3:10 to Yuma - Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes

3:10 to Yuma Reviews

Page 2 of 28
April 18, 2013
One of my absolute favorites
March 9, 2013
It is quite a good western this, until the last 20 minutes. Not really much of a climax to be fair. Preferred the remake!
February 23, 2013
This and High Noon stand as the finest non-conventional Westerns ever made. This film boasts excellent photography and music, along with some fine performances and a great dynamic between its two leads.
January 12, 2013
Excellent classic Western. It's such a small, simple story, and it's told in 90 minutes, but it's the way it's told that is so spectacular. I've rarely seen so much character development in a 1950's Hollywood film. I also very much liked the performances of the two main characters. Very subtle, especially for that time.
½ December 11, 2012
A testament to classic film making! The black-and-white photography is beautiful and this one sounds great. The story is also strong and a wonderful commentary on a man's heart and his choice to partake in violence!
½ November 4, 2012
Great film had high hopes as I watched and thoroughly enjoyed the remake.
September 12, 2012
You gotta love an old black & white Western!
August 6, 2012
Awesome movie! Definitely a classic western. Highly recommended. =)
½ August 6, 2012
Good potboiler Western! Glenn Ford plays against type as a wily outlaw, Van Heflin brings great depth to the down-on-his-luck rancher. The mind games between the two waiting for a train culminates in an excellent, nuanced ending. Elmore Leonard's original story can be felt in the unique characters and interactions. Great cinematography!
August 6, 2012
More psychological than its 2007 remake, the original is what a good old western should be. The ending is a little too happy and sappy, but everything else is tight and simple. For and Heflin are great together.

Grade: A-
½ August 6, 2012
This 1957 classic was recently redone in 2007 and starred Russell Crowe. The original with Glenn Ford still holds some charm.
June 6, 2012
Although not as climatic, tension building and morally driven as the 2007 remake with Russell Crowe and Christian Bale the original 1957 version of 3:10 to Yuma contains a lot of class. And what amazes me is that it came out in 1957. For the time the script is so advanced it's outstanding. It also looks very modern and easily holds the test of time. This version focuses a lot more blatantly on who Ben Wade is and who Dan Evans is by showing you with actions who these people are in comparison to the 2007 film which they say what they feel and becomes a little more intriguing to who these men are. But this is what to expect for the period of time it was released. The opening song is pretty classy and the film spends about a half hour in a room waiting. If I hadn't seen the 2007 film before hand the tension I felt would have been even higher than I felt but this sequence really gets you into their characters. The ending is actually rather good and justifies the build up which is the best part of the film. It actually helped to explain a lot of the stuff that was only lightly touched upon in the remake. I think Glenn Ford and Van Heflin do a tremendous job with representing the two individuals. Its really a story driven by these two men and 3:10 to Yuma is right up there as one of my favourite westerns stories. It's innoventive and really changes the gear to many other westerns that can resemble each other a lot of the time. Where this film faults I feel is not what I'd call major faults. Soundtrack is pret stereotypical of the the time but can be pretty lame from time to time, as well as Ben Wades love interest being a little to over the top. I like what they do with her and I understand that she is justified to some degree and it shows us a lot about Ben Wade but they knew each other about an hour. I still justify it but it's still a tad over the top to understand how she feels this way and asks a lot of the audience to believe this. The journey from Bisby to Contagion isn't shown at all and maybe could have been like the 2007 version did to represent the trouble and size of the task that was on display. Overall I love both versions of this film, one more than the other but the classy style of the original has a lot to offer.
May 28, 2012
I enjoyed this. It's a suspenseful, simple western with close performances and satisfying action. A nice treat.
½ May 27, 2012
haven't seen...it wouldn't let me unrate it
May 7, 2012
Classic theme and great western
April 24, 2012
liked the new version
April 8, 2012
i was suprised at how good this film was- the story line was strong and the parts were played well.
March 25, 2012
Perfect Sunday afternoon fare. Glenn Ford turns on the charm as a notorious villain caught by a bunch of bumbling Western types led by struggling farmer Van Heflin. The gimmick is that Heflin will get the $200 he need to bring water to his land if he can escort Ford to the train station (going to Yuma) without losing him or getting killed by his 12-man gang. Good gimmick and keeps the film ticking away at a tense pace. (I'm not interested in the Russell Crowe remake).
½ March 5, 2012
Nice story,pitting the protagonist(who isnīt that much of a hero)and the antagonist(who isnīt that much of a villain)in a battle of wits,justifying their positions,why they do what they do.A strenuous moral atmosphere in the room scenes,the "bad guy" charming the "hero" into giving in to his needs and true nature(?).

Good acting from both the girls,particularly the strong wife. A good scene,for itīs theme,in the beginning with the husbandīs impotence,guilt,manhood a weight on his shoulders, interacting with the strong wife,who passively questions his husband?His actions in the face of necessity,his manhood,his power.Would things be different if the rifle were in her hands?If she was born a man,would she make ends meet?The show stealer though is obviously Ford,helplessly charming,the suave bad-boy,the barmaid never stood a chance,and the conversation with the wife at dinner,hmmm...The protagonist is perfect in his role of doubtful "hero",but on a purely technical note,his munchkin face is just too weird to allow for a true acting experience to be had,sorry.

So,good acting,good themes throughout,but ultimately a bit boring,nothing visually great,and a movie canīt be considered good or a classic based on the themes it handles.Interesting, yes,but watching it start to finish you just donīt feel itīs a good or great movie.I could give it a 60%,but not sure and really donīt wanna watch it again!Maybe someday...
Super Reviewer
½ January 30, 2012
Much more human than the remake, I thought, and to the good, it's 20 minutes shorter. I say it's a good thing because this is a movie based on an Elmore Leonard story. James Mangold, in his remake, would do well to take the author's advice and "leave out the parts readers [viewers] tend to skip." I found Van Heflin more intense and more desperate as Evans than Russell Crowe was, and in the role of Ben Wade, Glenn Ford had a bad guy charm that Christian Bale never quite pulled off... as much as I like Bale, he's not really a charmer: as Batman, his Bruce Wayne is off, and in American Psycho, a film I love, you realize rather quickly that Patrick Bateman can't even hope to hide his sociopathic leanings. But back to the film at hand: other than the fact that 2007 was its 50th anniversary, I really don't understand why this one was remade. It's tight and well-acted, and though not a perfect film, it tells a simple story well and is enjoyable because of it.
Page 2 of 28