IMDb user comments for
3:10 to Yuma (2007)

advertisement

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 42:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Index

417 comments in total

---

252 out of 316 people found the following comment useful :-
An old fashioned modern western, 21 août 2007

Author: harricks de Canada

I saw this film last night at a preview in the lead up to the Toronto International Film Festival. Having never been a big western fan (with a few exceptions - Shane, High Noon, The Wild Bunch) and having been rather indifferent to Walking The Line, James Mangold's last directorial effort, my expectations were modest, despite the hype that the film has received. But I was duly impressed. The action and tension remain constant throughout but, more importantly, the plot is compelling and the acting is terrific. No doubt many will be impressed by Ben Foster's affected performance as Russell Crowe's loyal but psychopathic sidekick (think Johnny Depp in the Pirate movies) but to my taste it was much too over the top in a cast that offered a number of subtle and well thought out performances.

Russell Crowe is brilliant as the arrogant, amoral outlaw Ben Wade and Christian Bales infuses his role as a beleaguered rancher and Civil War veteran with just the right mix of pathos and dignity. Iy was wonderful to see Peter Fonda be given a role in which he was allowed to demonstrate his genuine talent, much too long hidden away. In my view, though, it is Logan Lerman who most deserves the accolades that will certainly come his way. He plays Bales' teenage son who comes of age in the course of the film. Initially disillusioned with a father whom he sees as drudge and a failure, he eventually recognizes his father as the hero he is (or at least becomes).

Cinematically, this film ranks up there with the best westerns of all time. It is consistently beautiful to watch and captures the expanse and majesty of the American west as well as any movie I've ever seen.

In many respects this is a traditional western (it is a remake, after all). They really don't make movies like this much anymore and it will be interesting to see whether it finds an audience in this era of dumbed down teen comedies and quirky slices of dysfunctional modern life. I wish it well.

---

242 out of 317 people found the following comment useful :-
Seven/Noon, 21 août 2007
Author: John DeSando (jdesando@columbus.rr.com) de Columbus, Ohio

"The boys dressed themselves, hid their accoutrements, and went off grieving that there were no outlaws any more, and wondering what modern civilization could claim to have done to compensate for their loss. They said they would rather be outlaws a year in Sherwood Forest than President of the United States forever." Mark Twain's Adventures of Tom Sawyer

In 3:10 to Yuma, a few references to The Magnificent Seven and the idea of a train arriving at a specific time when good and bad guys converge, as in High Noon, made viewing this Glenn Ford remake from 1957 a pleasant one. And right I was but for even more good reasons.

Not since Unforgiven and The Quick and the Dead have I been as excited about seeing a Western in its heroic and revisionist forms. 3:10 to Yuma is a true Western in the American film tradition about the 19th-century American West: It has clear heroes and villains (and a mixture of those), wide prairies, dirty towns, fast guns, weak lawmen, cunning murderers, kids on the cusp, and women marginalized, just for starters.

Then ratchet up to the philosophical/post modern/post Eastwood reflections on the profession of being a gunman juxtaposed with being a responsible father, and you have an classic angst-filled clash where villain has a wee bit of heart and hero an equal measure of cowardice. Delightfully mix in a certifiable baddie in the Lee Van Cleef/Jack Palance tradition, Ben Foster (Alpha Dog) as Wade's amoral lieutenant Charlie Prince (as in "of darkness"). Best of all, it is nail-bitingly suspenseful and beautifully photographed.

In order to pickup some home-saving cash, poor crippled farmer Dan Evans (Christian Bale) is helping transport murderer Ben Wade (Russell Crowe) to court via the 3:10 to Yuma from Bisbee, Arizona. Getting Wade to the station is no easy task, even for the several deputies, because Wade's evil gang is in hot pursuit and more importantly, Wade is psychologically working on them from within, alternately charming and brutal; just imagine his roguish smile behind an extremely fast gun and unscrupulous conscience.

