Forsaken (I) (2015) User Reviews

Nicely done western from father and son Sutherland

[subxerogravity · 7/10 · 23 February 2016]

It's a slow drive that ends with a sudden violent car crash, like a good western should.

Kiefer Sutherland plays a soldier who waited far too long after the war to put down his guns, but something tragic hits him hard, and he tries to change his ways, with the help of his father, played by Sutherland's real life father, Donald Sutherland who plays a small town preacher who disapproved of the life his son once lead, and is threaten to get back into when a banker tries to buy out the town by any means necessary.

It's a very typical western story made timeless by it's focus on being character driven. I don't know if this is the first time Kiefer and Donald have done a movie together, but it must have help with the relationship between their characters.

But my favorite interaction was between Kiefer's John Henry and Michael Wincott's Dave Turner, who plays a rival gunslinger hired to influence town people off their land. The mutual respect these men showed for each other despite being on different sides of the coin was masterful, something I never seen done so well in a western.

Brian Cox was also in the movie playing the banker that hired Dave Turner. His role as James McCurdy is what tells us that this timeless Western was made in 2015, because he's all about taking people's homes who don't want to leave, and his level of cold heartiness is done brilliantly, reflected this day and era.

Though I'm sure she was trying to due some respectable acting in this film, Demi More is still some impressive eye candy.

The story is nothing out of the ordinary, but it's strengthen by a great set of actors doing their thing, lead by father and son team Sutherland. Good western.

Respect between professionals in this old fashioned western

[bkoganbing · 6/10 · 23 March 2016]

Like Kirk and Michael Douglas, Donald and Kiefer Sutherland waited far too long to team up for a film. Forsaken casts them as a frontier preacher and his gunfighter son who wants to give it up and settle down and work the family farm with dad. But there's a lot that has passed between them, a lot of misunderstanding and judgmental behavior ever since Kiefer went off to war and didn't return. He also left behind Demi Moore who up and married Christopher Rosamond and has a son with him.

This is an old fashioned western in its villains because back when all those poverty row studios were churning out B westerns the way Ford did Model Ts, the town banker in New Deal Days was always the villain. Brian Cox portrayed this villainous town banker with real relish, stopping short of twirling the mustache like Snidely Whiplash.

Donald played a three dimensional preacher with both faults and strengths and resisted the temptation to make his role a caricature. Kiefer Sutherland is a Jimmy Stewart like western hero who the locality depends on to be the strong man who stands up to the villains.

Like in John Wayne's classic El Dorado, Cox like villain Edward Asner in El Dorado doesn't use a gun, he 'hires it done'. Cox has a stable of gunfighters to enforce his will, but one of them is a professional played by Michael Wincott. Wincott and Sutherland have a mutual respect between professionals the way John Wayne had with Christopher George in El Dorado.

For those who like old fashioned westerns like me, Forsaken is your type of film.

Completely unoriginal, yet enjoyable throwback western

[covenant12 · 7/10 · 25 February 2016]

If you're a fan of the genre, there isn't a single plot beat in FORSAKEN that you haven't seen many times over. In most instances, you'll probably be able to deduce what's going to happen next, or even what the next line is going to be.

That said, I still enjoyed the movie a good deal, primarily due to the beautiful locations, and Donald Sutherland's exceptional performance in what could have been a thankless, cut-out role. Kiefer, in full-on Kiefer mumbly mode fails to impress, but it's still interesting to see the father-son duo share the screen.

I'd give it a 6.5 if I could, but since I can't, I usually round up.

Confession is good for the soul.

[albereinstein · 7/10 · 22 February 2016]

Although this movie was done before by different actors, the whole drifter son who returns back in town, where ornery blokes are driving the town people out by using unsavory tactic to take possession of their property and land. Keifer returns to his father's home Donald, filled with a guilt of his past, only to realize that there are those who sometimes will not allow to forget it. I gotta say, the Sutherlands did a decent job on screen as a father and son duo, in which neither out stood the other in neither script or performance. Cox, WIncott and Moore, were also great co stars. In this film again, that has been done before. What moved me was the scene in the church were Keifer breakdowns and confesses his guilt to his father, who walks in on him talking to God, in whom Keifer never really believed in. That part had me little teary eyed. And of course end the retribution is handed down to those who have terrorized the towns people, and we all fill good at the end of the film. Cliché? yes. But a good cliché none the less, that stands the test of time and to see a father son duo do it so well, then I say we need more cliché films to enjoy.

