Seraphim Falls Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES
Never turn your back on the past.
In the 1860s, five men have been tracking a sixth across Nevada for more than two weeks. They shoot and wound him, but he gets away. They pursue, led by the dour Carver, who will pay them each $1 a day once he's captured. The hunted is Gideon, resourceful, skilled with a knife. Gideon's flight and Carver's hunt require horses, water, and bullets. The course takes them past lone settlers, a wagon train, a rail crew, settlements, and an Indian philosopher. What is the reason for the hunt; what connects Gideon and Carver? What happened at Seraphim Falls?
| Liam Neeson | Carver |
| Pierce Brosnan | Gideon |
| Michael Wincott | Hayes |
| Ed Lauter | Parsons |
| John Robinson | The Kid |
| Robert Baker | Pope |
| Jimmi Simpson | Virgil |
| Nate Mooney | Cousin Bill |
| James Jordan | Evan |
| Kevin J. O'Connor | Henry |
| Anjelica Huston | Madame Louise Fair |
| Shannon Zeller | Charlotte |
| Tom Noonan | Minister/Abraham |
| Angie Harmon | Rose |
| Xander Berkeley | Railroad Foreman |
| David Von Ancken |
7.00 out of 10 (3818 votes)
Visitor Reviews
A good movie but not great
posted on 05 Jul 2009I thoroughly enjoyed the movie apart from a couple of key points that really detracted from the overall quality.The story picks up mid way through a chase in the snowy Nevada mountains. We do not know who is being chased nor who is doing the chasing nor do we know why. Motives are slowly revealed throughout the nearly two hour running time. Until then it is up to the viewer to decide who to root for (typically human nature will mean we always go for the underdog which is inevitably the person being hunted).The cinematography is excellent and the landscapes outstanding. The plot is deliberately simple as this is not a movie with endless twists and turns although the chase leads us from mountains to lowlands through railway camps, pilgrims to desert.One of the messages here is an age on old one namely the futility of revenge with the two protagonists eventually forming a bond without necessarily becoming friends.Where I feel the movie falls down is a couple of key areas such as Gideon leaving his only means of transport namely his horse at a campsite in the mountains with a fire going for his chasers to find. Sure leave the campsite and watch your pursuers from afar but you would never leave your horse..that just does not make sense.Also at the end when Carver is shot but then miraculously gets up and walks away....what the f..k??? Maybe bullets back in the 1860's only tickled. What was the director thinking?Lastly throwing in a random Indian philosopher at the waterhole, well just didn't quite fit in and seemed a bit contrived or maybe a space filler.Apart from that Brosnan and Neeson did a bang up job.
Intelligently-made western a refreshing surprise
posted on 17 Jun 2009I rented this film without ever hearing of it before, and was pleasantly surprised...something which is becoming more and more rare in my movie renting experience.This gritty, untypical western appealed to me on a number of different levels. The unusual casting of Liam Neeson and Pierce Brosnan intrigued me, their film presence was an enhancement without being a distraction to the film. The story was complex and minimalist at the same time, sometimes combining ultra-real and surreal elements. The cinematography is straightforward and beautiful, and a welcome relief from the jiggly camera technique, colorization, and other "contemporary" gimmicks that all too often nowadays cause technique and style to become a major distraction with the story being told. Thank goodness there are still directors that believe in having movies being filmed this way!While the story grabs your attention from the very beginning and moves quickly, it takes its time in revealing who the characters are, and what are their motivations and the demons they are dealing with.If you watch this with a preconceived notion of what a western should be, a la John Ford, Howard Hawks, etc. you may be disappointed, as some reviewers here obviously have been. I myself found this intelligent western - that is a little offbeat, with an element of mystery, and not always clearly defined bad guys and good guys - a refreshing change of pace from the racks of slasher film sequels, lame comedies, and Jennifer Aniston vehicles at the video store.
