3:10 to Yuma

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... (27/11/2007)

Very well designed sets, with the rough realities of the wild west and everything that belongs to it, and unfortunately also a quite crazy ending, which undermines the whole thing. The last five minutes are truly unbelievable. If the director meant it as irony, then I didn't perceive its sophistication. But if the final confession of the villain was supposed to be sincere, then it was very laughable. By the way, Russel Crowe as a smart bandit is captivating – even better than Christian Bale. The action is relatively dull and uninteresting, with unrealistic shootouts, several obvious dead ends where the heroes miraculously avoid being shot, just like running through a rain of bullets without any getting hit. Alan Tudyk is excellent as a psychopath, his character was absolutely unpredictable. How good of a western 3:10 to Yuma is, is something you have to judge for yourself. Some will like it, some will not. However, it is neither old-school nor renaissance, this product has too many modern, mainstream elements. (18/07/2008)

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. (30/11/2007)

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. (01/08/2010)

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. (13/03/2008)