3:10 to Yuma (1957)

95% of critics liked it
(22 reviews)
72% of users liked it
(8,341 ratings)

Desperate for money, frontier rancher Van Heflin holds outlaw Glenn Ford at gunpoint, intending to collect the $200 reward. While both men await the train to Yuma that will escort Ford to prison, the cagey outlaw offers Heflin $10,000 if he'll set Ford free. The rest of the film is a sweat-inducing… More Desperate for money, frontier rancher Van Heflin holds outlaw Glenn Ford at gunpoint, intending to collect the $200 reward. While both men await the train to Yuma that will escort Ford to prison, the cagey outlaw offers Heflin $10,000 if he'll set Ford free. The rest of the film is a sweat-inducing cat-and-mouse game between captive and captor, interrupted with bursts of violence from both Ford's gang (commandeered by Richard Jaeckel) and the vacillating townsfolk. 3:10 to Yuma is one of the best of the character-driven "psychological" westerns of the 1950s. Its only flaw is Ford's unconvincing character turnaround towards the end. ~ Hal Erickson, Rovi

Play Trailer

Rating, Runtime: Unrated, 1 hr. 32 min.
Directed By: Delmer Daves
Written By: Halsted Welles
Genres: Western, Drama, Classics

In Theaters: Aug 7, 1957 Wide
On DVD: Apr 2, 2002
Studio: Columbia Pictures

Critic Reviews

Variety Staff, Variety
That the climax fizzles must be laid on doorstep of Halsted Welles, who adapts Elmore Leonard's story quite well until that point.
Bosley Crowther, New York Times
This is a first-rate action picture -- a respectable second section to High Noon.
Pat Graham, Chicago Reader
Despite an abundance of talk, this 1957 film is often considered [Daves'] best.
Stephen Garrett, Time Out New York
A portrait of storytelling made for and by the Silent Generation, an audience all too familiar with the world's spooky, white-knuckled moral twilight.
Urban Cinefile Critics, Urban Cinefile
The film is something of a classic and boasts a terrific ending.
Steven D. Greydanus, Decent Films Guide
Although not as nerve-wracking as High Noon, 3:10 to Yuma is even more claustrophobic… and the two-character drama is more intriguing than High Noon's protagonist standing alone.
Nick Schager, Lessons of Darkness
No amount of climactic train smoke can mask the fact that the finale is fancifully optimistic gibberish.
Bruce Dancis, Sacramento Bee
The new 3:10 to Yuma will have to be quite a film to stand up to the original.
Fernando F. Croce, Slant Magazine
It's nice to have Delmer Daves's solid western on DVD, even this special edition is just a throwaway portion of its remake's promotional machine.
Fernando F. Croce, Slant Magazine
A sturdy genre piece.
Rory L. Aronsky, Film Threat
The minutes tick toward 3:10, and all we can do is watch and hope that it all turns out ok. That's the best kind of Western, one that allows feelings like that to emerge while watching.
Rob Humanick, Projection Booth
Though it is masterful in stretches, it ultimately mistakes feel-good qualities for truly satisfying ones.
Diana Saenger, Classic Movie Guide
Although it didn't receive any major awards, 3:10 To Yuma is considered one of the best westerns of the 1950s.
Sean Axmaker, MSN.com
Set during a drought in the empty, parched West, this is a film defined by emptiness and dust, its players alone and vulnerable in the eerie landscape.

Read all 14 critic reviews

Critic ratings and reviews powered by RottenTomatoes.com

Fresh (60% or more critics rated the movie positively)

Rotten (59% or fewer critics rated the movie positively)

Featured Audience Ratings

Daniel P

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… More
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.
Pierluigi P

Near perfect psychological western. Great confrontational scenes between Van Heflin and Glenn Ford, and pure suspense from start to finish.
Randy T

Daring for a 1957 western. Off-beat and interesting, worth a watch, even if you're not a fan of the genre.
Cassandra M

This is one of the best westerns ever made, a good blend of subtle psychology and action with some taut editing. There isn't one moment of film wasted in this one. I also believe that this is Van Heflin's best screen performance. His Dan Evans is an everyman in the west. A… More
This is one of the best westerns ever made, a good blend of subtle psychology and action with some taut editing. There isn't one moment of film wasted in this one. I also believe that this is Van Heflin's best screen performance. His Dan Evans is an everyman in the west. A rancher struggling to get by and support his family, he happens to be a dead shot and together with that and his need for money, he agrees to take outlaw Ben Wade to Yuma Territorial Prison. Glenn Ford's Ben Wade is a complex man. He's an outlaw and a killer, the first few minutes of the film establish that. But he's tired. He can easily get away. But the sight of Felicia Farr at that saloon, makes him pause and linger when he should be skedaddling with the rest of his gang. They shouldn't have been stopping at the saloon in the first place. But Ford needed some quiet time and his acting does convince you of his need for a breather. Anyway Ford's nabbed and stage line owner Butterfield, played by Robert Emhardt offers a reward and Heflin needs the money. The only other one aiding Heflin is Henry Jones playing Alex Potter the town drunk. He's a comic character, when they stop at Heflin's ranch, Jones inquires of his two sons where Heflin might keep a jug handy. You laugh but Delmar Daves is very subtly setting you up for later heroics. Ford and Heflin are together most of the film and they have good chemistry. Ford works on Heflin, he'd just as soon offer a bribe to get out of his fix and Heflin comes close to taking it. The best scene in the film is when Heflin's wife Leora Dana comes after Heflin. She finds him hold up in a hotel with Ford handcuffed to the bed just after a shootout in which Henry Jones was killed. They talk, Heflin's not sure he's coming out of this and Dana tries to tell him to give it up. Earlier Robert Emhardt has also told him to give it up. But Heflin's sticking to his duty now. The comical town drunk has just been killed in a very brutal fashion for standing up for law and order and he couldn't look himself in the face if he shirked his responsibility. Remember Heflin is no John Wayne type hero. He's your everyman citizen taking on responsibility for his community's safety. He and Dana play this beautifully and if you don't get an emotional response you are made of stone. Van Heflin had already gotten an Oscar for Johnny Eager. But I think his performance here is even better. Why he was overlooked in the Academy sweepstakes in 1957 is beyond belief. It's Heflin's film and it's a great tribute to a very underrated actor.
jay n