Breakneck Pace and Poetic Justice in the Irish-American West
posted on 07 Jun 2009I know what's on the tip of everyone's tongue, "Hey, I heard this movie is amazing and all like John Ford meets Monte Hellman meets John Rambo meets Sergio Leone meets Deadwood meets... Gus Van Sant? Oskar Schindler faces off with James Bond? Is it as good as that?!" Well, pat yourself on the back and unleash that thought from your tongue and spew its glory into the frozen mountains. You've never been more correct. Ambition is this picture's middle name. Pierce Brosnan, buried in snow and a McCabe-ish fur coat gets unexpectedly shot in the first few moments of the picture, but like a true Western, he does not die. He suffers; he grunts and groans as Neeson effectively scowls to the chase. The initial twenty minutes is classic snowbound survival Western material (Jeremiah Johnson, The Great Silence, etc...). What follows this intense, beautifully shot opening is certainly the most ambitious Western movie-making in years. The geography and landscape of the West shaped movies forever, and Seraphim Falls captures it all. Neeson chases Brosnan down icy slopes, through lush woodlands and farms to a blistering finale in the quintessential western locale, the desert. As they close in on the desert, the chase ceases to be motivated by a simple grudge and the pair embrace stark spiritual fatalism, by way of Peckinpah and Van Sant. A shocking metaphor for the birth of a nation, from primitivism, through agriculture, to a deserted, barren wasteland. Once both Brosnan and Neeson embark in this war with each other, there is no turning back, no escape. Bottom line: Neeson (minus the opening to Gangs of New York) and Brosnan have never been better. A Western that embraces the true bloody west into the gritty submission it deserves. A to the plus.
Good revenge movie
posted on 05 Jun 2009This is a great movie. Great photography. Great performances. Great action pieces. Good amount of the old 'ultra violence' ...well almost. Simple story, well told. I like westerns and this one is a good addition.....The scenery is actually almost like a character ranging from frozen, snow covered mountain tops to arid desert. The performances by Brosnan and Neeson were good. Who would have thought that two Irishmen could have fit in so nicely into the roles. Well, I suppose it would be possible given the number of Irish and others floating around at the time. I especially like Brosnan's performance (interesting since I don't warm to him as an actor .... except in the Matador). Maybe he will continue to accept more challenging roles and hit them out of the park....I hope so.
Better than not bad
posted on 20 Apr 2009I went into this film expecting nothing. Basically that was because I knew nothing about it. It was suggested by a friend that I might like to see "Seraphim Falls" before it vanished from the British cinemas, as it had died upon it's release in the states. I'm glad that I did because, for most of the time, "Seraphim Falls" is a rather interesting, exciting, dirty and realistic western.Good things.A particularly cold and icy performance by the underrated Liam Neeson as the mysterious, relentless and unstoppable Colonel Carver. A great, Bond shredding performance by Pierce Brosnan as the even-more-mysterious Gideon. (Perhaps, in retrospect, not that Bond shredding. Gideon is naturally resourceful, a genius born killer and survivor, able to withstand great hardship and pain. Does that sound like anybody Brosnan has played before?) The film also looks absolutely beautiful. Mountain and the desert locations have never looked so good.Bad things.Call me mad, but when we finally got to the flashback that explained the reason behind Carver's pursuit of Gideon, it was faintly disappointing. The reason, life changing though it was, just seemed a bit trite, predictable and ordinary, compared to the existential battle of wills that preceded it. I don't suppose that I really needed or cared to know the reasons behind Carver's pursuit of Gideon. The pursuit was the thing.Also, "Seraphim Falls" goes a bit bonkers towards the end, with near parody (but I suppose fun) turns by Wes Studi and Angelica Houston. Now, I like a bit of mysticism in my westerns, but it wasn't needed here and it was kind of out of place.So, "Seraphim Falls" is better than not bad. Most of the time.
