Review: 3:10 to Yuma
Filed under: New Releases, Lionsgate Films, Theatrical Reviews, New in Theaters, Western

After skating the edges of the Western genre for years, with his 'urban Western' Cop Land and his country western-flavored music biopic Walk the Line, James Mangold has finally taken the plunge and made a full-on Western with 3:10 to Yuma, and the result is a success. While very faithful to the 1957 original -- some scenes are actually recreated word for word -- this film is also Mangold's own, stirring up the same ideas he's always shown interest in. If you're a Mangold fan, you know there are shadings of the classic High Noon situation in all of his films, with the good but under-pressure man standing by his principles as he's deserted by everyone around him, and 3:10 is no exception. This time, the good man is a poor, hobbled rancher named Evans, played by a typically dour Christian Bale. Evans is so broke he's about to go under when an opportunity presents itself -- he can make a fistful of cash if he's brave enough (or stupid enough) to walk a notorious and recently captured gangster named Ben Wade to the train station that will take him to prison.
Stepping into the shoes of Ben Wade is Russell Crowe, who plays the part as though he's certain that he's the film's good guy. When the film first catches up with Wade, he's sullen and bored with the criminal life, and prefers to sit up on a ridge and draw pictures of wild life, while leaving the scheming to his frustrated goons. Not that he's a pacifist -- Wade is a man capable of quick, brutal violence (even with a fork), although not prone to hatred or stupidity or any of the other dull characteristics we'd tend to associate with a man who robs and kills for a living. In fact, Crowe's (and Mangold's) decision to give Wade an abundance of good qualities to cancel out the bad ones may be a bit too much at times -- after all, we don't really want to root for this guy, do we? It's always something of a cheat when a movie tells us that the bad guy has taken many lives in the past, but doesn't really show us that side of him during the film.
In order to score the money, Evans must be an armed escort for Wade at all times, and at one point he must even bring Wade inside his home, where his wife, played by underrated actress Gretchen Mol and son, William, are present and can be influenced by Wade's oily charms. In the 1957 film, it was the wife who came more under the spell of Wade, and in this film it's the son who is more of a target. William is more than frustrated with his one-footed loser of a pop and mouths off on that topic several times, (something that screams artistic license since its hard to imagine any child in old-timey days effectively calling their father a loser to his face.) While in his company, Wade appeals to the boy's fantasies of glamorous gunslingers and tries to plant more seeds of discontent in that restless mind. In many ways, Crowe's character has every advantage in the duel with Evans -- he's got the brains, the social skills and the intuition, not to mention the superior numbers, in the form of his gang, which intends to ride to his rescue.
Among those gang members, there's a standout -- Ben Foster, as number two in charge, Charlie Prince. I've rarely seen a more unhinged bad guy in a Western. Prince is so over-eager, so electrified with his mission that we can see almost from the start that there's no true bond of loyalty between his character and Wade, because Wade is too smart to believe all the hype or to take false flattery to heart. Foster's unnerving performance in this film is certainly deserving of a supporting Oscar nomination, although 3:10 to
If there's one noticeable flaw in 3:10 to










Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
9-07-2007 @ 11:57AM
Georgeann Hill said...
3:10 To Yuma is probably one of the best movies I've ever seen. I've seen 96 of the top 100 rated movies of all time. Crowe and Bale are GREAT. Don't miss this film. It's a classic in the in the same league as The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly.
Reply
9-07-2007 @ 2:33PM
Liz Newcomb said...
I agree wholeheartedly with your review, especially your comments about Ben Foster. He definitely stole each scene he was in. His role here is very far removed from Russell, Claire's boyfriend on "Six Feet Under," but he's just as convincing.
Reply
9-08-2007 @ 9:36AM
Lane said...
I've been highly anticipating this for months and my loudest thought on the way home was "Wow, Deadwood set the bar so damn high..."
Westerns these days have no sense of continuity -- some characters bother to use an accent, others don't. Most are curiously well-groomed. Everyone is attractive. Were frontiersmen working from that advantageous of a gene pool?
Not sure if the commenter saying this is among the best films of all time was serious. Not sure if the critics hailing this as the "return of the bona-fide Western" were serious either. Seriously, this "movie" is totally indistinguishable from the lesser western retreads of the 90's, hype notwithstanding. It sits solidly between Wyatt Earp and a made-for-TV Wyatt Earp Earpathon. And I wanted to like it!
Kudos to Foster and Bale though... sorry dudes.
Reply
9-10-2007 @ 10:47AM
DiVAS said...
Great review! yes, Ben Foster, a breakthrough performance. The last act, disappointing. But the first 100 minutes of the movie was so good, it almost compensate for the ending. Well, almost.
Reply
9-17-2007 @ 1:31AM
Tim Daggan said...
This is a GREAT movie, the ending made me speechless. It's just one of those movies that puts a great impact on you, and is one you will remember for a long time. An instant classic and my favorite movie of all time.
Reply
9-30-2007 @ 5:52PM
Doug Mattingy said...
It seems I've added something or totally missed something, but the reviews I've read don't seem to reflect the film I saw. It seems to me that Mangold made a smart spoof of westerns, pushing the form in very funny directions, over-the-top violence, lines dripping with camp, etc. Or he made a cliche ridden remake not worth the time it took to watch it. I prefer to think it is the former; a laughed like hell at a lot of these scenes that you knew Mangold was throwing back in our faces...like at the end: suddenly he turns good guy and climbs onto the train to prison (inexplicable) but then (like the most hackneyed of the old TV westerns) whistles for his horse!! Come on! That's pure spoof! Gotta be!
Reply
10-23-2007 @ 11:41AM
Ashogo said...
@Doug Mattingy-
I'm not sure why you don't think the ending made sense. Wade didn't really just suddenly turn pure "good" at the end of the film. We had been seeing signs of his real character throughout the movie, that he is not some sociopath killer and that he just lives based on his ideals like any other man. Evans influenced and gained his respect, which is why he did what he did. Wade boarded the train so that Dan's family would recieve their pay, but the calling of his horse makes it pretty obvious that he intends to escape, like he has done twice before.
Reply