Traditional Treat.

[hitchcockthelegend · 7/10 · 9 March 2017]

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

Modest But Decent Nod To The Classics

[AudioFileZ · 6/10 · 7 March 2016]

Blockbuster classic westerns are, of course, past-tense. If you still crave a good one you won't care as long as it respects the genre. Forsaken is a modest nod to the classics with many elements of those woven in. The story is anything but original, and the cast plays it straight and low-key. Overall it works.

Keifer Sutherland and Donald play a father and son reunited after a decade of exile due to deeply held differences. The occasion is a visit to see the ailing matriarch who has died before her son has returned unknown to him. Both Sutherlands are pros and they don't overplay their roles, bringing a bit of real angst underpinning both's desire for reconciliation. With the elder's disdain for violence, he's the town's preacher, and the son's penchant for gunslinging, he's renowned as man not to be trifled with, their division couldn't seem wider. This will be a dilemma put the test by the town fat cat who seeks to buy out the locals prior to the arrival of the railroad. His henchmen are plying their trade of murder to achieve their employer's goal. This, of course, puts John Henry Clayton, who has laid down his arms in a bid to make peace with his father, in a situation he can't extricate himself from.

Those who want to fault modesty in movies may turn away. I'd say they're missing out, as well as missing the point. This is like an ensemble cast and reverent director tipping their hats to the great westerns of all time in a purposely stripped down story. What it lacks in complexity and originality it makes up for in reverent simplicity. The backdrop of a west past is beautifully photographed. The roles portrayed seem right - even as the role the boss's right hand man, Dave, seems strange but will win one over by the ominous tone the fine actor Michael Wincott brings (he narrates a bit too). All in all, this is a small-scale enjoyable for those who appreciate the classics.

good movie but someone should have consulted a farmer

[jnbbookworm · 7/10 · 27 August 2016]

overall the movie was good the relationship between father and son was good. The story line though well worn was OK. G

Good actors but farmers they are not.

a couple of nit pics

Once you fell a tree with an axe -- cut the branches up with a saw whacking a small branch with a axe for no apparent reason seemed staged.

while you are digging out the stump there is no need to chop at it with the axe -- you already cut the tree down.

after you plow the field you harrow it or at least rake it to smooth the ground but you do not seed the furrows.

Overall the movie was really OK. they really should have consulted a farmer though.

Most of the reviews here divorced from reality

[A_Different_Drummer · 8/10 · 21 February 2016]

In the IMDb Guidelines for Top Reviewers, Rule 19 says that, when in doubt, be honest.

So I will.

I have no idea how most members do their ratings these days. But I do know that often the ratings make no sense. This is one example. This is a stellar western, borrowing the "retired gunslinger" theme from the 40s and 50s, the type of western that Glen Ford used to do best.

The script is solid, the acting ditto. I mean, Brian Cox and Demi Moore in supporting roles. Wow. The elder Sutherland as always gets a little trapped in his one-dimensional character but the part was written for a character actor not a lead. The younger Sutherland effortlessly spans the full spectrum of emotions and holds the attention of the viewer like glue. And Wincott makes for one of the most articulate western villains in the history of the genre.

The cinematography is stunning.

Again, looking at the low IMDb rating, you would think there are so many quality westerns being made these days that viewers are overpowered by choice. Nope, that's not true. Is it? If I were grading on a Bell curve, this would be a 9. As it stands it gets a solid 8. Recommended.

((Designated "IMDb Top Reviewer." Please check out my list "167+ Nearly-Perfect Movies (with the occasional Anime or TV miniseries) you can/should see again and again (1932 to the present))

If you like Westerns you'll love FORSAKEN

[phjscott · 7/10 · 1 March 2016]

I love Westerns! The Donald and Keifer Sutherland tandem here was irresistible and made this a must watch for me and it did not disappoint.