Ungripping and Plain!
posted on 10 Apr 2009Yet another Cat and Mouse plot line. Seraphim Falls lacks any real plot line. The viewer is left watching a fairly substandard chase through the terrains of mid-America. Where an average Pierce Brosnan is pursued by a very convincing Liam Neeson and his cronies. You watch the film expecting the plot to unravel which it fails to achieve throughout. It lacks any substance or emotion. And winds up with an unbelievable and unimaginative end. Overall this apparent 'western' fails to impress on all levels with poor dialouge, very average performances and an ending that makes you wish you had spent the last 2 hours re-watching one of the classics. In my opinion The good, The Bad, The Ugly is always worth another watch.
Like three different movies
posted on 07 Mar 2009The first 40 minutes is a really great western...the second 40 minutes kind of drags, as our two characters meet dozens of western cliché characters and I lose track of how many times Brosnan's character has lost his horse...then it seems like the director suddenly remembered he's a huge Tim Burton fan and slapped on a surreal ending which has nothing whatsoever to do with the rest of the movie.So, I loved the beginning and I would have really liked the end on a different movie.Also, days later, I'm still wondering why Brosnan's character sliced open the first dead guy. I'm also wondering why he chose to continue running into this awfully inhospitable desert. And I don't know if either of them die in it.
Utterly forgettable
posted on 05 Mar 2009I wanted to like this film because of the two Irish lead male actor's would be playing something quite different than their past easy 'formula' characters. It was nice to see Brosnam sporting some fail hair and his look was very positive and I thought her could play other western icons like Bufalo Bill or Bill Hickcock. Liam was very believable as the antagonist to Brosnam. They trouble with the film was that is was too long and a chase film. The film was shot in beautiful country but the film's boring parts were punctuated by very gross and violent scenes involving killing of men and animals. I began not to care about the characters and just wanted the film to end. There were some laughable small scenes with an Indian at a watering hole and a lady peddler and wagon that broke up the monotony. This film was not up to the standards of this cast.
An epic film with heart stopping action.
posted on 25 Feb 2009A film of epic dimensions magnificently filmed in the grand Western tradition, Seraphim Falls combines breathtaking action with fine acting by Pierce Brosnan and Liam Neeson. Both have taken on roles far from their usual fare and have achieved a level of performance rarely seen. Anjelica Huston, in a cameo role, provides the devilish key to this tale of pursuit and revenge. Director/Screenwriter, David VonAncken, updates the historical American Western with his spare dialog and continual action. The glorious scenery of the West adds another dimension to this full bodied work. Shot in New Mexico and Oregon, under grueling conditions, Seraphim Falls is a must see for those who love the Western genre and long for a great story excitingly transferred to the screen.
Wasted talent - disappointing film
posted on 23 Feb 2009Was looking forward to seeing this one, Brosnan and Neeson being favorites. Unfortunately, their talent is mostly wasted here with the lack of a story and very poor pacing. There was potential but the movie just never hits stride. It succeeds neither as an action film or a "western". I use quotes there because the there's little here to make it a western except the setting and costumes. Both well done. Michael Wincott is also wasted in this one. Decent video rental, don't expect a story or much good writing. You never care about any character in the film, even those who would have been easy to care for. Again, thats too bad because there was potential here. Brosnan does a nice job with what there was to work with. 6 out of 10 for his efforts and the scenery.
1 of the worst movies i have ever seen
posted on 23 Feb 2009How does this movie ever get a good rating? Did we watch the same movie or was there another one with the same name that everyone else watched? I rented this movie because of the actors in it. I remember seeing the previews and thought that it looked interesting, boy was i wrong. After the opening scene, which was good, nothing happens in this movie. Nothing like watching people walk through the desert for almost 2 hours. How is this a good western with no shootouts? I tried to watch this movie in 1 sitting but i was unable. If you honestly want to compare the excitement level to something in the real world, go out and watch your grass grow. Your adrenaline and blood pressure should be raised by the same amount as watching this movie. Worst western movie i have ever scene.