It's hard to believe a studio could dump such a winner in the dog days of summer. I will say only that if you have even a modicum of respect for this genre, see 3:10 to Yuma and relive the golden days of straight-up shoot-em ups with rough-hewn characters, electric plot, and revisionist attitude about the romance of being an outlaw or a farmer. Get there on time because that movie train goes fast from the get go.

---

123 out of 162 people found the following comment useful :-
Reminds me of some of the better westerns except with more guts, 9 septembre 2007

Author: socrates99 de Champaign, IL

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

There's a scene near the end where Christian Bale is clearing the air, so to speak, between himself and Russel Crowe's character, that suddenly made clear to me what the entire film was about. It also dawned on me that Bale is a bit like this generation's Gregory Peck, only better. He seems able to explore other ways of being on screen without losing sight of reality. That's quite a trick, and key in this film, as it's really all about his character, Dan Evans, a struggling ex-soldier with a family and a marginal farm to take care of.

Courage is the central preoccupation of this film, so it's more than welcome to see it in the film's production as well. There's a sensibility for weapons, dirt, wagons, injuries, even clothing of the period, on display here that's more than just admirable. It makes you wonder why old westerns didn't explore these elements more thoroughly, though I suppose it had to do with expense. But in having spared that expense these older flicks also failed to pull off the kind of true to life drama that this movie manages to delve into.

I also enjoyed the interaction between Crowe, Bale, and his teenage son, William. Though the focus is constantly moving, including generous episodes with a wonderfully nuanced badman played by Ben Foster and some quality time with Peter Fonda and Gretchen Mol, most of the story is in what happens between the ex-soldier, his son, and Crowe's gang leader, Ben Wade. Talk about art imitating life, Crowe is pretty much flawless as the intelligent but amoral Wade.

Don't expect a conventional ending. Think about it after you've exited the theater. Aren't we all a mix of good and bad?

---

155 out of 229 people found the following comment useful :-
Don't Miss This Movie, 3 septembre 2007

Author: teresa-elbin de United States

It's one of the best westerns and best all-around movies I've seen in a long time. That's largely due to the outstanding performances by the cast, ably led by the alpha male, bad guy, Russell Crowe. His protagonist is Christian Bale who turns in a nuanced performance as the down-on-his luck rancher. The scenes between these two men are riveting and a display of acting at its best. The supporting cast are all wonderful and in particular, Ben Foster, Fonda and Logan Lerman as Bale's oldest son.

The action is virtually non-stop which makes for a compelling, exciting story. But what really drew me in were the stellar performances, particularly that of Crowe. He is the bad guy you actually might end up rooting for. He goes from charming to deadly and back again all in the blink of an eye. He carries the film on his very able shoulders, but Bale gives him a good run for his money in the acting department.

This is one movie that any lover of westerns or anyone simply longing for a good movie with good acting will not want to miss. The two hours will go by in the blink of an eye and you'll be wishing there was more.

---

209 out of 352 people found the following comment useful :-
Saw First Preview, 19 juin 2007

Author: poopy de Harvard, Mass.

Just saw the first preview for this, and it was absolutely awesome. Most incredible was in a cast including Christian Bale and Russell Crowe, Ben Foster turned out a mesmerizing performance. He owned the screen in every scene he had. I think this is the beginning of a long and illustrious leading man career for him. The movie was well paced with great music and a hint of humor here and there. I loved this thing from start to finish. It was a taught and thoroughly entertaining film. If you like westerns you'll love this. Christian Bale continues to impress me in every role hes in. He is terrific. The directing is masterful, I really enjoyed this, real action packed. I'm glad I didn't have to wait 4 more months to see this.

