3:10 To Yuma Reviews

brokeback mountain had tougher cowboys than this film

1 not a western

2 badly acted

3 russel crowe played a soft outlaw who was sensitive and caring.

4 any action was overcome by the strange story line

[Highly rated reviewer]

3:10 To Yuma

Few things make me more concerned for the future of cinema than the all-pervasive trend for remakes currently sweeping Hollywood. Okay so there’s the odd good one but for every Dawn of the Dead there’s a Black Christmas, and a Hitcher, a Fog and… you get the point. So we arrive at the question of what the hell I’m doing at the screening of a remake, of a Western (a genre I’ve no time for) or indeed at a film starring Russell Crowe (who, LA Confidential aside, I’ve never liked in a movie, ever). I can’t really give you an answer other than ‘It was what was on’ but I’m glad I did sit down for this one, as it was one of the biggest and best surprises that 2007 has yet offered up at the movies.

This is an old fashioned oater, drawn from a short story by Elmore Leonard.

Crowe plays Ben Wade, an outlaw finally captured and headed to the titular train for transportation to prison and then the gallows. Bale is Dan Evans, a farmer who volunteers to join the party escorting Wade because he needs the reward money to keep his land. The party make their two-day journey, pursued by Wade’s gang now led by Charlie Prince (Foster).

Christian Bale is one of the most versatile actors in the world right now and even when he’s in a film I’m not overly keen on Bale is always good value. 3:10 provides his best performance in a good while. He reveals Dan slowly, building each new scrap of information into a complex, real and utterly compelling character. Crowe is also excellent. I’ve been used to seeing him coast but here he brings real progression to Wade’s character. The scripted change in the man could easily have been forced but Crowe makes it feel organic and his chemistry with Bale works beautifully, giving the film a rock solid centre.

Among a clutch of great supporting performances it is well worth singling out Ben Foster’s sociopathic Charlie Prince. I only previously know Foster from the guiltiest of pleasures; Get Over It so to see him disappear behind an untidy beard and create one of the out and out scariest, most hateable screen villains of recent times was a real shock. It’s a career maker. There’s also nice work from 15-year-old Logan Lerman as Bale’s son.

Mangold, together with his regular cinematographer Phedon Papamichael, has created a great looking film. There’s a dirty realism to everything even as the film captures the gorgeous locations. It’s kinetic too, the action beats come pretty thick and fast and are varied, exciting and visceral. There are stand out moments right from the start when a robbery establishes that Ben Wade is not one of those villains with a well hidden heart of gold to the near unbearably tense final shootout as Dan escorts Wade to the 3:10 to Yuma. This is the antithesis of Shoot ‘Em Up. Everyone that dies here is a real person, each bullet has consequences and the business of killing is never fun.

3:10 To Yuma is a great film, and yet more evidence that James Mangold is a consistent talent who is able to bring expertise to just about any genre.

[Highly rated reviewer]

The Western is back..with a bang (well several actually).

Not since Clint and Eli Wallach wore chaps has there been a better cowie film, I'm saddle sore just from the seat edge action watching this. In any case, regardless of it being a western, this is a really good story, an excellent chase, and a superb shoot em up. To be honest my partner doesn't like westerns, but thought this was a really great film, it is definately worth a watch. In addition Christian Bale and Russel Crowe are on top of their game, and must definately be a couple of the best screen actors around right now. l would saddle up and ride to dodge if you have to, to catch this one.

Almost

First up, I can't really fault the acting at all, Christian Bale delivers probably the best performance in this film, letting his character develop slowly into a fully rounded character. Even Russell Crowe is a lot more restrained than some of his other films, and is probably the best performance I've seen him deliver since LA Confidential. I really wanted to like this film, but it ended with me feeling very underwhelmed by it all. It has all the ingredients to make a near perfect film, but somehow manages to throw away all the tension and character development in the last 15 minutes. It just doesn't equal the sum of it's parts. A seriously missed opportunity to make a great film, which is probably why I've marked it so harshly.

