Ian (Flash Review)Based on the core story as the 1957 original, it tried to honor it on the 50 year anniversary. Again, a local rancher Dan, for the sum of $200, assists with escorting the dangerous and clever-minded Ben Wade to the 3:10 pm train to Yuma to go to trial for his years of robbing and murdering. Dan agreed to this as he is desperate for money to help save his ranch and his personal pride. Will Dan and his crew get Ben on that train? How many will survive this adventure as Ben's gang is hot on their tail? This movie had some very exciting action scenes, a nice constant tension formed the spine of the story and there were frequent morality jabs back and forth. There were also a few moments you questioned why a character did this or that like how a key charter took a bullet to the gut and was trotting on a horse again within hours without a grimace. So if you don't pick it apart too bad, it is a fine and entertaining movie. It was a high quality production with solid acting.

Evan Wessman (CinematicInceptions) This is a great example of how good a traditional raw plot can be. The characters in this movie and the structure of the story are very straightforward and easy to dissect, but it delivers really solid movie. By doing basic things very well, 3:10 to Yuma sets itself apart from all the generic and formulaic movies that display all the typical story tropes by doing all of them very well. This story features a simple through-line: get Ben Wade onto the 3:10 train to Yuma to bring him to justice and allow Dan Evans to preserve his farm. The characters are not extreme in any way, but they are treated with a lot of respect by the writer and that makes them better than most. Plus they get all get really good performances, which never hurts.Although Ben Wade is definitely the antagonist and Dan Evans is definitely the protagonist, the movie feels a lot like a two-hander. Typically movies are about the defining time of a person's life in which they change forever, and that is definitely the case for Dan, but not for Ben. Bringing Ben to justice is the one thing that Dan has ever done that he can feel proud of and Ben almost becomes his ally in this, whether he is actually helping Dan reach his goal or resisting him. In fact, Dan needs the task of getting Ben to the train station to be difficult, because if it is not difficult, then it gives Dan no chance to prove himself. This is actually sort of true of all movies, or at least many, but it is more pronounced here. The events of the movie are not exactly a defining point in Ben's life, but more of a point where everything he has done to that point comes to a head and he is sort of okay with the fact that his life of crime is probably over. He doesn't want to go to prison, but he doesn't seem to really want his band to rescue him that much either. What I loved about his character was the way that he was always able to sort of be in control of the situation and give the sense that "I'm not locked in here with you, you're locked in here with me." And for better or worse, Ben lives up to this badass line better than the Watchman who actually said it.One concept that is intrinsic to Westerns and is very on display here is frontier justice. The fact that the law has a very loose grip on the land means that justice is really in the hands of anyone who wants to enact it. Both of our main characters, and even Dan's son William to an extent, use this to their advantage. Ben and his gang obviously use the loose justice system to run rampant and commit crimes. Dan uses it as a way of doing something noble that matters, as does William. And throughout the movie, there are hints that the justice that Ben is being brought to is not frontier justice in which someone actually pays for his crimes. The railroad companies and such that Ben has robbed from are just removing a threat to their business. I only mention this because I think it adds to the characters, particularly Ben, and makes them easier to root for because they are sort of rebelling against the system in some ways.I would definitely recommend watching this because it's just an all-around solid movie. A lot of times, people say that aspiring screenwriters should study Tarantino movies or Wes Anderson movies or other movies that do unconventional or strikingly different things to help them find their voice or maybe show them how to break the "rules". But I really think this is a better movie to study as a writer: A movie that does nothing fancy but does everything right. I think every writer has a simple story like this in them and if they care enough about it, they can make it as good as this movie is. Overall Rating: 8.1/10.

redpepper987 I'll start by saying there was some good action scenes. The directing could have been better. The plot was decent. I did like Christian Bale and Russel Crowe's characters. Bale's character is a misunderstood father who is struggling to support his family. Russel's character is cold, dangerous, and charming.Ben Wade (Russell Crowe) had plenty of opportunities to escape throughout the movie. At the end of the movie, he even had a few more chances to escape. His gang certainly could have freed him. Instead, they stood there and watched - I mean Dan (Christian Bale) had his back toward his gang. Wasted shot.In my opinion, after Ben shot all of the members of his gang when they shot Dan to death, he developed a change of heart. He liked Dan.

de-andres I sat watching this movie, I had to finish it over 4 sit-downs because it kept offending the viewers intelligence and was drearily slow.The characters are deep and actors portray them well, but their individual actions and motivations are beyond fiction, simply terrible and out of character.Telling everybody involved the whole plan, destination and time is completely no-go and yet its the premise of the main story. They could have made a proper excuse for everyone involved knowing, like eavesdropping or the like. But nope, they just straight out tell it to everyone they know like the have a death wish. I'd be giving this movie a single star if not for the fact that it would ruin the legitimacy of my review.