Forsaken [DVD]

Seeing the Sutherlands together finally is a treat and I'm glad they chose a Western to make this long sought-after pairing actually happen. Westerns have been my favorite genre since growing up with the Gene & Roy Saturday Matinee specials. But it seems the farther we get from the actual period of the old west, the harder it is to make a decent movie in the vein. This movie proves that it still can be done.There are a few things that I would have done differently to make it a better movie but they are not enough to detract from a 5-star rating.1) I would have hired a stunt double to do Kiefer's riding. He sits a saddle just fine until the horse moves and then it's like the horse and he are two kernels of corn in the popper - each going all over the place but never in the same direction at the same time. Or he should have taken riding lessons.2) The director and the costumer needed to pay more attention to the outfits. Kiefer's hat and vest came right out of the Boot Barn and may have been appropriate for the day they bought them in 2012 but certainly not for post Civil War Wyoming. Same for the duster worn toward the end of the film. That didn't come into fashion until after 1900. Kiefer's haircut was completely wrong. Even if he'd been getting it cut by a barber back in 1875 it would not have been as tapered and as short as he was wearing it. In order to have hair that short in those days, one would need to go to the barber weekly. Two things, personal finances and the availability of barbers when one is drifting would prohibit that style. The style of the day was more of a home-made cut that looks like someone put a bowl over the head and just cut OFF anything that stuck out from under the sides of the bowl. Kiefer's looked like he just came from a Hollywood hairstylist.However with those things put aside, there are two other things that you rarely see in any Western that are prominently displayed in this film. 1) in the church yard, there are not one but TWO outhouses across the yard from the church. Also note that they are both DOUBLE outhouses. That would make sense for the puritan ethic that was prevalent at the time. One would have been designated for men and the other for women. And they would have both needed to be double in order to serve the large size of the congregation. The error here though is that they are placed in the front of the church and in all decent communities the "Privy" was always located at the BACK of the property. Folks did not wish to "Advertise to the entire congregation" the business they needed to conduct.2) You rarely if ever see a horse shot in a movie even though the diraries, letters and newspaper accounts document that it happened quite frequently. A part of this story is about how a stray bullent went wild during a shootout, going through a storefront window and killing a young boy. So it stands to reason that with bullets flying everywhere, horses are likely to be injured if not killed. The only other movie in which I can recall seeing this is the Kevin Costner/Robert Duval movie "Open Range" where during a gunfight, a horse is seen limping off riderless from the hitching rail - allowing the viewer to assume he was injured by a stray bullet. Even though I know that the supposedly dead horse was not really injured, it served it's purpose to add that sense of "Realism" that is so often missing in many movies.I'm pleased to say that although I didn't have high hopes for this movie before starting it because of the number of films released after 2010 that just don't have a point or a purpose even when they have the star power. I though this would probably be another disappointment. I'm glad to report it wasn't and happy to say I enjoyed the movie.If you're a fan of the Westerns or just like a movie with a good story, this one won't disappoint you.

