Forsaken (2016)

John Henry Clayton (Kiefer Sutherland) returns home after 10 years of fighting in the Civil War and then roaming the land as a gunfighter. His mother had recently died. His troubled relationship with his father Reverend William Clayton (Donald Sutherland) deteriorates further with John's disbelief and violence. John intends to clear the land for his mother. His sweetheart Mary-Alice (Demi Moore) had married Tom Watson. Land baron James McCurdy (Brian Cox) has been harassing the local farmers with his henchmen led by Frank Tillman and buying their land on the cheap. As the murdering continues, McCurdy hires another civil war gunfighter Gentleman Dave Turner (Michael Wincott).I don't know if father and son had ever been father and son on screen. They certain have it in their scenes together. The problem is that the script is mostly unoriginal and TV director Jon Cassar does not have that cinematic visual flourish. Along with the Sutherlands, the bad guys are excellent actors. I would like more Brian Cox especially in the first half. There is a twist with Michael Wincott at the end that feels fresh. Aaron Poole is good. There are some great actors here who elevate this movie from time to time. Even Demi Moore is functional here. Her worn out appearance helps. Overall, this assembly of acting talent deserves better behind the camera.

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.

Way back, back into ... Western territory. And this may seem familiar if you do. So it's not so much a modern take, but more like an homage to the way things were done before. If that floats your boat (or rides your horse I reckon), than this movie is for you. If you want a lot of action scenes and clear cut heroes (because the villain is clear cut, though not all of his henchmen are that ... well evil), than you should probably start looking elsewhere.Sutherlands reunited, but not in tune character wise, which helps the plot move forward. Great to see them play off each other on screen, though Kiefer seems to be phoning in a lot things (especially the head down, want no trouble mentality, that could be described as emotionless). Other than that, this is more than decent and can be enjoyed

When the critics complained about this movie's lack of originality, I thought to myself "so what. It's a Western. Everything in this genre has been done before". Now, having watched Forsaken, I completely understand where they were coming from. Not only have I seen numerous variations of this story in TV showings of classic Western movies, I've also read the tale of the retired gunslinger who must strap on his guns one more time over and over again in the cheap Western magazines that I used to devour as a kid.Aside from the utterly clichéd, formulaic and predictable story, everything in this movie is just about perfect. The cinematography, directing and acting are top notch. I especially enjoyed the performances of Brian Cox and Michael Wincott, even though their characters were as two-dimensional and stereotypical as everybody else's. The soundtrack is a touch obtrusive and overly emotional, but that, too, fits the classic Western tradition. Bottom line: If you happen to be a huge fan of the genre who feels nostalgic about the golden age of Western movies, and/or about a time when men were still heroes or villains and women were window dressing, you should get some enjoyment out of this film. With emphasis on the word "some", mind you.