A place for effective communication through purposeful writing and meaningful reading.
Thursday, February 6, 2020
Read & React—due February 7
Google "3:10 to Yuma analysis review". Read two links about the film. Then write if you agree or disagree with what you read and why. Include 350+ words.
14 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Bruce Google "3:10 to Yuma analysis review". Read two links about the film. Then write if you agree or disagree with what you read and why. Include 350+ words. https://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/07/movies/07yuma.html I agree with this site because they explain the movie pretty well because it says that this movie is revival movie towards each player because it is an old western movie that has blood, guts, and shooting and in that movie at the end there is always a hero at the end of the movie and in this case, the hero in this movie is Dan Williams Williams father because he got shot at the end of the movie for good cause because he got Ben wade to the train to Yuma. Also, this site as it describes the movie like it is satisfying entertainment that reminds of an classic old western movie that may be a sign of the times in the best way on how they lived their life. This site also says that Dan Evans is a formal sharpshooter in which he is pretty good with a gun and shooting at people. Finally, I agree with this because it describes the movie very well and the characters that are in it also. https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2007/09/the-movie-review-3-10-to-yuma/69240/ I also agree with this website because this website describes the place where the movie takes place. Where Crowe and Bisbee is in Arizona in the desert were crow's wounded cop and Bud White. I also agree with this site because it describes each character as their life is now and how they are retired. Both white and wade are damaged as the former left alone with his mother corpse and left abandoned with the bible for the same span and as they grow up to be thoughtful brutes as a strong-arm cop. I also agree with this because it describes the character pretty good on how strong they are and what they are doing now and have respect for his family and this life. Finally, overall this is a good movie.
I also agree with this website because this website describes the place where the movie takes place. Where Crowe and Bisbee is in Arizona in the desert were crow's wounded cop and Bud White. I also agree with this site because it describes each character as their life is now and how they are retired. Both white and wade are damaged as the former left alone with his mother corpse and left abandoned with the bible for the same span and as they grow up to be thoughtful brutes as a strong-arm cop. I also agree with this because it describes the character pretty good on how strong they are and what they are doing now and have respect for his family and this life. Finally, overall this is a good movie. Anderson
I looked up the analysis and I personally think that it is sad how they made him stand out for russell crowe, and they say he is native but at the same time I could see that a little in the movie and during the film. When they said that Mr. crowe and Mr. Bale both do excellent work together. I agreed on that. I personally thought they got along really well during the movie. The analysis talks about how it held up the railroad and the gang did that. I also think when they said they shoot down anyone that stands in their way. I found that very sad because why would you want to hurt people. That is one part I disagree on because I believe that you should get to know people before you judge them. And you should give everyone a chance no matter what the situation is. Sometimes even a second chance. I really did disagree with the part where it said how everyone left them and it was only dan and wade and they had to work together to get him to the jail. I found that sad because they were honestely kind of selfish for doing that and they are not the only ones who had family to worrying about. But I am so thankful for dan because no matter how hard it got he did not let anyone get in his way. And he refused to give up. He did it to protect his family and I agree on that part because family comes first. Towards the end he talked to ben wade about how he wanted to become a hero and he wanted to be remembered a certien way. I am so glad that he died doing something that he would be remembered. Its like he knew he was not going to make it out alive but he for sure tried to make it worth it. I agree that he wanted to be known as the guy that saved his family. I am very happy that the son has someone to live with and take care of for his father.
Riley Schroeder James Mangold was the producer. It is a remake of 1957. It took place in various spots in new mexico. It is a great film that showed many different things but unfortunately i was not able to find any reviews and they are blocked to. So ill give my own review of the movie. It was a great film that all the people could enjoy. It was pleasing to the eyes and had a lot of ups and downs. I liked how they added a reason to each one character for what they where doing. It can add some things that would have made the film better but who knows. It could also drop some things in the film. But all in all it was a good film that had a good plot line and could have done a little better. Also was that guy from batman don’t remember which one. I liked how they used there brains to get where they needed. Also i liked how they could us there brains over browns. There wasn’t much to go off of others. But it was a remake of another movie i found that really interesting. Was the first one as good as the remake because then we could actually judge it and see witch one is better. It had an interesting plot that the gang leader would did a lot of good thing in the movie which i didn’t expect would happen he also didn’t but up much of a fight to get to the train. But there wasn’t always times that he would go along with what was happening one time he stabbed a guy to death because the guy was messing around with him but i guess that guy shouldn’t have fallen asleep. Another time is when he got shot he started to fight with the rancher and decide to change his mind because the rancher told him his side of the story. But it was close the end where every thing went out of wack and people where dropping like flies. Other then that it was a good movie in my opion.