Subtle for such a spectacular movie and maybe that's what makes it so memorable. The failure to advertise this movie was a real mistake and I suspect cost them all a great deal of money in the long run because of their short sighted ness. It was not in theaters long at all! Kiefer Sutherland was flawless and inspiring in his portrayal of the son who's preacher father (Donald Sutherland) never communicated the love he had for him, just judgment, until he was the one who finally understood what a preacher should have understood long before. I was delighted to see Demi More in this film. Her acting has been a real work in progress since her General Hospital days and being out of the spotlight has given her a chance to mature into a really serious actress to contend with. As long as she continues to play and act her age and put more into her acting than her men, I see some really good opportunities ahead for her. A 20 y.o. with a grey wig just isn't the same, though she did look quite well taken care of for her age. Demi Moore was right on the money as a quietly strong wife with a good man she married after waiting futilely for John Henry to return from war. Given the life span, and the natural pull to have a family, at that time two years was pretty generous... but as in matters of the heart there are no rules and it was obvious she still had feelings for him that motivated her husband to behave stupidly, not communicating his plans for their life and ordering her around to try and establish dominance. Not many equal partnerships in marriage and he made a decision without consulting her or any others that triggered the series of events that were probably common for the time. While the father/son relationship, better late than never, was uncomfortable from the beginning it was a shame their connection didn't really happen until the end. It took so long for the father to grow up, that the film missed a real golden opportunity to take advantage of the casting. Brian Cox was wonderful in the strong type of part he does to perfection. He plays a land grabber knowing the railroad will pay dearly for the flat farm land. He hired men with guns and not much else. The funniest part was hired swaggering, insecure, dirty boy with an obviously outsized ego who was most insulted that John Henry hadn't heard of him. After all, he had " killed FOUR people !" This boy's huge ego and stupidity was a factor in waking up the town's sheep with disgust if nothing else. The most interesting relationship was between John Henry and a hired gunslinger (for the bad guy). It was quite reminiscent of Val Kilmer's memorable portrayal of Doc Holiday in Tombstone and Johnny Ringo. A sort of ethical, civil, respectful and honorable relationship between killers. For the one, it was clearly just a temporary security job. As it was clear they knew each other, that would be interesting to follow up. I can't say enough about Kiefer Sutherland's performance. It was spot on and compelling as he inhabited the very skin and mind of the character. Bringing John to life in a thoughtful way. He and I are probably the only two people on the planet who haven't seen 24, his acting is always so thoughtful that maybe I've just been saving it for a treat. Like his father, he doesn't seem to enjoy lighter fare, but I've always loved his little foray into the pool of fun with Dennis Hopper where he played an FBI agent transporting a famous and elusive old "Most Wanted" hippie radical (SDS or Weathermen). It was called The Trip or 1969 or something like that. I still recall it vividly and watch it when I find it. (should buy it). But it's the only non-serious role I recall him playing and one of the few Dennis Hopper films I liked. This film is definitely a film that brought out the best in every actor. They are generous to each other in this production which makes the cohesion and timing perfect. Not one dull or slow moment. The script was so good that there was no need to cover it up with unnecessary blood and guts or painfully slow and "artistic" hours of blood and guts. Luckily it's rented for 72 hours so I can watch it again many times. I really would like to see a film following the low key life of this former gunman. I'd like to see how a secretly former gunman has a life, family, vocation after leaving the "wild West".

2 of the Biggest Stars. Father and Son. They made this movie GREAT. 1st watch 05/28/2023.

This was in the tradition of a older western, especially a Clint Eastwood western.

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

Kiefer Sutherland is no Clint Eastwood, he'll never be tall enough, rough enough or mean enough... he's about half way there in this western movie, that's a bit short on running time. Brian Cox is no Gene Hackman or Richard Harris either, he aint big enough, suave enough or cold blooded enough, he's about half way there too. This movie has great promise, good script, and good story line, but the running time didn't allow the subplots or the ending to pan out enough. Suffice to say, this is no Unforgiven, it's about half way there. But you should take it for what it is and who is in it.The start was good, and the middle section was just coming to the boil, but had this movie had an extra 20 mins to develop itself a bit further... we'd have seen a proper come-back from ole Mr Sutherland. But as it stands, this was a competent effort, worth watching, with enough grit, steel and a proper western mentality to watch all the way to the end. The real life father/son combination works on screen too. But this isn't Young Guns, it lacks a bit in the action department, there are no wild chases through the woods or on horseback, it's a bit one paced in that sense. I liked the story, and even if he just rides off with no woman or place to especially go, he's fulfilled what he went back to do.Didn't like the swearing that only came later on by Brian Cox's character, why only him and no one else? Either have it full on or not at all, no point just one character, that otherwise uses big words to swear too and no one hardly else doing the same. I guess that's a gripe, with the running time, and lack of action. Three things missing, for only four stars...

The movie Shane was filmed in 1953 and it would be fair to say that it was one of the greatest westerns ever made. Clint Eastwood's Pale Rider followed a similar story line and Forsaken too is similar in nature to the main plot.However, the only problem I had with Forsaken was our hero took a lot of stick from the "nasties" in the film and he got a real pasting too at one point. I was surprised it took him so long to go back to his dad's place for his guns. When eventually the grand finale did arrive it is then one appreciates just how good Shane was and bearing in mind it was made nearly 60 years before.Forsaken is an enjoyable film and it is well worth a watch. If you did enjoy the film do give Shane 90 minutes of your time. The final part is worth the price of the ticket alone!

A great chance to see the Sutherlands perform together properly for the first time as farther and son.The story is familiar for the western genre but the superb acting carries it through and you really feel for the characters. Obviously the scenes between Keifer & Donald are the star of the show, but once again Demi Moore shows that she is far more than a pretty face and her chemistry with Keifer is great.

Over all a good western in the traditional sense, nothing new, it even began in the same old rider coming into view.But the bonus is Father and son, brilliantly playing father and son. The rest, goodies and baddies echo countless of those that have proceeded them, as with the story line of a gang knocking off those farmers who won't sell their land to them.The quality of the acting and scenery make it a worthwhile watch.