Titreenp SERIOUSLY. This is what the crap Hollywood still puts out?

Freaktana A Major Disappointment

Kidskycom It's funny watching the elements come together in this complicated scam. On one hand, the set-up isn't quite as complex as it seems, but there's an easy sense of fun in every exchange.

Teddie Blake The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

NecatPace 6.7/10 Un poco triste, pero valió la pena verla #netfix

dfwenigma 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.

Spikeopath 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

davideo-2 STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning In 1872, gunslinger John Henry Clayton (Kiefer Sutherland) returns home from battle, hoping to mend bridges with his father, the Reverend William Clayton (Donald Sutherland), who disapproved of his life of violence. William coldly tells his son that his mother is dead, and things don't look like they'll shape up any time soon. But John Henry may have a chance to redeem himself when he crosses paths with a gang of brutes, led by the ruthless James McCurdy (Brian Cox), who are trying to force landowners out of their homes in order to get a big railway track built.It can often be the case that something that might have first of had potential many years ago doesn't have the same impact if it happens today. The pairing of legendary actor Donald Sutherland and his not so legendary (but still something of a *24* cultural icon) son Kiefer might have rocked the world ten/twenty years ago, but today it seems their pairing only amounts to this underwhelming little addition to the gently re-emerging western genre, that has all the right ingredients but no recipe to give it its own spice.Forsaken plays like the textbook genre training manual, plodding through by the numbers, and ticking off every cliché as it goes along. It's the most standard, uninspiring old west screenplay you can imagine, that never dares to deviate from the standard formula. Performances wise, lead star Sutherland has no meat to chew on in a largely emotionless role, but such is the weakness of the script that even a tearful confessional in the church doesn't have the impact it could have. Sutherland Sr. has a quiet dignity as his pious father, while Cox has his usual air of menace as the villain, which you know he is as he's the only character to keep saying 'f**king' over and over.With a further support cast in the shape of Michael Wincott and Demi Moore as the love interest, there's certainly no shortage of talent. It's all okay if you want something to just gently relax to, but a big letdown for those who like their westerns more dynamic. **