Google "3:10 to Yuma analysis review". Read two links about the film. Then write if you agree or disagree with what you read and why. Include 350+ words.I agree with the article because this article talks about the location where the movie takes place. Where Crowe and Bisbee is in the desert were crow's wounded cop and Bud White. I also agree with this site because it talks about every person as their life is now and how they are retired. Both white and wade are damaged as wade watched his dad get shot and his mom abandoned him with the bible for the same span and as they grow up to be thoughtful brutes as a strong-arm cop. I also agree with this article on how strong they are and what they are doing now and have respect for his family and this life. Also the article talks about the whole movie the farmer is trying to get respect from his son but he only gains respect when he passes away and its very sad but he died for justice and what he believed in and it showed that he never gave up on his family and how much he would do for his family no matter the cost.
Google "3:10 to Yuma analysis review". Read two links about the film. Then write if you agree or disagree with what you read and why. Include 350+ words. https://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/07/movies/07yuma.html https://www.pluggedin.com/movie-reviews/310toyuma/ The first link I found was written by New York Times. I agree with this article because it just talks about what the story is about and it does a good job not giving the film away but by reading the article it makes me want to watch the movie. It talks about how Ben is a charming character but has a bad side by robbing all those people and killing all the people he did. I also like this website because it doesn’t give away a lot of information about what happens in the film it just makes you want to watch by the way it describes the characters. The second link that I found Is also a good link because it describes and answers all the questions that you could have about this movie. It does a good job explaining some of the stuff that you could be worried about if your kids are in the room. I think that this website is good to look at if you are worried about if little kids should see it or not.
Yes, I agree with what the review said about the movie. I agree about how it was describing the movie. I was talking about how Dan was just a guy trying to make a life for his family in the hills of Arizona. I was also talking about how the cards are stacked against him meaning like he has something holding him back. I agree with how they were describing Ben Wade. They were describing him as the most dastardly dude west of the Mississippi. They were also saying that Ben Wade sometimes kills people just for looking at him sideways. I agree when they were saying that he volunteers to help deliver the bad guy to Contention. I agree when they were saying that dan is a believable, no-frills kind of guy who refuses to embellish or play games to make people respect him. I agree when they were saying that Ben knows the bible really well because his mother gave him one when he was little. I agree when they said that Ben shoots one of his own men to teach others a lesson. I agree with what they said about Evanses’ barn, trying to get Dan to give up the ranch and leave town. I agree with what it was saying about when Ben Wade does everything he can to best his captors. He messes with their minds and he even manages to kill a few of them. I agree with this site overall because it is explaining what happened throughout the whole movie and it explains what parts of the movie are important and it explains what happens in each important part of the movie. It also explains what each important character is like and what they do in the movie and what they are apart of. It also explains what happens to each character and what each character's importance is throughout the whole movie. It also explains what Dan does and who he is and what he is set out to do. It also explains how he wants to be a hero for his son and his whole family. It explains the beginning, middle, and end of the whole movie and it gives a really good explained storyline. I overall agree with this site and what it says and explains.
Google "3:10 to Yuma analysis review". Read two links about the film. Then write if you agree or disagree with what you read and why. Include 350+ words. “But Ben and Dan discover an unlikely bond, or at least some common enemies” I very agree with this. For example when Van decided to help Dan to get into the little house by the train when he almost was hit by a shot and Van helped him to get into there. In some occasions Van told him what to do when they were running from the shooters. “Mr. Bale’s haunted reticence plays well against Mr. Crowe’s roguish relish. Their characters open up a bit too much toward the end, in confessional moments that soften the clean, hard contours of the story and bring to the surface themes that would have been more interesting if they had been left half-buried“. I agree with this also because Dan opened himself to tell Dan about his story when he was being shot by one of his men and that will make him look bad in front of his kid. Van also opens himself to Dan and tells him a very sad story about himself when he was just a little kid and how he grew up alone without a dad and mom. How his mom let him in the train station reading the bible for three days and she never came back again. His dad died in a bar and threw a wine glass. “When those efforts meet only with intransigence, he bestows upon the rancher a grudging respect that borders on admiration.” I agree with him because according to the scene when Van was offering money and way more than what they will pay Dan to take him to the train and Van saw how Dan was not gonna give up and then Van started to give him respect which was hard to get from a guy like Van. That is a huge step in their relationship as friends or more than friends I will say. Dan dies in his dutty for his family and will be seen as a hero for his family and others.
