Forsaken (2016)

Good start, but then it gets ruined

Dreadfully Boring

A Masterpiece!

Excellent characters with emotional depth. My wife, daughter and granddaughter all enjoyed it...and me, too! Very good movie! You won't be disappointed.

I don't want to rag on Canadian productions. This one was made in Bannff. I live in the Dallas area. North and Central Texas, really more West Texas, are thee west of the original movies. That along with Oklahoma, Montana and so on. I live not far from the Chisholm Trail - in fact it's in a mall parking lot today.The point being that this felt like it was filmed in a movie studio - and frankly one that wasn't that well researched. The set looked like a set. It didn't feel real.The dialog narrowly escapes Canadianisms. And certain subtle things in the film are decidedly not Western US. Some of the furniture on set is not 1872 and there are other errors as well.I think the movie could have been grittier. The town wasn't as large as in classic Reconstruction era towns. Plano and Allen Texas were just such towns and post-civil war they were much more substantive and I know this because of photos from that era.People seem to stand around instead of going about relatively normal business. Most westerns have more people in town - which is pretty accurate. The towns themselves are usually not huge but the farmers would come into town to trade.Sutherland and Sutherland did a great acting job with an average script. You see men in worn civil war uniforms at the beginning and by 1872 that wasn't very realistic. The characters in some cases (the Demi Moore character) seemed rather flat as opposed to rounded.The firearms were fairly accurate though by this era Gatling guns were pretty easy to come by. The people were probably a bit too well fed looking. The 1930's and 1940's era Western films were more accurate in that the people often looked worn and haggard. The women were a bit too pretty and the men a bit too handsome. Also the beards and hair weren't oily enough and the beards were trimmed a bit too neatly. The town would have been covered in sand and dirt - the buildings were too neat and too new looking - even in anticipation of the railroad coming through.These guys were not John Huston, Sam Peckinpah or Raol Walsh. The shots didn't create the lushness of Huston's later films. It was a bit too photo-realistic. I would have used filters of various kinds. And I would have aimed for Panavision or modified Cinemascope as these would have created a more lush feeling for the viewer. Many of the larger studios still have this stuff stored in mothballs - I'm shocked they didn't try to access that.Missing especially were expansive and bold shots, and dramatic pauses and cutaway techniques that made for classic Western. Take a look at 1930's, 1940's and 1950's era Westerns and even such of the cheesy Italian spaghetti Westerns - even they were much, much better than this film.This is a 21st century feel good adaptation of a classic Western. It needed to be shot in the Western US not Canada. The look and feel of Canada is great for some kinds of movies. But though some very good Westerns were made in Canada in their day - the stories weren't based on themes from Canada.

Forsaken is directed by Jon Cassar and written by Brad Mirman. It stars Kiefer Sutherland, Donald Sutherland, Brian Cox, Michael Wincott, Aaron Poole and Demi Moore. Music is by Jonathan Goldsmith and cinematography by Rene Ohashi.There's a group of words bandied around for this one such as generic, cliché and formulaic, and most assuredly these can not be argued about. For this is very much an old style traditional Western, the plot featuring a retired gunslinger being pushed into action again - while he tries to reconcile with his estranged father - is a hard core staple of 1950s Westerns. But what is wrong with having a traditional Western in this day and age as long as it's produced with skill and grace? The answer for Western lovers is nothing at all.This is a beautifully mounted picture, fronted by father and son Sutherland's - which adds heartfelt emotion to their scenes together - and boosted by gorgeous cinematography (making it a Blu-ray must), it's a genre piece of worth. Crucially it knows what it wants to be, it has no pretence to be anything other than a traditional Oater for lovers of such. The villains are sneery and scenery chewers - apart from Wincott who is a gentleman dandy type - and the good guy is wonderfully broody and reflective. Pacing is fine, the story has good drama and the finale excites as we hope it should.In summary, nothing new here of course (except maybe Cox's out of place language!), so expectation of such would be foolhardy, but a smashing Western it be. 7/10

John Henry Clayton (Kiefer Sutherland) returns home after 10 years of fighting in the Civil War and then roaming the land as a gunfighter. His mother had recently died. His troubled relationship with his father Reverend William Clayton (Donald Sutherland) deteriorates further with John's disbelief and violence. John intends to clear the land for his mother. His sweetheart Mary-Alice (Demi Moore) had married Tom Watson. Land baron James McCurdy (Brian Cox) has been harassing the local farmers with his henchmen led by Frank Tillman and buying their land on the cheap. As the murdering continues, McCurdy hires another civil war gunfighter Gentleman Dave Turner (Michael Wincott).I don't know if father and son had ever been father and son on screen. They certain have it in their scenes together. The problem is that the script is mostly unoriginal and TV director Jon Cassar does not have that cinematic visual flourish. Along with the Sutherlands, the bad guys are excellent actors. I would like more Brian Cox especially in the first half. There is a twist with Michael Wincott at the end that feels fresh. Aaron Poole is good. There are some great actors here who elevate this movie from time to time. Even Demi Moore is functional here. Her worn out appearance helps. Overall, this assembly of acting talent deserves better behind the camera.

Forsaken is mostly a standard fare of classic western film tropes strung together to form a not so original story. Yet for hard core western fans it ends up being a relatively watchable one none the less.People here have talked about the grandeur of the cinematography in this movie though what we get in that respect is somewhat minimal and not terribly impressive by any western standard. If you're looking for a western with cinematography to appreciate check out 2015's The Revenant (the acting is far better as well), or even the most recent remake of The Magnificent Seven.I'm sure a lynch party will be formed soon after reading this, but I honestly believe the films' main draw here is the Sutherland father and son team. Regrettably I have to say, it's not that great of a match, at least not in this particular story.While I am aware Keifer Sutherland built up a strong following with his television success, he really doesn't seem to play this character to that credit and what we get from him feels closer to the character he played in the classic late 80s movie Young Guns, all those years ago. Not to take away from Michael Wincott's performance as Gentleman Dave Turner in this film, but I couldn't help feeling during the course of watching that he might have been more suitable for the lead instead of Keifer.It is simply the kind of clichéd story that just required a stronger lead (as well as screenplay) and perhaps some juxtaposed flashbacks of that lead's less civilized days. At least in this case.Overall, fans of the classic western style won't be too disappointed, but at the same time, shouldn't really be very impressed either and if they are they probably haven't seen enough well done westerns.IMDb doesn't allow 1/2 stars, so it bumps up to a semi solid 6/10.