---

89 out of 117 people found the following comment useful :-
Just awful, 14 septembre 2007

Author: tomcat91468 de Sherman, TX

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

I have to think that I am so out of step with the masses. What can others be seeing that I missed. I will say that in the restroom after the movie the other women were laughing at the movie and shaking their heads in disbelief of the hype. There will be many spoilers below. First of all, the acting was fine...that's about all the good I could see. The screen play was illogical. Why would Russell Crow's character continually miss opportunities to escape and the good guys continually miss opportunities to kill the bad guys? Why would they sit around a roaring fire in Apache territory and why wouldn't the Apaches just kill them as they most certainly would have? Why would Russell Crow's character kill all his guys who risked life and limb for him? Why would the writer put a stupid schtick in a chase scene where one character throws an explosive and another character shoots the explosive in mid air while riding full out on a horse? Why would the mine team just stand there and wait to be shot by men they knew to be psycho killers? Why would Russell Crow risk his life jumping over roofs just trying to get to the train? Why would the good guys miss the opportunity to shoot the bad guys in the street with a perfect shot from the bridal suite? How did Peter Fonda recover completely in a 24 hour period after being gut shot? How did Russell Crow's mouth heal completely after being beaten unmercifully by Peter Fonda? Why was Russell Crow's hands handcuffed in front and not in the back? I could go on and on, but I've already wasted enough time and money on this complete mess of a movie.

---

125 out of 189 people found the following comment useful :-
Great film, 16 août 2007

Author: AJ de United States

Just saw a screening of this movie in New York. Amazing. Bale continues to prove that he is quickly becoming one of the best lead actors out there. Crowe exudes cool throughout the movie as a heartless, smooth talking, Bible quoting killer. Of course...Ben Foster. Yes. Ben Foster. Welcome him to the bigtime, cause he made this movie. There hasn't been a western with a character so badass as the one Ben Foster plays in this movie. Story-wise, the movie is an opposite Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, with the good guys trying to run away from the bad guys in order to make a 3:10 train to Yuma. What ensues is an awesome movie you wanna watch till the last battle.

---

79 out of 104 people found the following comment useful :-
"Ahm gonna keel me sum law-men, Mabel!", 7 septembre 2007

Author: robertblanton de United States

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

Here is an undeniable truth of movie reviewers: When you really want to promote a movie that's not that good, talk about the great performances of the actors. Then you can praise the movie to high heaven, feel you have done your penance, and content yourself with the ingenuity of your expansive insights. This is the case with 3:10 to Yuma.

So, what's wrong with this movie? Well, let's just look at the last 20 or so minutes of the film:

1. Apparently the bartender/hotel clerk in Contention, AZ, whom we've not been introduced to until this point in the movie, is in cahoots with the bad guys because he make a point of surreptitiously and eagerly directing the bad guys to the location of the incarcerated Mr. Crowe. Why does he do this? Who knows. The filmmaker never lets us in on the secret.

2. Apparently the Neanderthal menfolk of Contention, AZ, are a simple-minded lot who, at the thought of earning $200.00 by murdering the the folks holding murderous Russell Crowe in custody, just can't wait to start throwing lead. "Mabel, Whar's mah raffle? Ahm gonna keel me sum law-men an geet myselves $200.00 dollah cash on that thar barrelhead!"

3. Apparently no one in Contention has a problem with watching their unarmed police force viciously gunned down in broad daylight. After this atrocity, folks continue to wander the streets, go in and out of stores, and continue their daily lives as though nothing has happened. Except for, of course, the menfolk who are hiding in wait for a chance to earn that $200.00.

4. Apparently no one bothers to theorize that when you are firing dozens of rounds of ammunition at two men who are as close together as they can be without being Siamese twins you just might hit the guy you're trying to rescue.

5. Apparently, when Russell Crowe's psychotic gunslinging hero-worshiping gang member finally realizes the implications of the above, he figures he better start shootin' them menfolk he'd promised that thar munny to. Of course, none of the surviving menfolk think to start shooting at him.