Here is a heart warming tale about a prodigal son who was lost to the world and comes home 10 years after going off to war. The son haunted by a decade of wayward wandering and misdeeds. The father trying to overcome the bitterness of losing his family and community piece by piece.

Throughout the movie is a pleasant, persistent but not overbearing theme of how God works through his servants to achieve His divine will. Fans of the genre will enjoy all the classic elements that make Westerns great. There is a scene in the church between father and son that had such raw powerful emotion it made me cry tears.

Gentleman Dave Turner, played by Michael Wincott is my new favorite anti-hero.

If you like Westerns you'll love FORSAKEN. Well done!!!

Familiar story, but well executed

[Wizard-8 · 10 April 2016]

With "Forsaken" having the particular title it has, it's obvious that the filmmakers were trying to package it in a way to make viewers think they were getting a western in the same vein of Clint Eastwood's "Unforgiven". (Another similarity is that both movies were filmed in Alberta, Canada.)

Anyway, if you have seen your share of westerns, it's highly likely that you'll find the majority of the story pretty familiar and predictable. (It's more or less the old land-grab plot.) While there are no real big surprises with the movie's story, it is a pretty well executed telling of a familiar story. The dialogue is pretty good for the most part. While the chief bad guy uttering the "f" word several times did seem out of place, the various other characters (good or bad) talk in a manner that gives them some dimension and makes them believable. The cast also does well, particularly the elder Sutherland, who gives one of his best performances in years, helping to make his character with some sympathy instead of a stern stereotype.

Director Jon Cassar gives the movie a nice feel. There is a relaxed and down to earth attitude that while admittedly is a little slow at times, manages for the most part shows life in the wild west was for the most part hard work and not constant action. And the movie looks great, from the background scenery of Alberta to the costumes and sets.

To sum up, while "Forsaken" doesn't offer an original story, and is not for western fans who are looking for tons of action, patient western fans who don't mind seeing a familiar story once again will find this western a well crafted retread.

An often derivative morality play with no clear moral

[ginocox-206-336968 · 5/10 · 26 February 2016]

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.

A great old-fashioned Western with modern themes makes this a nice little sleeper.

[mark.waltz · 8/10 · 26 December 2021]

It's the first film together for Keifer and Donald Sutherland, playing father and son who have been estranged for a while and are reunited after the death of Kiefer's mother and Donald's wife. Keifer was once known as a fast shot, but he has put away his guns in his efforts to turn his life around. But it's obvious he's going to need these weapons again as his father's Community is being harassed by land baron Brian Cox's vile gang who has no hesitation in violently killing people who refuse to sell their land cheaply to them.

I don't know what kind of filters they used in the photography, if they use them at all, but there is something very moody in the way that this is filmed, and that element makes it gorgeous. Most of the colors inside seem to be pastels, but when the camera focuses on dozens of trees together, the greens are very vibrant and the vista is stunning. Demi Moore has a nice supporting role as Keifer's old girlfriend who is now married and mother of a young son. She is photographed as slightly weather-beaten but still attractive, and she really looks the part a woman in the old west. Nice to see her loosen up her glamour and be real.

The film itself is very violent, a dark reminder that classic Hollywood westerns didn't always show the hardships people in the middle of nowhere faced. Cox and his gang are villains with no remorse, not only content to beat someone senseless, but shooting at their victims in a way that stuns them at first before they go in for the real kill. It is shocking and repulsive, but the film doesn't hesitate to show the viewer what these innocent farmers were up against.

Both Sutherlands are very good, and as their estrangement decreases, Keifer realizes that he at least has two temporarily pull his guns back out to fight for what's right. It's ironic that for a film that is so physically violent that the characters have a soft way of speaking, even when everything around them seems Blake. That makes it much more powerful than had it been more loud and angry. Subtlety really controls the mood here, and for that, I give this a higher rating than I might have otherwise.