Let him bleed.
posted on 18 Jan 2009Westerns do not typically do well at the box office. 3:10 to Yuma may have made $50 million, but most, like this one, do a small fraction of that. In fact, this one probably didn't pay for the crew's donuts. That is a shame, as it was well worth seeing.Maybe it is because westerns typically present the world in black and white - good guys versus bad guys. That world only exists on right wing talk radio. Even good guys have flaws and bad guys may not always be completely to blame (Hitler, Stalin and Bush/Cheney excepted).Liam Neeson plays a man obsessed with revenge in this film. It was a beautiful display of how such obsession can eat you up until you have lost all humanity. We have all been wronged at one time or another, and sometimes we hold onto those feelings far too long. Neeson brilliantly played such a man - a man who would trade his last drink of water for a gun with one bullet as he crossed a desert in search of Pierce Brosnan, the bad guy, who really wasn't.Brosnan, who out-Ramboed John Rambo as he treated his own wound early in the film, gave a really cool performance as the man who just couldn't understand why Neeson couldn't let go.Writer/Director David Von Ancken did a credible job with a story that plays well for all of us.Oscar-winning Cinematographer John Toll (Braveheart, Legends of the Fall) gave us breathtaking scenes in Oregon and New Mexico to take away with us.
Brosnan/Neeson bring the destruction of a soul to life
posted on 13 Dec 2008It's not at all what I expected -- it's a great deal more. I suspect this movie has maybe 40% of the lines a "normal" movie of this type and length would have -- and not surprisingly, it's the silences that speak the loudest.In some amazing performances, both Pierce Brosnan and Liam Neeson bring home the destruction of war and what it does to a soul. It is amusing, just as an anecdote, that two Irishmen are fighting the American Civil War -- but they do it *so* well and David Von Ancken does such an amazing directing job that there isn't a moment that you don't believe. The amazing lengths to which each of these men will go -- Guideon (Brosnan) to stay alive and Carver (Neeson) to kill the man he defines as murderer - is amazing. There's some very graphic knife violence -- and it's perpetrated by the unexpected (in terms of actor history) -- and quite well brought off. That this man will go to these lengths to accomplish this goal is never in doubt in your mind. From belly wounds to horse entrails, this is an amazing story.I'm not surprised it didn't do big box office. This is a thinking person's movie and it's profoundly unsettling. The look at what blind hatred can do to a soul is disconcerting enough all by itself. It may have some qualities of a Western, but hardly the traditional Western. These actors, far from their regular beaten track, turn in an amazing performance.Well worth the watch.
A strong western ruined by an overly ambiguous ending.
posted on 03 Dec 2008Seraphim Falls is a chase across the American West, a brutal struggle for survival and revenge. Which in itself is enough reason to see this beautifully photographed picture.Now I can critique this picture up until the end when unfortunately it turns into a farce. Wes Studi squatting beside some waterhole dispensing pearls of wisdom, Angelica Houston appears in the middle of the desert selling potions, I mean what the #$%*.I would recommend Seraphim Falls for its photography and its direct and uncompromising action but be prepared for a overly ambiguous (or ambitious) ending. - PCL
One of the worse movies I've seen
posted on 29 Nov 2008It all started awesome, kept me interested and waiting for something better to come... but never happened... on the contrary: it went from bad to worse and I felt like spending 4 hours sitting just waiting for the final credits to come...The story was so typical, the characters were too predictable, all the actions taken were not surprising, neither intelligent... And what's up with that Indian, or worse! with Madame Louise! come on... those kind of 'wise messages' were trivial and stupid...It's a lame to have such great cast like Liam Neeson, Pierce Brosnan or Angelica Huston just to develop a nonsense story with terrible special effects (who would come out from a dead horse like that!?) and a terrible ending...Don't waste your time...