I agree with what I have read in the two links about how the older movie had a skeptical storyline and then when the director made the new one he wanted to expand on the story and to bring up the brutality in it and it does it’s best to honor the spirit of the original movie. The links also talked about how if it is a lesser movie it will more likely be recalled as a moderately satisfying entertainment than remembered as a classic movie. When the director did his best to stick to the old ways it is neither spare or suggestive enough and in some parts, it lacks the confidence to distinguish between touchstones and the cliches in the movie. But even tho it lacks in some areas it is the actors who make the movie a hit and the principal actors are nonetheless able to refresh their somewhat shopworn roles in the movie. In the reviews I some things about the director and I didn’t think the director would be the kind of person to have an interest in showboating. In the end, the characters ben wade and dan Evans both opened up to make a confessional moments in the end and there are two sides to this I think they did this so that they could get the audience to more attached to the characters and then some other people thought that when they had those moments at the end it made the contours of the story they had created was brought to the surface themes that could have been more interesting if it was left how it was but I like the version of what I said the first time. In this movie, Dan Evans is not a hero yet Dan is trying to make living for his family in Arizona but the cards are soon stacked against him when the movie is progressing through the story. I agree with another thing that one of the links said and the reason why I agree with what they said is that during the movie ben wade tried to best his captors and through dan’s interaction we begin to see who dan really is and that is exactly what happens in the movie.
Meinert The first review I read was from Roger Ebert. He rated the movie 4 stars on a scale of 4. He thought that it was a good movie that showed the audience “the western in its glory days” He stated that it had good characters that played in the movie. He stated that it was made to seem like something new even though it was a remake of a movie that is 50 years old. He stated that the plot was easily told as it was originally written as a short story.
The second review is a review written by Brian Eggert. He also rated the movie 4 stars on a scale of 4. He thinks that the story itself is only worth 2 stars but he says that the way the director portrayed the characters in the movie gave it another 2 stars. He thinks the director picked actors that we're able to really get into the story and helped to make the story better. He stated that “he loved this movie, and hoped Hollywood sees the potential of more Westerns with its success”. He thinks that western pictures are going strong.
I think that the movie was 4 stars out of 4. I thought that the movie was well made. It seemed real with no CGI. I liked how the actors were able to play the characters. In some parts, I felt like I was in the movie. I thought that it was believable and could have really happened in real life. This movie kept me wanting to watch to see what happens next. I watch a lot of movies with my dad. We like to watch all the different types of movies together. This is one movie that I think that he would really like. I think that if you like history and like the older type of western tv shows, you would really like this story. This type of movie is not for everyone. Some people just don’t like the western era, but as for me, I like to think of these movies as a look in the past.
I agree with this site because I think it explains the movie pretty good way in short. I didn't watch the movie from the beginning but it looks like a really good movie and also even though I didn't watch it from the beginning of the movie I have a pretty good idea of what the movie is about. Ben Wade got caught by Dan Evans and he needed to be taken to Contention City where he can be placed on the 3:10 train to Yuma prison. Desperate for money to save his drought-ridden ranch, Evans agrees to accompany the team transporting Wade in exchange for 200 dollars.
