Chekhov's gun is a dramatic principle that states, according to the Wikipedia article by that title, "every element that is present in a narrative is to be irreplaceable, and anything that is otherwise is to be removed."
"Forsaken" features a LeMat revolver. This is a somewhat unique weapon. It was manufactured in the South for use by Confederate troops. It's cylinder holds nine rounds and it has a second barrel that fires buckshot. It is also a bit heavy at 3.1 pounds. The weapon was the subject of two conversations. But the only unique feature of the weapon that had any dramatic impact was its weight. If the buckshot was fired, it wasn't apparent.
The movie assembles a number of unique elements, but doesn't quite seem to know what to do with them. It ends with a narrative evocative of "Unforgiven," but less forceful, as it suggests a character continued to struggle with moral questions that remained unresolved at the end of the story. Brian Cox plays a land baron intent on scaring off the ranchers and buying their land, but he's trying to be a nice guy about it (sometimes) and if he isn't paying a fair price for the land, nobody complains about it. Why he wants all the property, which one character describes as the same dirt and rock as anywhere else, is never clear.
Kiefer Sutherland plays a Civil War veteran who lost his religious faith and became a gunslinger. He was somehow traumatized by the Battle of Shiloh, but we never learn quite how or on which side he fought. He also feels guilty for the death of his younger brother, but it's not quite clear what his role was. The scenes are evocative of scenes from "The Outlaw Josey Wales" and "Ordinary People," the latter perhaps because it also starred Donald Sutherland as a father who loses his favorite son in a boating accident, but lack either the impact or economy. He was further traumatized by an incident depicted in the opening scenes that isn't explained until later.
I am tempted to describe the movie as a chick-flick western. Some parts seem distinctly cornball and contrived.
In many westerns, the gunslinger comes to town with his own sense of morality. Here a former gunslinger comes to a town that desperately needs a man of action and moral conviction. Instead, they get a man of uncertain faith who sets to work exhausting himself by clearing a field as a tribute to his dead mother and submits to various forms of humiliation to avoid action.
The movie wants to be a morality tale, but doesn't have a clear moral.
The tone is a little uneven. Some of the gunshot wounds are graphic and seem fairly realistic. Sometimes the costumes seem like something out of a Hollywood musical. It is probably reasonably accurate in that nobody seems able to shoot very accurately, in stark contrast to many westerns where gunfighters shoot from the hip with uncanny accuracy. However, it seems a little surprising that professional gunfighters would be so consistently inaccurate.
#OscarsSoWhite activists probably won't like the film, as the cast is about as colorful as Donald Sutherland's hair. There aren't many women or children either and the ones who have the greatest impact on the protagonist are already dead. Demi Moore's character seems like it was transposed from an old Gene Autry singing cowboy movie. The one bedroom scene would probably pass the Indian censors without cuts. One modestly clothed barmaid walks upstage through a bar full of drunken gunslingers who could all be gay for the amount of attention they give her. The wife of a farmer vows to spit on the grave of the land baron. Otherwise, the womenfolk stay quietly in the background and leave the action to the men. There are several Civil War veterans, but none is crippled or handicapped.
Generally, in this type of story, the protagonist works his way up the hierarchy of henchmen to a final showdown with the antagonist. This movie takes a detour or two, one of which is kind of interesting.
Cinematography is good in the static shots. Action photography is less impressive.
Overall, the film is worth viewing, but isn't anything I'd want to watch a second time. I was often reminded of earlier films that handled similar material and situations more adeptly.
"Forsaken" features a LeMat revolver. This is a somewhat unique weapon. It was manufactured in the South for use by Confederate troops. It's cylinder holds nine rounds and it has a second barrel that fires buckshot. It is also a bit heavy at 3.1 pounds. The weapon was the subject of two conversations. But the only unique feature of the weapon that had any dramatic impact was its weight. If the buckshot was fired, it wasn't apparent.
The movie assembles a number of unique elements, but doesn't quite seem to know what to do with them. It ends with a narrative evocative of "Unforgiven," but less forceful, as it suggests a character continued to struggle with moral questions that remained unresolved at the end of the story. Brian Cox plays a land baron intent on scaring off the ranchers and buying their land, but he's trying to be a nice guy about it (sometimes) and if he isn't paying a fair price for the land, nobody complains about it. Why he wants all the property, which one character describes as the same dirt and rock as anywhere else, is never clear.
Kiefer Sutherland plays a Civil War veteran who lost his religious faith and became a gunslinger. He was somehow traumatized by the Battle of Shiloh, but we never learn quite how or on which side he fought. He also feels guilty for the death of his younger brother, but it's not quite clear what his role was. The scenes are evocative of scenes from "The Outlaw Josey Wales" and "Ordinary People," the latter perhaps because it also starred Donald Sutherland as a father who loses his favorite son in a boating accident, but lack either the impact or economy. He was further traumatized by an incident depicted in the opening scenes that isn't explained until later.
I am tempted to describe the movie as a chick-flick western. Some parts seem distinctly cornball and contrived.
In many westerns, the gunslinger comes to town with his own sense of morality. Here a former gunslinger comes to a town that desperately needs a man of action and moral conviction. Instead, they get a man of uncertain faith who sets to work exhausting himself by clearing a field as a tribute to his dead mother and submits to various forms of humiliation to avoid action.
The movie wants to be a morality tale, but doesn't have a clear moral.
The tone is a little uneven. Some of the gunshot wounds are graphic and seem fairly realistic. Sometimes the costumes seem like something out of a Hollywood musical. It is probably reasonably accurate in that nobody seems able to shoot very accurately, in stark contrast to many westerns where gunfighters shoot from the hip with uncanny accuracy. However, it seems a little surprising that professional gunfighters would be so consistently inaccurate.
#OscarsSoWhite activists probably won't like the film, as the cast is about as colorful as Donald Sutherland's hair. There aren't many women or children either and the ones who have the greatest impact on the protagonist are already dead. Demi Moore's character seems like it was transposed from an old Gene Autry singing cowboy movie. The one bedroom scene would probably pass the Indian censors without cuts. One modestly clothed barmaid walks upstage through a bar full of drunken gunslingers who could all be gay for the amount of attention they give her. The wife of a farmer vows to spit on the grave of the land baron. Otherwise, the womenfolk stay quietly in the background and leave the action to the men. There are several Civil War veterans, but none is crippled or handicapped.
Generally, in this type of story, the protagonist works his way up the hierarchy of henchmen to a final showdown with the antagonist. This movie takes a detour or two, one of which is kind of interesting.
Cinematography is good in the static shots. Action photography is less impressive.
Overall, the film is worth viewing, but isn't anything I'd want to watch a second time. I was often reminded of earlier films that handled similar material and situations more adeptly.