3:10 to Yuma

A modern form and classic content with a lot of what we call genre clichés. I hesitated for a long time about how to review the film because on one hand, it is heavily burdened by genre myths and the logic of the actions of individual characters somewhat lags behind, and overall it is far from the down-to-earth historical reality. On the other hand, this is a genre that has always been a fairy tale for grown-ups and adults in its vast majority, and it is simply an escapist form of entertainment. If we consider it that way, then James Mangold and the present actors certainly did not disgrace themselves. The individual opponents have charisma and the characters are convincingly portrayed. Moreover, the dialogues, when I disregard that logic, also have depth and can be described as a kind of psychological drama. I would give it three stars because, considering what I saw, it deserved more comedic relief, and a couple of times the corners of my mouth twitched due to the opponents' illogical behavior, but I will probably shock and outrage most genre fans when I declare that I ultimately liked this film more than The Magnificent Seven. Overall impression: 75%. (01/26/2011)

Perhaps even fewer good westerns have been made over the past ten years than there are directors of Leone’s caliber walking the Earth. Apart from The Proposition, nothing springs to mind in the new millennium. Until now with 3:10 to Yuma. It’s kind of sad, really, because it is nothing more than “just" a good western. Nothing more, nothing less. Which isn’t to say I didn’t thoroughly enjoy those two dusty hours. I did, even though I’m someone who could’ve done without suffering the last five minutes. I consider the musical theme you can hear in the main menu and during the finale to be the biggest positive of the movie. I listened to it like fifty times already and will listen to it many times more. It makes me want to reconsider the one missing sheriff’s star in my rating. ♫ OST score: 4/5 (09/30/2008)

After a long time, a film where Bale's integrity did not upset me, probably because it was perfectly matched by the integrity of Russell Crowe. But how do you make a film where a good farmer and an evil outlaw stand against each other while maintaining integrity on both sides? Unfortunately, it is not without a certain awkwardness and playing for effect (especially in the end), but otherwise Mangold directed a stylish, raw and attractive genre spectacle. Moreover, sympathetically bearded, sweaty and old-fashioned. (08/01/2010)

A superb renaissance of the classic American western with all the trimmings, including the genre rules (and their weaknesses), that fulfills the meaning of words like honor or principled to the max. Whoever is criticizing the ending so vehemently should watch the film again because that is exactly what the film has been heading toward all along. Crowe and Bale are traditionally delightful, and all the more surprising is Ben Foster's cold-blooded butcher. Mangold has made arguably the best western since the early millennium. (11/30/2007)

Very nice. The writers clearly didn't have their strongest afternoon, but Mr. Director and the main duo thankfully redeem what they can. It's a shame though, I haven't seen a script with this many holes in a long time. Leaving aside my inability to pick up on Crowe's motivation for what he's doing at the end of the film (an effort to explain was made), why, for example, is everyone only fixated on the journey to the station when the villains could (in my experience of other westerns) just as easily have hit the train? Well, whatever... Crowe is talking, bullets are flying and blood is flowing, what more do you want from a western... well, maybe a little perspective. *SPOILER ALERT*: yeah btw I was quite pleased with the death of Dan at the end – finally the death of the main villain, where he didn't have time to spill his entire autobiography and salute his relatives before his last breath. (06/28/2009)