6. Apparently--well, you get the idea. In other words, this excuse for movie-making is, quite frankly, stupid! In order to take this seriously, you must convince yourself that the type of behavior exhibited by many of the characters in this film is the way people really act. Whether it be the above examples, or Peter Fonda being shot in the stomach, at close range, having the bullet removed, and then immediately riding out into the desert on horseback as though nothing had ever happened to him, much of this film is just plain ludicrous! By the way, I'm no gun expert, but I do know this: If you are shot in the stomach at close range you ain't gonna be going' nowhere and you certainly ain't gonna be trottin' around on a horse!

The bigger problem with this movie is its message, which is this: People who do the right thing because it's the right thing to do are fools. Good people don't thrive. As Christian Bale says, "I've been asking God to help me for three years and he hasn't done it yet." For those who would attempt to live a righteous, honorable life there is nothing but despair and hopelessness. In fact, at the end of the movie the true hero of the piece is the psychopathic, vicious, murdering Russell Crowe character. And, by the way, this film does NOT retain the ending of the original, so if you were hoping it would, forget about that.

If you see this film, you might recognize material from other Westerns. You have an iron clad stagecoach, reminiscent of John Wayne's "War Wagon," quotes from the Bible, reminiscent of Randolph Scott in "Ride the High Country," the psychological bantering between the Crowe and Christian Bale characters, reminiscent of not only "Ride the High Country" but also of "The Tall T", an Elmore Leonard story with Randolph Scott and Richard Boone, and Christian Bales's cursing teenage son, reminiscent of Ron Howard in John Wayne's "The Shootist."

Your better bets: All of the other movies I named above plus the original with Glen Ford and Van Heflin.

---

68 out of 105 people found the following comment useful :-
Thoroughly Enjoyable Remake of a Classic Western, 11 septembre 2007

Author: mstomaso de Vulcan

Long ago, I saw the original 3:10 to Yuma featuring Van Heflin and Glen Ford, but I don't remember it well enough to compare it with James Mangold's new remake. Instead, my review will focus exclusively on the new film.

Mangold's film is a tense, traditional western based on an Elmore Leonard story. Leonard is a solid writer, and gave the material upon which the film is based enough background and characterization to permit willful suspension of disbelief. Mangold's film does the same. Our protagonist and antagonist are, respectively, Dan Evans (Bale) and Ben Wade (Crowe). Evans is a would-be rancher and family-man whose family is suffering from a drought and a merciless landlord. Evans and his boys cross paths with notorious outlaw Ben Wade and his gang on their way into town to confront their landlord, and Wade whimsically lets them go. But the connection between these two men and Dan's eldest son is far from over. Eventually Dan will accept an offer made by a railroad agent to help escort Wade to a train headed to Yuma prison, while Wade's crew of murderers dogs their every step.

Two performances stood out for me - Bale and Ben Foster (Charlie Prince). Crowe was good, but it's not clear that he engaged with his role with his usual intensity. There are several very talented actors in supporting roles, and they each pull off the transition to the western genre quite nicely (Alan Tudyk, Logan Lerman, Gretchen Mol, Peter Fonda and others). The film showcases the acting talent very well without losing sight of its straightforward but interesting story.

More often than not, good westerns are at least as much character studies as they are 'shoot-em-ups'. After all, it pretty close to impossible to enjoy a film in which anybody might drop dead at any given time without caring about the people you are watching die, or those doing the killing. Mangold achieves this by drawing on the simple strengths of the original material and allowing relationships to dominate both the story's development and the cinematography. For a western, there is a tremendous amount of dialog in this film, coupled with the usual meaningful stares. Wade is so wily and unpredictable that you really never know what to expect out of him, and his crew is headed up by his loyal and equally nihilistic protégé Charlie Prince. Dan Evans is his polar opposite, and Dan's son is an unusually accurate and complex Hollywood portrayal of a teenager. These and other relationships are the strengths and the medium of the film. When the camera isn't being used to build tension before a battle or showing us a gun-fight, it is establishing relationships and character. And many of the characters and relationships we see are surprising, ambiguous and more than a little ironic.