Just watchable

[eryui · 6/10 · 27 February 2016]

I wish I could save this movie but, sincerely, it is not that great.

The plot is the usual, the good-hardened man who returns home from war to redeem himself. The usual very nasty guys who take advantage of expropriating people lands. Obviously the never forgotten ex-girlfriend, by this time married, which is in difficulties and ask for help. The good-hardened man that is brought (beyond measure) to the predictable despair.

The only nice thing about the movie are some good actors but, mainly the relationship between Sutherland father and son that it is interesting to see acting together in their "real" roles.

Otherwise a mediocre film, just a good set and a couple of moving scenes but overall a forced series of clichés from start to finish.

By not considering the recent eccentric "The Hateful Eight" or the particular "The Revenant", if you want to see a good - usual - now day western, then "The Salvation" or mostly "The Dark Valley" are on other level.

Just watchable

6/10

Am I watching a Bruce Willis rip off?

[tvsitcoms · 2/10 · 26 February 2016]

Cliché is the word that absolutely describes this movie. Imagine all western common places and you get this movie spot on!

Nothing here is a surprise. Sutherland, the son, does not have what it takes to hold the movie. His performance is bland and has a conflicted tough action guy he leaves a lot to desire.

All the time I got the impression I has watching a bad Bruce Willis impersonation, brrrr! And it only got worse when the long-last ex girlfriend end up to be Demi Moore. Did the producers wish they had Willis? Some catching phrases also seem taken almost literally from Die Hard's script.

In the ending scene, I just laugh. The always-the-same narration over the image of the "hero" horseback riding to the horizon has he leaves town after saving everybody's live... LAME.

I didn't care about him. He just wasn't THAT type of hero.

The movie misses everything that could make it agreeable. Performances, scenery or direction AREN'T enough to help it. It's a forgettable one.

Solid performances from «the villains» and Sutherland - the father, though.

Originality seems Forsaken but you won't need to bite the bullet

[FrankDamage · 6/10 · 2 December 2016]

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.

Typical, but still awesome

[martymoves · 7/10 · 4 February 2023]

Its a story we've seen a hundred times. Guy comes into town, there's the troublemakers, love interest, and family accord.

It does differ from the typical storylines a bit. Clichés en masse but still pulls it off. There are some twists to this plot which don't follow the usual formula, and its nice to see it not completely riddled with certainty.

The cast is absolutely fantastic, no matter how big or small the roles. Some of my favourites in here: Michael Wincott, Demi Moore, Kiefer Sutherland, i mean what's not to like.

All in all, its a good old fashioned western which sets out to do as it does. A good watch.

Overall 6.5/10 Entertainment Value 7.5/10 - Anything with Michael Wincott automatically gets a star bump from me, but this film deserved it.

Good old fashioned western

[swchamberlain · 7/10 · 29 March 2016]

This was a good movie, it had a good story, the movie as a whole wasn't stretched out too long, it had some good acting, and the fact that real life father and son played father and son in the movie was just a great idea. It does feel like it drags on at times, and it kind of makes you sit on the edge of your seat waiting for the good guys to start standing up for themselves but it is something that is completely necessary for the story. The bad guy does drop the F bomb a few times, which I suppose isn't breathtaking but it feels out of place because that it is the only swear word spoken in the entire movie by a single person, multiple times, so it actually feels out of place. So here you have a guy dropping the F bomb and nobody reacts to it, not sure if they get it, don't get it and its one of those things where there is either too much swearing or not enough because its only one word by one person. I like the movie though and if I were to compare it to anything I think Clint Eastwoods Unforgiven would be a good comparison. If you liked that movie then you will definitely like Forsaken.

A standard western but very engaging none-the-less

[Red-Barracuda · 7/10 · 26 June 2016]

Set in Wyoming just after the Civil War. An ex-gunslinger returns to the homestead after a decade away only to encounter seething anger from his reverend father who deplores his son's violent ways and a mother long dead. He additionally finds himself in the midst of a town bullied by land-grabbers who systematically murder whoever refuse to sell their land to them. This puts his newly pacified ways seriously to the test.