Lovely scenery. Not worth the trip.
posted on 13 Nov 2008Plot: Neesom is tracking Brosnan, in order to kill him. He has a bunch of hired pokes with him. He's gruff and bitter and unlikeable, and it's way too far into the movie before you find out why.Brosnan gets injured immediately and therefore has our sympathy from the beginning. Oddly, he will kill in self-defense early in the film, but not later. Or possibly just won't kill Neesom. Again, you don't find out why until it's pretty much too late to care.So Neesom's been tracking Brosnan for some three years or so, and can't even keep up with him when Brosnan is injured and on foot and Neesom is on horseback. Sigh.I wanted to like the film. I like Brosnan, and every time the scene changed, there was another of my favorite character actors hidden under a pile of scruff and a really hoarse voice. But unfortunately there were way too many unsatisfying elements.First, the plot of chase - almost capture - escape - chase - chase - kill - don't kill.... and on and on... gets pretty dull when there's nothing to link everything together. And nothing to really make you understand or root for either of the main characters until way too far into the film.Second, the people they meet and places they go feel like a strung together series of vignettes of "what the filmmakers thought was cool in the west" rather than any sort of unified backdrop for a story. They also don't feel quite right - *almost* over-the-top without ever quite making that satisfying leap into Sam Raimi territory. And they throw everything in - missionaries, tarnished women, Chinese railroad workers - everything, but none of it feels like it belongs TOGETHER.Third, the freaky folk. There are several encounters which may be dreams, or delusions, or the product of sunstroke - the "Injun" at the waterin' hole, the snake-oil saleslady, and possibly even the missionaries. All of this was kind of cool. Very unreal feeling, almost, but not quite, in the tone of "Dead Man" (Johnny Depp movie). And, from what I recall, they all wore top hats. Even Huston's hat is top-hat-ish. Unfortunately, since these weird encounters begin very late in the film, the segue from "probably real" into "possibly not" is jarring and feels tacked on. If the film had this thread noticeable throughout, it would have been much more interesting.Fourthly, the racial slurs. The funny thing is, I have no problem with racial slurs in historical context - unfortunately, the ones they actually chose to use made almost no sense from the perspective of a modern audience who may or may not be up on their "wild west" trivia.OK, Brosnan calling this one guy "Paddy" seemed to really tick him off - but the guy was the one roughneck WITHOUT an Irish accent. What was up with that? Plus, how many average modern public-school educated people actually even remember that the Irish were the east-coast immigrants who worked the railroad much the same way the Chinese were the west-coast ones? Then, the missionaries - were they supposed to be Jewish? They didn't sound or look Jewish from a modern perspective, and no one actually said anything except "God's chosen people", and the leader was wearing what might have been a shawl - or a Navajo blanket... I was pretty confused.The one that really cracked me up, though, is the missionary leader mentioning offhandedly that he'd been injured by Mormons. The audience laughed at this (one of the few laughs in the entire evening), without even realizing this was a serious historical comment! Without a passing familiarity with Riders of the Purple Sage, most people won't realize this WASN'T just a joke or a slur - the Mormons were a tough desperate bunch in the days of the old west.Finally, the reason for the guys' conflict. Ay-yi-yi. Brosnan and his confederate soldiers burned down (Yankee) Neesom's house - apparently after the war had ended, and with very little excuse - and accidentally killed his wife and children.Um. Neesom's wife has the guts to RUN into a BURNING house to save her baby and then just stands there at the window, unable to get it to open, until she collapses? Um... I don't know if you noticed, ma'am, but it's GLASS. I just can't believe anyone, particularly a frontier woman, wouldn't think of SMASHING THE DANG WINDOW. And Brosnan just stands by, looking on in horror (almost teary), since he never meant to kill anyone, rather than try and get his men to help her? The whole back story showed up too late (2/3-ish of the way into the film), was feeble and unbelievable, and bent WAY over backward to try and make sure that you don't hate Brosnan for being "mean". PC ALERT!!! All this film really did was make me want to go and watch "Dead Man" again...
