3:10 to Yuma

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. (12/03/2008)

I think the only thing I’ve watched less than western is Japanese anime, so I can’t evaluate this film objectively within the genre, but what I can say is that, up until a certain moment, I was so immersed that I was considering the highest rating, mostly thanks to the performances of the trio Crowe, Foster, and Bale. But that ending! It’s the biggest WTF I’ve seen in a long time. From the moment of the dialogue in the hotel room, when I first realised where things were heading, I hoped that it would turn out differently. Unfortunately, it didn’t and Yuma lost all its credibility and seriousness, which brought the rating to an average three stars. It’s a shame. (01/12/2008)

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 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. (28/06/2009)

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)