The first article I read was from new york times, https://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/07/movies/07yuma.html The article states how there are two sides that are in not so good times and how there is a man of the loose with his team out terrorizing the rich and wealthy. I for one agree with this completely, This movie was full of fun and action. It shows how Dan Evans was truly the person to do anything for his family and prove the others that he cant get just pushed around. With all this, it was a surprise to me that Dan and Ben became friends throughout the movie. An interesting thing I notice when Dan was explaining his son's condition was that when Ben Wade pointed out that there was rain falling on Bisbee, that worried Dan not because of Ben saying that you did all this for nothing but for the reason of his sick son who needs a dry climate and with the rain coming, that only means that his son will get even sicker and maybe even death sadly. In the Times article they also talked about Williams hate towards his father which honesty I don't think William has any right to be mad at his father like that, there were parts in the movie that I wanted William to get kicked out and live on his own, just to see how long he was able to last without having to come back whining for help. -Haas
https://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/07/movies/07yuma.html Google "3:10 to Yuma analysis review". Read two links about the film. Then write if you agree or disagree with what you read and why. Include 350+ words.
I would agree with this website. The reason for this is because on the website they say that dan evans was the hero in this movie and i believe it is true what they are saying. And this website is right because they talk about how the old western there would be shooting and there was a lot of shooting in the movies. There was lots of violence in these movie. This website describes how dan evans was a hero by saying he got ben into the train evan doe the dan died by ben group he had accomplished his goal when he got ben into the train. One thing that I disagree with is how Ben was a bad guy. He might have been bad but I think he was like a hero to when Dan got shot by one of his men. He felt sorrow sad and I don't think bad people could have emotional problems. So ben killed his crew for revenge or for dan cause of the relationship they had together with all of there journey.
In the first article I read it says that Dan's just a guy trying to make a life for his family in the hills of Arizona. But the cards are stacked against him. He's down one leg. His son Mark suffers from chronic respiratory problems. His ranch is languishing because it hasn't rained in months. And to top things off the banker who owns the note on his property is looking to turn a buck by repossessing and selling it to the railroad. I agree with this because Dan is trying to make a living and do whatever he can to help his family. The second article I read says that Dan is a believable kind of guy who refuses to play games to make people respect him. He just tells it like it is and lets people make their own judgments. Though at first Dan's son William disrespects him the unfolding of events gives Dad a chance to prove himself to his boy and vice versa. In the end Dan lets William know that he trusts him to run the ranch and lead the family should something go badly wrong on his journey to Contention. And William sees his father for the honorable man that he is. I agree with this because his son did show him alot more respect at the end of the movie then he did at first.
14 comments:
Bruce
Google "3:10 to Yuma analysis review". Read two links about the film. Then write if you agree or disagree with what you read and why. Include 350+ words.
https://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/07/movies/07yuma.html
I agree with this site because they explain the movie pretty well because it says that this movie is revival movie towards each player because it is an old western movie that has blood, guts, and shooting and in that movie at the end there is always a hero at the end of the movie and in this case, the hero in this movie is Dan Williams Williams father because he got shot at the end of the movie for good cause because he got Ben wade to the train to Yuma. Also, this site as it describes the movie like it is satisfying entertainment that reminds of an classic old western movie that may be a sign of the times in the best way on how they lived their life. This site also says that Dan Evans is a formal sharpshooter in which he is pretty good with a gun and shooting at people. Finally, I agree with this because it describes the movie very well and the characters that are in it also.
https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2007/09/the-movie-review-3-10-to-yuma/69240/
I also agree with this website because this website describes the place where the movie takes place. Where Crowe and Bisbee is in Arizona in the desert were crow's wounded cop and Bud White. I also agree with this site because it describes each character as their life is now and how they are retired. Both white and wade are damaged as the former left alone with his mother corpse and left abandoned with the bible for the same span and as they grow up to be thoughtful brutes as a strong-arm cop. I also agree with this because it describes the character pretty good on how strong they are and what they are doing now and have respect for his family and this life. Finally, overall this is a good movie.
I also agree with this website because this website describes the place where the movie takes place. Where Crowe and Bisbee is in Arizona in the desert were crow's wounded cop and Bud White. I also agree with this site because it describes each character as their life is now and how they are retired. Both white and wade are damaged as the former left alone with his mother corpse and left abandoned with the bible for the same span and as they grow up to be thoughtful brutes as a strong-arm cop. I also agree with this because it describes the character pretty good on how strong they are and what they are doing now and have respect for his family and this life. Finally, overall this is a good movie.
