3:10 to Yuma

3:10 to Yuma

Dave Evans, a small time farmer, is hired to escort Ben Wade, a dangerous outlaw, to Yuma. As Evans and Wade wait for the 3:10 train to Yuma, Wade's gang is racing to free him.

After outlaw leader Ben Wade is captured in a small town, his gang continue to threaten. Small-time rancher Dan Evans is persuaded to take Wade in secret to the nearest town with a railway ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


You may also like

3:10 to Yuma torrent reviews

Leah H (ca) wrote: Decent enough premise that's completely let down by an incoherent plot and mumbling cast. And it's kinda difficult to take the whole "sinners must play games to save their own lives" thing seriously when the games in question are things like musical chairs and bingo.At least it's short.

Caesar M (kr) wrote: Birdemic: Shock and Terror caught the world on fire the way James Nyguyen never intended it too. Becoming a cult classic among bad movie lovers as well being mocked by the film community. So with the unexpected success of Birdemic: Shock and Terror Nyguyen started work on a sequel. What he failed to realize is what made his first outing worth seeing is his belief he made his masterpiece making it unintentionally funny. Intentional humor this time fails to recapture what viewers enjoyed from the original. Birdemic 2: The Resurrection is about a platoon of eagles and vultures rising from the La Brea Tar Pit attacking Hollywood, California. The plot structure is exactly the same as it predecessor so expect a pointless musical number, random nature dude, global warming, awkward conversations, an abrupt ending, and other references to the original. The major difference being this time the terrible plot is intentional. So you'll get the inclusion of cavemen, zombie, and bloody rainfall that intentionally never get much of an explanation. It doesn't add any kind of humor to the film and makes it come of as lazy writing. It introduces new characters and makes clear which one are just chow for the birds (one for the zombies) and which one will live. Simply put it's largely a rehash of the original Birdemic only this time it's intentional and unfunny. Production values this time are somewhat competent. It actually looks like it has a budget, but even with a larger budget you get audio dropping in and out, bad green screen effects, continuity errors, and so on. It's very sad that Nyguyen even attempts to copies the poor productions value. The acting this time is less awful. The actors are less wooden and seeing how it self aware it's hard to hold anything against them. Especially when they fight against birds, zombies, and cavemen in goofy fashion. One actor even does judo kicks to kill some birds and prepare to witness guns with unlimited ammo. I can't recall a single time an actor ever reloaded a gun. Well I guess unless you count the one scene where an actor is talking in a RV and hear an gun reloading sound effect. Guessed he had to reload his dialogue? Not to forget this film takes place in an apocalypse where it very populated with people. You'll constantly see people moving in the background or a car just passing by in this suppose apocalypse. The special effects are less awful. They still retain the bad animation, but at least the birds don't look squarish. Also, it contains random nudity to keep the viewer awake in case they haven't left the room playing the movie. Birdemic 2: The Resurrection is rehash of the first film only this time in HD and with a self aware nature to intentionally make things bad. It doesn't work on any level and those who enjoyed the first will be disappointed. Yet sadly this rehash has slightly better production values, less awful acting, somewhat improved special effect, and its intentional bad nature makes it more forgivable for it faults.

Kim C (fr) wrote: Terrible movie. It could not hold my attention.

Jennifer B (gb) wrote: wow, i don't know wether to love this movie or hate it. It starts off like a romance and becomes something else. Somewhat Fatal Attractionish with the roles reversed. The actors do an excellent job and I found it disturbing in the end. Others may hate this and think it's neurotic, but as an idealist, I suppose, I couldn't help feeling perplexed by Norton's character! It's obvious he wasn't dealing with his anger, which in turn developed into a violent attachment disorder. He was in a whole other world altogether; dreaming he was a cowboy, cynical about life and overly fixated on love. I can't help but see a piece of myself in him though, and perhaps this is why it became such a disturbing movie and thus so affective! Perhaps it was disturbing because the way his personality snapped and he became a manipulative, jealous, controlling masochist was so neurotic and he didn't come across this way at first. The power play between him and the father was so interesting. You weren't sure who to side with. You empathized with them both but also saw their faults. It's possible the story could have gone in the other direction where the father finally snapped and the cowboy was the hero, but what are the odds? Anyways, perhaps see it for yourself and tell me what you think.