This is an old fashioned western in many ways in terms of its fairly straightforward story. But in some respects I kind of liked it for this, as it made a change for the genre to reach back into the past for inspiration. Truthfully, this is a story full to the brim with very familiar tropes of its genre and you will not be very surprised by any plot developments or characterisations if you have seen a few westerns. But despite this, it's still an engaging piece of work. I would imagine it's been marketed primarily as the film where real life father and son Donald and Kiefer Sutherland play an on screen father and son. The two actors work well together though and, perhaps unsurprisingly, do have some chemistry. Demi Moore appears too and does solid work in what is a fairly basic character but maybe Brian Cox is the overall standout as the chief villain, an amoral businessman; Cox gets to spit out a few poisonous lines of dialogue and he does it well.

This is not a western that is ever going to break the mould, as it doesn't really ever go anywhere westerns haven't been before. In fact, it actively embraces the standard plot-lines and characters of the genre. But it's a well-acted and is economically delivered never-the-less. Its very unpretentiousness entertainment and, most importantly, enjoyable viewing.

Beautifully Made Western

[cms-271-482756 · 9/10 · 22 February 2016]

I grew up in the era when the western was king. I really love a great classic western and Forsaken brought me back using classic tropes that many seemed to see as clichés but I welcomed as old friends. The cinematography is gorgeous, the acting is stellar, especially the Sutherlands, Demi Moore and Michael Wincott. At it's heart this movie is a beautiful father and son story, more drama than action flick which is also something I appreciate. As one who has not particularly been drawn to the revisionist western of today, ( zombies? aliens? incredible disgusting violence and nastiness? ) Forsaken was a breath of fresh air.

Old, Tried and True

[Jxfiles · 7/10 · 29 March 2016]

Brooding, intense, and dreary, Forsaken is an old fashioned Western told in an old fashioned way. A former Civil War soldier returns home after a series of ill-defined violent exploits only to be met with a deceased mother and a disappointed father. Eager for redemption, though not sure how to find it, he soon finds himself in the midst of another bloody conflict. Sound familiar? Yes, but the execution proves too good to write off.

Though there are some clichéd motifs, to be sure, the film still feels authentic and offers some of the best acting in a genre that unfortunately has become awash in straight-to-DVD mediocrity. The characterizations are liking in some parts, yet their emotional integrity and presence is nearly visceral in this film—with an all- star ensemble cast featuring real-life father and son combo Kiefer and Donald Sutherland, Brian Cox, and Michael Wincott.

Besides the acting, the film itself is restrained, with a slow build. Thought it has a short run-time, it never feels rushed, the action beats feel earned, and the ending resonates with the nearly poetic vibe of the film. Narratively it may seem slight, yet the parts work too well to be ignored in Forsaken.

3.5/5 Stars

The Sutherlands, Winacott and Poole shine

[amesmonde · 21 November 2016]

In 1872 Wyoming, a former gunslinger and his estranged father encounter a ruthless businessman and his posse of thugs.

Director Jon Cassar's Forsaken is very much a paint by numbers Western, however, the draw (no pun indented) is having father and son Donald and Kiefer Sutherland share the screen. In addition, the supporting cast elevate Brad Mirman's screenplay with the likes of Demi Moore, Brian Cox and Michael Wincott. Wincott's Dave Turner, a dangerous principled gun for hire is particularly notable aiming for the heights of Tombstone's (1993) Kilmer Doc Holiday and underrated Aaron Poole shines as thug Frank Tillman, both actors leave an impression.

Along with Jonathan Goldsmith's score Cassar's low-key Western captures the essence of the classics including Shane (1953). And while it's not a novel as the recent Bone Tomahawk (2015) or as broodingly fun as In a Valley of Violence (2016) it ticks all the American West boxes. Kiefer Sutherland's John Henry Clayton like Ethan Hawke in the aforementioned film is haunted by the war, Here writer Mirman doesn't really offer anything new, however, thanks to Kiefer's simmering cowboy performance he sells the heartache and torment of a repressed killer. The love triangle between Moore's Mary, her husband and John adds some drama in amongst Cassar's well staged fights and shoots out as people are force to sell of their land.