Anderson
I looked up the analysis and I personally think that it is sad how they made him stand out for russell crowe, and they say he is native but at the same time I could see that a little in the movie and during the film. When they said that Mr. crowe and Mr. Bale both do excellent work together. I agreed on that. I personally thought they got along really well during the movie. The analysis talks about how it held up the railroad and the gang did that. I also think when they said they shoot down anyone that stands in their way. I found that very sad because why would you want to hurt people. That is one part I disagree on because I believe that you should get to know people before you judge them. And you should give everyone a chance no matter what the situation is. Sometimes even a second chance. I really did disagree with the part where it said how everyone left them and it was only dan and wade and they had to work together to get him to the jail. I found that sad because they were honestely kind of selfish for doing that and they are not the only ones who had family to worrying about. But I am so thankful for dan because no matter how hard it got he did not let anyone get in his way. And he refused to give up. He did it to protect his family and I agree on that part because family comes first. Towards the end he talked to ben wade about how he wanted to become a hero and he wanted to be remembered a certien way. I am so glad that he died doing something that he would be remembered. Its like he knew he was not going to make it out alive but he for sure tried to make it worth it. I agree that he wanted to be known as the guy that saved his family. I am very happy that the son has someone to live with and take care of for his father.
Riley Schroeder
James Mangold was the producer. It is a remake of 1957. It took place in various spots in new mexico. It is a great film that showed many different things but unfortunately i was not able to find any reviews and they are blocked to. So ill give my own review of the movie. It was a great film that all the people could enjoy. It was pleasing to the eyes and had a lot of ups and downs. I liked how they added a reason to each one character for what they where doing. It can add some things that would have made the film better but who knows. It could also drop some things in the film. But all in all it was a good film that had a good plot line and could have done a little better. Also was that guy from batman don’t remember which one. I liked how they used there brains to get where they needed. Also i liked how they could us there brains over browns. There wasn’t much to go off of others. But it was a remake of another movie i found that really interesting. Was the first one as good as the remake because then we could actually judge it and see witch one is better. It had an interesting plot that the gang leader would did a lot of good thing in the movie which i didn’t expect would happen he also didn’t but up much of a fight to get to the train. But there wasn’t always times that he would go along with what was happening one time he stabbed a guy to death because the guy was messing around with him but i guess that guy shouldn’t have fallen asleep. Another time is when he got shot he started to fight with the rancher and decide to change his mind because the rancher told him his side of the story. But it was close the end where every thing went out of wack and people where dropping like flies. Other then that it was a good movie in my opion.
Google "3:10 to Yuma analysis review". Read two links about the film. Then write if you agree or disagree with what you read and why. Include 350+ words.I agree with the article because this article talks about the location where the movie takes place. Where Crowe and Bisbee is in the desert were crow's wounded cop and Bud White. I also agree with this site because it talks about every person as their life is now and how they are retired. Both white and wade are damaged as wade watched his dad get shot and his mom abandoned him with the bible for the same span and as they grow up to be thoughtful brutes as a strong-arm cop. I also agree with this article on how strong they are and what they are doing now and have respect for his family and this life. Also the article talks about the whole movie the farmer is trying to get respect from his son but he only gains respect when he passes away and its very sad but he died for justice and what he believed in and it showed that he never gave up on his family and how much he would do for his family no matter the cost.
Google "3:10 to Yuma analysis review". Read two links about the film. Then write if you agree or disagree with what you read and why. Include 350+ words.
https://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/07/movies/07yuma.html
https://www.pluggedin.com/movie-reviews/310toyuma/
The first link I found was written by New York Times. I agree with this article because it just talks about what the story is about and it does a good job not giving the film away but by reading the article it makes me want to watch the movie. It talks about how Ben is a charming character but has a bad side by robbing all those people and killing all the people he did. I also like this website because it doesn’t give away a lot of information about what happens in the film it just makes you want to watch by the way it describes the characters.
The second link that I found Is also a good link because it describes and answers all the questions that you could have about this movie. It does a good job explaining some of the stuff that you could be worried about if your kids are in the room. I think that this website is good to look at if you are worried about if little kids should see it or not.