I'd recommend watching nevertheless and making your own mind up.

Pretentious Western

AVOID AT ALL COST.

A very poor remake, with none of the promise that the original had, and a snail like pace. Not a 'western' in the true sense, but a failed thriller clasping to the reputation of the original, and failing miserably to deliver in style or cohesion.

[Highly rated reviewer]

3:10 to Yawnnnnnnnn!

Boring, boring boring.

Sorry but I felt the punch at the end was mediocre and the rest of the story just couldn't go anywhere other than along the same predictable track of the inevitable train!

Predictable Western

Bad guy becomes good guy. Weak guy becomes strong guy. Along the way good, bad, weak and strong guys get killed in order to effect this transition - very predictable - worse than many 'B' Westerns of the 50's and 60's.

Excellent-add it to your list

Thoroughly enjoyable film, traditional western, great story line keeps you watching throughout, would definitely recommend to all.

Risible incoherent mess

This film treats its audience as if they are stupid e.g. a man is shot in the stomach then is dragged ten miles to a doctor, has the bullet extracted and within a half a day is riding without as much as a grimace; then another character we are told has a wooden leg -and early in the film he uses a rifle as a crutch - but two days later he is running without a crutch or a limp and leaping off tall buildings with no ill effect - can you image what a wooden leg would do to the leg stump when it hit hard ground?

The ending is ludicrous or comical depending on your point of view. Why did the makers not spend money on the story and make it coherent?

Russell Crowe almost reprises his role in Gladiator performing amazing feats of daring do - I was so disappointed he did not wrestle a grizzly or a mountain lion - they would have had no chance. Christian Blale is OK in an underwritten role (as are all the other parts) which leaves the film unbalanced.

The film has gratuitous violence aplenty and loads of people are gunned down - at a guess 40+ often for no rhyme or reason except it takes up film space.

This is meant to be a remake but the original is better - by how much? I suggest you stretch your arms as wide as possible and from the extreme fingertips of one hand to the extreme fingertips on the other hand that is how much better the original is than this dreadfull rubbish. I recommend you see the original if you want to see a good western.

The only good things are the hat that Crowe wears and the 10 gallon hat one of the sheriffs wears.

[Highly rated reviewer]

Charismatic leads distinguish what is otherwise a solid but unremarkable western.

Dan Evans, a desperately poor farmer and US Civil War veteran, is on hand at the capture of outlaw Ben Wade and joins the posse that will take him to the eponymous train and gaol for $200- enough to get him out of debt and his farm back on its feet. Wade's gang is after them and Wade is just as tricky as everyone thinks but Evans' principles drive him harder than the reward.

A remake of a 1957 film this has the hallmarks of more recent horse operas. Like the classics the story is strong but straight-forward but life for its characters is hard, the law often ineffectual and the authorial attitude cynical, not without reason given the history of the West. Thus this is not quite a simple tale of black hats and white hats although Wade does indeed have a black hat which is even mentioned during a shoot-out in what may be a knowing nod to genre convention. Or not. Wearing that hat is Russell Crowe who has his cake and eats it portraying his cold blooded killer as a charmer with a twinkle in his eye even as he assures others, and later proves, that he deserves his reputation. Christian Bale is more consistent in the less showy role of the beleaguered farmer who's gotta do what a man's gotta do. Evans has seen enough violence but his distaste for it should not be mistaken for cowardice.

James Mangold draws good performances from his cast, as one would expect after Walk the Line, and the Bale-Crowe double act is entertaining. Ben Foster, as Wade's second in command, gives the film a proper black-hearted bad guy and Peter Fonda strikes sparks with Crowe as a veteran bounty hunter. Mangold makes good use of the scenery, a crucial component of any western and does a fair job of the action especially the opening stagecoach robbery. What he can't quite pull-off is the climax- Wade's grudging respect for Evans is believable but his motivation in the last reel is, frankly, baffling.

Worth seeing if you like a good western and for its lead performances in spite of its reluctance to give Crowe an out-and-out villain to play but the ending just doesn't hold together.