Good, but not great, addition to Western canon.
posted on 03 Nov 2008Cowboy pictures, horse operas, shoot 'em ups - whatever you prefer to label them there is no denying they make for compelling cinema. I've long been an ardent enthusiast of them, as it's difficult not to be if you enjoy beautiful cinematography, engaging characters, and plenty of insight into the truly dark, cold recesses of human nature.From the genre's very inception, the 1903 film aptly named "The Great Train Robbery, to the excellent 2007 remake of "3:10 to Yuma, there have been thousands of threads in the tapestry we know as the western. One of the more recent entries is "Seraphim Falls", a thematically poor but cinematically brilliant revenge film. With Liam Neeson and Pierce Brosnan as the two leads (as the Carver the hunter and Gideon the hunted respectively), you already know you're in for some great acting.Despite having a moderately paced and quite exciting opening hour to the film, the plot begins to crumble amidst a barrage of derivative scenes and simply ridiculous actions. Brosnan's character emerging from within the carcass of a horse to surprise his adversaries has got to be one of the more absurd "Hollywoodisms" I've witnessed this year.There is a scene, which was probably one of the more expensive to film, which succinctly details what Gideon did in his past to spark such ire within Carver. It only serves to deflate the mystery surrounding their feud and comes as a huge disappointment. The fascination you're filled with during the beginning of the film turns into the pedestrian "you killed my family, now I must kill you" deal. The film would have been much more powerful and intriguing had they opted to leave any sort of explanation out.Further, the appearance of Angelica Huston at the end of the film may be a bit too bizarre and surreal for some, as she is evidently intended to be symbolic of the devil. After her dealings with Neeson and Brosnan, in which she trades items with them, the climax is rendered effectively unavailing due to the hackneyed "you kill me" "no, you kill ME" conclusion.All told, however, I enjoyed this film and it held my attention 'till the bitter finale. A worthy rental choice, and for classicist Western fans, a definite addition to your personal cinema library.Dialogue 6/10 The speech is sparse and rough, much as it should be, but some lines are nausea-inducing with their empty machismo. An example being: "You can't protect anyone in this life, son, the sooner you get that the better." spoken by Carver.Cinematography 8/10 This is perhaps the finest aspect of the film, as it's beautifully framed and diligently shot. Though it is a little jarring how the landscape suddenly changes from snowy to barren in mid-chase.Acting 9/10 Neeson and Brosnan are both first-rate actors, and perform brilliantly despite a couple of scenes guaranteed to make you roll your eyes (most notably the "horse carcass ambush" scene).
Too Hard-Edged A Western
posted on 22 Oct 2008I usually love westerns but a few modern-day ones (not many) are so hard-edged that they aren't appealing. This was one of them. You have to have a little bit of levity, or good people, or something decent to counteract the nastiness or brutality....but there is none of that in this bleak story. The only redeeming quality comes at the very end but it's too little, too late for me.Too much of this movie involves sadistic, hostile men with several gross scenes of blood and guts, too much profanity (using the f-word back in the mid 1800s? I question that.) and too much overall negativity.It's another simple revenge story of a man who felt a Civil War officer - and it's understandable when they finally show you what precipitated all this hatred - was responsible for the death of his family. That man is then hunted down by the other, with the aid of hired help. This hunting of Pierce Brosnan's "Gideon," by Liam Neeson's ("Carver") and his help, most notably Michael Wincott as "Hayes" is the whole story. For some of it, it is a tale of survival in the cold wilderness, like a Jeremiah Johnson movie, with a wounded Brosnan trying to stay alive and one step ahead of his pursuer's. That part was interesting but as the movie goes on, it gets more and more profane and just plain nasty and it's not a fun movie to watch. In addition, you get another cheap shot at Christians and a last-hour that drags on so much you almost laugh out loud at the ludicrousness of it. It least it actually had a decent message at the end.Brosnan's "Gideon" isn't all bad, of course, since we have to have someone to root for, but basically, the men are all low-life guys n here and there are no good women, either. Anjelica Huston gets good billing on the back of the DVD box, but doesn't show up on screen until after an hour-and-half, and then plays a small and sleazy role similar to all the men in the picture.Not recommended for western fans who like good guys versus bad guys, because there are no good guys in this film.