Good character study with two well matched actors, wonderful scene between Van Heflin and Leora Dana, an interesting contrast to the recent remake.
Michael G

I started off really liking 3:10 to Yuma a lot and despite the fact this should've been made in color it was the ending that killed it for me. Glenn Ford was great and Van Heflin was pretty much negligible but the last 5 minutes are either leaving me incredibly hopeful for the… More
I started off really liking 3:10 to Yuma a lot and despite the fact this should've been made in color it was the ending that killed it for me. Glenn Ford was great and Van Heflin was pretty much negligible but the last 5 minutes are either leaving me incredibly hopeful for the remake or quaking in fear at the possibility that they didn't come up with something better. Terrible ending aside, not too shabby.
Sheldon C

Ends abruptly, and there isn't enough backstory and character development, in my opinion, The new one is better, but this one is still decent.
Jeffrey M

3:10 to Yuma is an excellent late 50's western in the vein of the phenomenal High Noon. The script and dialogue are all top notch, a very nuanced character study western set within a rather simple and confined story. The acting is also very strong, with an especially strong… More
3:10 to Yuma is an excellent late 50's western in the vein of the phenomenal High Noon. The script and dialogue are all top notch, a very nuanced character study western set within a rather simple and confined story. The acting is also very strong, with an especially strong dynamic between Glenn Ford and Van Heflin. I would still put the 2007 remake ahead of it, featuring stronger action scenes and a stronger ending, but not by much.
Cameron J

And he's buying a Three-Ten to Yuma. That's probably my most difficult to figure out song reference yet and that's saying a lot considering that people have probably forgotten classic songs like "Stairway to Heaven" by now. Well, I'll go cry over the… More
And he's buying a Three-Ten to Yuma. That's probably my most difficult to figure out song reference yet and that's saying a lot considering that people have probably forgotten classic songs like "Stairway to Heaven" by now. Well, I'll go cry over the death of good music some other time. Right now let's discuss another classic. This picture translates the compellingness of the concept well, but still suffers from a lack of development and a periodic lack of engagement. In spite of this, it remains a compelling and primarily entertaining film supported by decent cinematography, good dialogue and carried by the solid performances of leads Glenn Ford and Van Heslin. Of course the question on everyone's mind is "how does it fair against the remake?" Well, I believe that "re-imagining" is a more appropriate term to describe Mangold's 2007 version. The mood in the original is less consequential, not just because Mangold's version provides a deeper insight into the characters and their adventure, but because leading men and also powerhouse actors of their generation Russell Crowe and Christian Bale are more charismatic and seem more appropriate for the roles than the still respectable acting legends Glenn Ford and Van Heflin. I would say that we shouldn't be comparing, seeing as most classic performances haven't aged gracefully, but that wouldn't be right, because I'm not trying to compare the leading men in relation to acting ability. I'm comparing them in relation to the quality of the film and Mangold's version, being more tense, in-depth and consistent with more charismatic leading men is of higher storytelling quality. Honestly, as much as I've been comparing, Mangold's version remains more of a re-imagining and presents a new mood that seems to radically deviate from the original, almost to the point where I may as well be comparing "Cloverfield" to "Forrest Gump". Still, if we're looking at which film is better, Mangold's version - whether it be because filmmaking limitations have certainly been challenged in the 50-year gap between the versions or because the concept is finer - is superior to the original. Still, when we get down to Delmar Daves' classic take on "3:10 to Yuma" on its own, it stands as a well-acted and generally enjoyable adventure that's worth experiencing.
William G

Solid cat-and-mouse Western holds up fine.
Jared H

This story is just as compelling as the remake, which I saw first, and was a big fan of. Glen Ford and Van Heflin both give really strong performances, and the tension that I loved in the remake is also very much present in this original version.
MJS M

I had already seen the 2007 remake with Christian Bale and Russell Crowe, and I was interested to see what the differences between the two. I was interested to find that the remake was pretty faithful to this original. I liked both of the stars of this and the cinematography is… More
I had already seen the 2007 remake with Christian Bale and Russell Crowe, and I was interested to see what the differences between the two. I was interested to find that the remake was pretty faithful to this original. I liked both of the stars of this and the cinematography is amazing. I also liked the ending of this a little better. Storywise, it's a fairly standard western, but it's got a lot of style, and that goes a long way.
cody f

Glen Ford is the shit!!! I really enjoyed this film. The ending and Glen Ford are better than the remake but I enjoyed the remake just as much. Alot of that has to do with the great Elmore Leonard story and dialogue.
Grifty G

Good film. Relies more on suspense than the remake. Glenn Ford is great in this, and the ending was more satisfying.