Anwar M (es) wrote: strange road movie for the underdog, and very surreal fight but enjoyable and very funny, ending a little dissapointing for the actors and the viewers

David S (it) wrote: I love this movie, Cher does an amazing job with her character.

Classy J (mx) wrote: ____0000000000______0000000000_____ __000________000__000________000___ _000___________0000___________000__ 000_____________00_____________000_ 000____________________________000_ 000___________THANKS__________000_ _000____________FOR___________000__ __000__________BEING_________000___ ___000__________MY_________000____ _____000______FRIEND______000______ _______000______________000________ _________000__________000__________ ____________000____000_____________ ______________00__00_______________ ________________00_________________ ________________ 0_________________

Jason D (gb) wrote: Before prequels became a trendy fad for greedy film executives to cash-in on a movie's notoriety by draining its value by any means necessary, they served as an art form and were scarcely used in the film world. The original Missing in Action managed to capture a big enough fanbase to warrant a sequel. The POW hell that Col. James Braddock (Chuck Norris) endured before his escape was only minimally touched on, and people craved more, thus, Missing in Action 2: The Beginning was presented to audiences. While the gung-ho 80's kick ass action that Chuck Norris usually delivers is quite prevalent throughout the film. there's also a deep dramatic touch within the story as well, as a gang of American POW's struggle to survive the rigorous tortures brought upon them from Vietnamese soldiers (led by the effectively villainous Soon-Tek Oh, whom I'll always remember as Sensei from Beverly Hills Ninja), not to mention maintain a strong bond between each other without losing their minds. Norris is the star of course, but the rest of the actors deliver some powerful performances. The story isn't anything groundbreaking, but it's fleshed out very well and is effectively used to deliver a surprisingly great movie, far from the trend of over-the-top, corny 80's action flicks that bombarded that decade. To my surprised, Norris even manages to deliver a bit of acting range outside of his normal stone cold face and mannerisms. I have to say that this prequel completely outdoes the original film and, in fact, stands as the best one of the bunch. Then again, I can be completely off my rocker about this film being amazing, since I do have a sick love for 80's films and prequels. Oh well, what matters is this film hit a lot of good spots for me.

Orlok W (au) wrote: Leisurely John Ford Western doesn't have much action, but the pleasant story makes up for it--Stewart and Widmark ride together!!

Michael G (fr) wrote: Capable filler stuff. Does have a pretty banging clue though!

Mo B (kr) wrote: Rating: 92%Upping the stakes without backing down on the story, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom is one of the rare sequels that manage to (mostly) live up to the original.

Samy A (ag) wrote: The humor is very hit and miss, although i did find myself amused here and there.

L D (nl) wrote: I think that everything that a Tintin fan could want has been crammed into this movie. Not added... Crammed... That is perhaps the only issue, but it is a large one...

Andy G (mx) wrote: seriously awful. i normally don't mind found footage films but this is really badly put together. first of all, it supposedly takes place in January in Tennessee. the first scene is a pool party. the temperatures in this part of TN in January are usually run 30 to 60 degrees. there are also palm trees. as the movie progresses you start to recognize scenes from other movies. by the end it's apparent that they have selected their favorite scenes from other films and then tried to cobble them together. unlike a lot of other reviewers i didn't think the acting was that terrible but the mom has the emotional fortitude of a tired 2 year old. she finds a small amount of blood in the sink and doesn't know where her husband is. this leads immediately to hysterics, shrieking, wailing, flailing and calling 911. the ending is the worst. their daughter runs off into the woods and the dad apparently decides he needs a gun to look for his daughter. a gun that has never been seen or mentioned until the moment he fires it. wtf. and oddly enough the last few scenes after the camera guy eats it are filmed with flashlight cameras? i thought this was supposed to be found footage? all the cameras are gone but apparently the flashlights record too?