Ariah Helseth
Yes, I agree with what the review said about the movie. I agree about how it was describing the movie. I was talking about how Dan was just a guy trying to make a life for his family in the hills of Arizona. I was also talking about how the cards are stacked against him meaning like he has something holding him back. I agree with how they were describing Ben Wade. They were describing him as the most dastardly dude west of the Mississippi. They were also saying that Ben Wade sometimes kills people just for looking at him sideways. I agree when they were saying that he volunteers to help deliver the bad guy to Contention. I agree when they were saying that dan is a believable, no-frills kind of guy who refuses to embellish or play games to make people respect him. I agree when they were saying that Ben knows the bible really well because his mother gave him one when he was little. I agree when they said that Ben shoots one of his own men to teach others a lesson. I agree with what they said about Evanses’ barn, trying to get Dan to give up the ranch and leave town. I agree with what it was saying about when Ben Wade does everything he can to best his captors. He messes with their minds and he even manages to kill a few of them. I agree with this site overall because it is explaining what happened throughout the whole movie and it explains what parts of the movie are important and it explains what happens in each important part of the movie. It also explains what each important character is like and what they do in the movie and what they are apart of. It also explains what happens to each character and what each character's importance is throughout the whole movie. It also explains what Dan does and who he is and what he is set out to do. It also explains how he wants to be a hero for his son and his whole family. It explains the beginning, middle, and end of the whole movie and it gives a really good explained storyline. I overall agree with this site and what it says and explains.
Google "3:10 to Yuma analysis review". Read two links about the film. Then write if you agree or disagree with what you read and why. Include 350+ words. “But Ben and Dan discover an unlikely bond, or at least some common enemies” I very agree with this. For example when Van decided to help Dan to get into the little house by the train when he almost was hit by a shot and Van helped him to get into there. In some occasions Van told him what to do when they were running from the shooters.
“Mr. Bale’s haunted reticence plays well against Mr. Crowe’s roguish relish. Their characters open up a bit too much toward the end, in confessional moments that soften the clean, hard contours of the story and bring to the surface themes that would have been more interesting if they had been left half-buried“. I agree with this also because Dan opened himself to tell Dan about his story when he was being shot by one of his men and that will make him look bad in front of his kid. Van also opens himself to Dan and tells him a very sad story about himself when he was just a little kid and how he grew up alone without a dad and mom. How his mom let him in the train station reading the bible for three days and she never came back again. His dad died in a bar and threw a wine glass. “When those efforts meet only with intransigence, he bestows upon the rancher a grudging respect that borders on admiration.” I agree with him because according to the scene when Van was offering money and way more than what they will pay Dan to take him to the train and Van saw how Dan was not gonna give up and then Van started to give him respect which was hard to get from a guy like Van. That is a huge step in their relationship as friends or more than friends I will say. Dan dies in his dutty for his family and will be seen as a hero for his family and others.
https://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/07/movies/07yuma.html
https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2007/09/the-movie-review-3-10-to-yuma/69240/
I agree with what I have read in the two links about how the older movie had a skeptical storyline and then when the director made the new one he wanted to expand on the story and to bring up the brutality in it and it does it’s best to honor the spirit of the original movie. The links also talked about how if it is a lesser movie it will more likely be recalled as a moderately satisfying entertainment than remembered as a classic movie. When the director did his best to stick to the old ways it is neither spare or suggestive enough and in some parts, it lacks the confidence to distinguish between touchstones and the cliches in the movie. But even tho it lacks in some areas it is the actors who make the movie a hit and the principal actors are nonetheless able to refresh their somewhat shopworn roles in the movie. In the reviews I some things about the director and I didn’t think the director would be the kind of person to have an interest in showboating. In the end, the characters ben wade and dan Evans both opened up to make a confessional moments in the end and there are two sides to this I think they did this so that they could get the audience to more attached to the characters and then some other people thought that when they had those moments at the end it made the contours of the story they had created was brought to the surface themes that could have been more interesting if it was left how it was but I like the version of what I said the first time. In this movie, Dan Evans is not a hero yet Dan is trying to make living for his family in Arizona but the cards are soon stacked against him when the movie is progressing through the story. I agree with another thing that one of the links said and the reason why I agree with what they said is that during the movie ben wade tried to best his captors and through dan’s interaction we begin to see who dan really is and that is exactly what happens in the movie.
Meinert
The first review I read was from Roger Ebert. He rated the movie 4 stars on a scale of 4. He thought that it was a good movie that showed the audience “the western in its glory days” He stated that it had good characters that played in the movie. He stated that it was made to seem like something new even though it was a remake of a movie that is 50 years old. He stated that the plot was easily told as it was originally written as a short story.
