Plots(1)

It's the story of Dan Evans (Christian Bale), a down-and-out rancher who lost his leg in the Civil War. With a wife and two sons, he is struggling to put food on the table, and unable to make payments on his land. When the notorious gunman Ben Wade (Russell Crowe) is apprehended nearby, a few local men are needed to escort him to the town of Contention so he can be put on the 3:10 train to Yuma Prison. Few will volunteer for the job, as they know that Wade's ruthless gang will follow them, but Evans sees an opportunity to make some fast cash, and offers to go in exchange for $200. The small team of men set off, and are later joined by Evans's young son William (Logan Lerman), who has run away from home to join them. What follows is a race against time, as the group tries to get to Yuma without the clever and dangerous Wade outsmarting them. (Lionsgate US)

(more)

Videos (2)

Trailer 1

Reviews (11)

Isherwood 

all reviews of this user

English 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. ()

gudaulin 

all reviews of this user

English 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%. ()

Ads

Othello 

all reviews of this user

English 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. ()

Lima 

all reviews of this user

English Originally, I was going to remark, at the expense of some of the responses here, that to complain for the lack of humour in a classically cut western, is like mocking Schwarzenegger for never playing Hamlet. But I really didn't expect that, because the last 10 minutes almost gave me a pain in my cervical spine from shaking my head in disbelief. There was a lot of potential, though, with the fantastically believable realities of the Wild West, the impressive casting with all those unwashed, hirsute faces and two actors (Crowe and Bale) who have the personality and charisma to pull the film to its very… stupid conclusion. What takes place in the last quarter of an hour (the moral awakening of a hardened bastard, the joint escape on the train, etc.) shamefully dwarfs the previous 100 minutes of carefully constructed suspenseful narrative. Stupidity of the coarsest grain, when during the closing credits I was looking to see if the Monty Python gentlemen had contributed their scriptwriting bit to the mill, because in the genre classification here I am missing the word 'parody' next to the word 'Western'. Strong 3* for the first 100 minutes and let's leave it at that, I'm going to pretend I went to the toilet for a very long 15 minutes before the end... ()

POMO 

all reviews of this user

English 3:10 to Yuma starts out as a perfectly crafted Western, but it gradually starts to lose its drive in the second half and at the very end becomes a gooey, overly emotional tear-jerker defying not only plausibility, but also common sense. That’s a great pity. It could have been an excellent contribution to the Western genre, as Russell Crowe’s performance alone overshadows all classic Western actors put together. ()

Gallery (35)