classicsoncall This Western gets short shrift by it's rating here on IMDb but I thought it was a pretty good one. The theme of course, has been done time and time again, but the principal characters and cinematography help it rise above it's B movie origins. I like the idea of real life fathers and sons portraying characters with the same relationship, so Donald Sutherland and son Kiefer made the story work here, of a long waylaid Civil War soldier returning to his home town only to be rebuffed by a preacher father who detests his son's reputation as a gunfighter.What would have made the story distressing to me is if John Henry Clayton (Kiefer Sutherland) had reunited with his former fiancé, Mary Alice Watson (Demi Moore). That would have made the story more than intentionally clichéd, so I found it appealing that John Henry's ride into the sunset was done as a loner. The most interesting character here for me was Gentleman Dave Turner (Michael Wincott), hired gun of town boss James McCurdy (Brian Cox), who's conversations with John Henry hinted at mutual respect even while foreshadowing a presumed, eventual showdown. If there's ever another 'Gunfight at the O.K. Corral' remake, I think Wincott could make a quintessential Doc Holliday, he had just the right looks and temperament for the infamous gunman.I got a kick out of that scene when John Henry arrived at Mr. Parsons' (Dave Trimble) general store inquiring about the LeMat he had on display for sale. Eventually realizing that Clayton only needed it for the remainder of the day, his offer of a good price on the firearm turned into "Or you can borrow it". I thought that was classic.

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.

wtmerrett Another duster made in the genre that had it's heyday in the 60's. I liked many things about this picture but by far the best was the cast. Kiefer and his father Donald Sutherland were asked to convey real emotion in this picture and they both managed to pull it off. Way to go guys! I am usually not impressed with either actor as they both usually are a tad wooden in their delivery and Kiefer mostly talks in a quiet breathy voice. He was actually enunciating his lines in Forsaken and we could hear him. The rest of the cast did a fine job and the writing was uninspired but believable. The director, Jon Cassar directed a number of Kiefers' 24 episodes and this would be why he was asked to direct this one. I was not drawn to notice the direction by it being overly poor or great so can't say I am disappointed in Cassar's work here. The set was well built and nicely designed but my one complaint with it was how the saloon was overly ornate. The columns were way over the top in design for a frontier town. Not a chance would the money have been spent to create the capitals on those columns in 1800's Western America and this caused me to notice them, thereby taking my focus away from the scene we were supposed to be watching. I spent many years in the film business in Set Dec and Props (in fact is the same location and city that Forsaken was shot) and often disagreed with Decorators or Art Directors on period pictures about the aging or colours of sets. A newly built town or building would not have aged gray looking wood on it. But they would always age it down. This annoys me greatly every time see it. The bar for any western since 1992 has been Clint Eastwoods' "Unforgiven" and very few have even come close to that level. This picture is very good for what it is but not up to the level of Unforgiven. I would recommend this one.

amesmonde 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.