Immensely disappointing.
posted on 08 Oct 2008Revenge western that starts in the cold of the mountains and ends in the desert; this interesting metaphor for the spiritual descent of two violent characters is one of the only good things about this film. Pierce Brosnan, Liam Neeson, and Michael Wincott all give good performances; a lot of the others are stiff and two-dimensional, which actually could be blamed, I suppose, on the script. Anjelica Huston and Wes Studi are great, as always, but in roles that turn up toward the end of the film in lame attempts at being mystical. This film is not "mystical," nor is it "gothic," nor is it "dark," in the manner of, say, KEOMA, MCCABE AND MRS. MILLER, THE PROPOSITION, or Cormac McCarthy's writing, most of which I've heard it called or compared to, which is why I can't begin to express my disappointment upon finally seeing this relatively well-directed and acted but scripted-by-numbers film. The best scenes take place near the beginning, where Brosnan is alone surviving in the wilderness, operating on himself, and cooking his food. He makes lots of good noises to which I can relate when he's alone and struggling and the detail is impressive. But we quickly fall into gaps in logic, such as, for instance, if Brosnan is going to make several sets of tracks when he flees his campsite to separate his enemies, why does he only bother to kill one of them and why does it take him so long to do even that? And if Neeson only had one bullet, what the hell is he going to do with that empty gun? I know how these things can be explained away, but those explanations do not work for me. The film quickly becomes a film of pursuit, with various boring characters being encountered along the way, that we know from the start will inevitably end one of two ways, as a revenge story must, but the thing this movie fails to realize is that within both those physical possibilities are a wide variety of psychological and emotional ones, and the psychological/emotional road taken here is one that's older than film itself that is not played out with any kind of vision or point of view that moves me at all. The series of flashbacks that eventually tell us why Neeson is pursuing Brosnan ends in a reveal that would probably work in a Roy Rogers or Fess Parker movie but contains absolutely nothing to justify its being done, once again, fifty years later. I will be the first to tell you that the western, a genre I can't get enough of, has been around as long as narrative film and is almost never about originality of plot; it's about what goes on between the plot points, dialog, scenery, style, character. The scenery is actually beautifully shot, but none of that other stuff is made to work here in any way that justifies the amount of hullabaloo I heard about this film.
Hot Bond with a Hot Bod in great directorial debut!
posted on 24 Aug 2009Pierce (his eyes are "piercing" as well) Brosnan, after tumbling over the titular waterfall, is forced to tear his freezing clothes off in subzero, snowy terrain. It is decidedly not "hot," as I previously suggested, but cold, frigid and invigorating to watch. Director David Von Ancken puts Mr. Brosnan through so much torment, but with a great eye and artistry. Some of the violence made me squeal, but there is much to relish. For one, Liam Neeson.These two Irish stars are pitted head-to-head; though not till the end do they share any real dialogue. They grunt and grimace and ride horses into the sunset. It's beautiful and quiet, but also bloody and full of suspense. That's a tricky balance, and David Von Ancken shows some real film-making prowess juggling not only the ever-changing rugged terrain, but by gradually skewing the tone of this Iraq war parable in the surreal.Iraq War? YES! Neeson and Brosnan war on one another and after a long chase it just becomes normal, and there's no way out. Chaos reins and the only solution is to keep going, you can't pull out now. Just as President Bush entered into a war leading Iraqis into the quicksand, it is impossible to give up and back out. When you're in it, you're in it.The two actors shine (and are hot!), the movie looks pretty, the supporting cast manage their small bits very well, the music is neat and it is a true Western. I hope Mr. Von Ancken tackles the genre again next time.