of the supporting cast were enjoyable, particularly Ben Foster as Charlie Prince. I wish the morals of the movie had remained more ambiguous, like in old westerns, but I guess that doesn't happen anymore in big budget Hollywood. Not a bad way to spend two hours, but don't spend the ten dollars to see it--wait till the dollar theater, or if you've got a large flat-screen, for the DVD. 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.