Highly recommended for western fans.

---

42 out of 61 people found the following comment useful :-
Yuma wanna watch this, 8 septembre 2007

Author: Dan Franzen (dfranzen70) de United States

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

This remake of the 1957 oater (that's movie talk for "western") is serviceable largely because of the earnest craftiness of its two leads, who skillfully play off each other in a battle of wills, if not morals. Unfortunately, while the motives of the good guy (playes by Christian Bale) are both noble and realistic, some of the actions of the bad guy (Russell Crowe) may leave you scratching your head, and while nebulous intentions can make for wonderful mystery, in the end you're still not sure why Crowe's dastardly Ben Wade has done what he's done, and what it all means.

Dan Evans (Bale) is a dirt-poor farmer who lost a leg in the Civil War. His farm's about to be foreclosed by an unscrupulous land owner who's taken to damming a river and burning down Evans' barn to force him off his own property. So when stagecoach robber Ben Wade (Crowe) is captured and needs to be escorted to the nearby town to get on the titular train, Evans volunteers, both to gain payment to help save his farm and to save face in front of his two kids, one of whom is sick from tuberculosis and one who thinks his old man is a spineless failure. Saddled by debt and ungrateful kids, Evans' decision and motivation is easy to understand.

Ah, but getting the nefarious Wade to Yuma is going to be a complicated trick indeed, because the rest of his gang, led by Charlie Prince (Ben Foster) isn't going to let their fearless leader be trundled off to Yuma to die. Luckily, bounty hunter Byron McElroy (a gritty Peter Fonda) gets the idea of using a decoy stagecoach to lure the varmints off the trail while he and the rest of the posse, including Evans, schlep Wade in the other direction. The gambit works for a while, allowing the good guys to place precious geographical space between them and the bad guys; it also allows the movie to continue unabated. Because, after all, there are more people in Wade's gang then there are trying to bring him to justice - all they'd have to do is find him, shoot the hell out of the place, and grab him.

Although there's plenty of gunplay and death by bullets, this is much more of a psychological drama than anything else. Wade, as played coldly (but not charmlessly) by Crowe, has two goals in mind: gain the mental upper hand on Evans, an untrained rancher, and gain his escape from the clutches of law and order. Meanwhile, although Evans' intentions are less murky, he's not some squinty-eyed sharpshooter whose aim is always true; he's not an iconic hero who you just know is gonna save the day. Bale is terrific; you can really see the anguish he feels as a supposed failure in the eyes of his sons. In the hands of lesser actors, these two complex roles would have seemed less symbiotic and therefore less sincere. For example, apparently Movie Guy Tom Cruise was initially supposed to have Wade's role; if that had come to fruition, we would have been distracted by Movie Star Tom Cruise, and the movie would have suffered terribly as a result.

But despite the wonderful performances by Bale and Crowe, the movie's shortcoming is that Ben Wade's intentions seem rather inscrutable. I don't mean that they're simply ambiguous (is he going to flee or help the good guys fight off Navajo Indians?), I mean that they don't make much sense. One minute, Wade is all set to get away from Evans and escape to the safety of his gang, but in the next he's actually fending off his gang as it attacks Evans. There's no explanation given for this change of heart, but the new attitude is gone as quickly as it arrives, leaving the viewer a little puzzled. Sure, some may explain this as "Wade comes to respect Evans and so doesn't want to see the rancher killed," but Wade's actions were much more than that. He wasn't just trying to save Evans, you see, he was actively trying to knock off members of his own gang, and the reason for that escaped me completely.

Still, 3:10 to Yuma is firmly entertaining, benefiting from two gritty, believable performances by Crowe and Bale, although it's marred by some unexplained actions on the part of its charismatic villain.

---

---

Page 1 of 42:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Plot synopsis	Ratings
Awards	Newsgroup reviews	External reviews
Parents Guide	Official site	Plot keywords
Principaux Détails	Your user comments	Your vote history