The second review is a review written by Brian Eggert. He also rated the movie 4 stars on a scale of 4. He thinks that the story itself is only worth 2 stars but he says that the way the director portrayed the characters in the movie gave it another 2 stars. He thinks the director picked actors that we're able to really get into the story and helped to make the story better. He stated that “he loved this movie, and hoped Hollywood sees the potential of more Westerns with its success”. He thinks that western pictures are going strong.
I think that the movie was 4 stars out of 4. I thought that the movie was well made. It seemed real with no CGI. I liked how the actors were able to play the characters. In some parts, I felt like I was in the movie. I thought that it was believable and could have really happened in real life. This movie kept me wanting to watch to see what happens next. I watch a lot of movies with my dad. We like to watch all the different types of movies together. This is one movie that I think that he would really like. I think that if you like history and like the older type of western tv shows, you would really like this story. This type of movie is not for everyone. Some people just don’t like the western era, but as for me, I like to think of these movies as a look in the past.
https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2007/09/the-movie-review-3-10-to-yuma/69240/https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2007/09/the-movie-review-3-10-to-yuma/69240/
I agree with this site because I think it explains the movie pretty good way in short. I didn't watch the movie from the beginning but it looks like a really good movie and also even though I didn't watch it from the beginning of the movie I have a pretty good idea of what the movie is about. Ben Wade got caught by Dan Evans and he needed to be taken to Contention City where he can be placed on the 3:10 train to Yuma prison. Desperate for money to save his drought-ridden ranch, Evans agrees to accompany the team transporting Wade in exchange for 200 dollars.
The first article I read was from new york times, https://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/07/movies/07yuma.html
The article states how there are two sides that are in not so good times and how there is a man of the loose with his team out terrorizing the rich and wealthy. I for one agree with this completely, This movie was full of fun and action. It shows how Dan Evans was truly the person to do anything for his family and prove the others that he cant get just pushed around. With all this, it was a surprise to me that Dan and Ben became friends throughout the movie. An interesting thing I notice when Dan was explaining his son's condition was that when Ben Wade pointed out that there was rain falling on Bisbee, that worried Dan not because of Ben saying that you did all this for nothing but for the reason of his sick son who needs a dry climate and with the rain coming, that only means that his son will get even sicker and maybe even death sadly.
In the Times article they also talked about Williams hate towards his father which honesty I don't think William has any right to be mad at his father like that, there were parts in the movie that I wanted William to get kicked out and live on his own, just to see how long he was able to last without having to come back whining for help.
-Haas
https://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/07/movies/07yuma.html
Google "3:10 to Yuma analysis review". Read two links about the film. Then write if you agree or disagree with what you read and why. Include 350+ words.
I would agree with this website. The reason for this is because on the website they say that dan evans was the hero in this movie and i believe it is true what they are saying. And this website is right because they talk about how the old western there would be shooting and there was a lot of shooting in the movies. There was lots of violence in these movie. This website describes how dan evans was a hero by saying he got ben into the train evan doe the dan died by ben group he had accomplished his goal when he got ben into the train. One thing that I disagree with is how Ben was a bad guy. He might have been bad but I think he was like a hero to when Dan got shot by one of his men. He felt sorrow sad and I don't think bad people could have emotional problems. So ben killed his crew for revenge or for dan cause of the relationship they had together with all of there journey.
In the first article I read it says that Dan's just a guy trying to make a life for his family in the hills of Arizona. But the cards are stacked against him. He's down one leg. His son Mark suffers from chronic respiratory problems. His ranch is languishing because it hasn't rained in months. And to top things off the banker who owns the note on his property is looking to turn a buck by repossessing and selling it to the railroad. I agree with this because Dan is trying to make a living and do whatever he can to help his family. The second article I read says that Dan is a believable kind of guy who refuses to play games to make people respect him. He just tells it like it is and lets people make their own judgments. Though at first Dan's son William disrespects him the unfolding of events gives Dad a chance to prove himself to his boy and vice versa. In the end Dan lets William know that he trusts him to run the ranch and lead the family should something go badly wrong on his journey to Contention. And William sees his father for the honorable man that he is. I agree with this because his son did show him alot more respect at the end of the movie then he did at first.
Post a Comment