Donald Sutherland's Reverend William Clayton only gets one scene with Cox (who sadly isn't given much to do) an unscrupulous business man James McCurdy. But the Sutherland's father and son relationship tensions offer some weighty telling scenes with tragic accidents, war, mother and brother back-story dynamics which hold interest. The preceding peak in the showdown closing act and Winacott and Kiefer cement their gun slinging positions in a satisfying close.

Overall, it doesn't shake the genre up but is worth watching if only for the Sutherlands, Winacott and Poole's performance.

101 Clichés

[jcaliendo-104-917650 · 3/10 · 16 September 2015]

Just screened at TIFF. A paint-by-numbers movie that lacks finesse let alone originality. Every hoary western movie trope + cliché - and then some. Downright ridiculous at times. Kiefer Sutherland wasn't bad - just the material he was handed. Father Donald clearly understood the dilemma as his performance was on autopilot. Demi Moore was actually OK-ish in spite of obviously being the director's idea of stunt casting. Michael Wincott did the least-affected work with arguably the most affected character - he also got to be beautifully dressed (as every gentleman killer with a code of honour should). Cameron Bailey introduced the film as a uniquely "Canadian western". I understood how sly he was being about half-way through the screening. Good news; it was only 90 minutes long. In conclusion, rent 'Unforgiven' if you want to see how it is supposed to be done.

Excellent Old School Western

[darrenmurray84 · 8/10 · 24 February 2016]

There has been a number of westerns being released recently, from the excellent Bone Tomahawk, The Hateful Eight & the Revenant to the decent Diablo.

The Forsaken doesn't compare with the greats, but is still an excellent old style Western. The problem with this, is that it will be judged for being to old fashioned. If not for the swearing by the great Brian Cox, this is a Western that could have been made in the 60's with Glenn Ford or Randolph Scott.

All performances are excellent, and the reviewer saying that Kiefer Sutherland overacted, he must have been watching another movie. Donald Sutherland is equally as good as his father. Michael Wincott is also worth mentioning, in a memorable role as a hired gun. He seems to be channelling Val Kilmer in Tombstone. As mentioned before, Brian Cox is excellent as the villain, using up the films swear quota. The only poor lead role is Demi Moore, which is not down to her acting, but limited screen time and development. Still give her points for not being vain and letting her grey hair show through.

The plot isn't the most original, but gets the job done. Jon Cassar does a great job of directing and the Canadian scenery that is used looks terrific.

You must be joking

[rod-190 · 6/10 · 23 February 2016]

I have read the reviews on this site for "Forsaken" and find myself wondering if there is another version of the film out there. Kiefer Sutherland does his absolute best to overact - this the main reason I stopped watching "24" years ago. His father is difficult to fault as he goes through the motions on autopilot. The direction is at times okay but overall sparks of a Canadian production - extras on the street are laughable. The well-dressed villain does a fine job, while the hateful villain is nothing special. Brian Cox is a favourite of mine and he must know he is wasted in this plot that has been done many times before with greater success. Demi Moore manages to keep her cool but cannot save what is really a movie with little to recommend it. A_Different_Drummer: "the script is solid, the acting stellar" - possibly correct when compared with a daytime soap. I believe the Sutherlands are capable of better than this.

People who give this good reviews must know nothing

[zoppashotgun · 4/10 · 9 October 2022]

Now, the acting isn't bad, and the plot is even ok. But the writing and historical inaccuracies infuriate me. He's like 50 in 1870 but went off to war a young man? He grew up in Wyoming, that basically wasn't settled in 1860? The railroad hasn't come through yet, despite passing through Laramie 2 years before the movie could have been set? He uses a Lemat, which is a muzzle loading percussion pistol? And the other cartridge guns are all 1973 or newer, thus being even more out of place? His mother's grave is surrounded by a white picket fence with machine cut slats? And worst of all? When he rides up in the beginning, there are square bales on the field. Those weren't invented until the 1930s.