Seraphim Falls

Terminally long with no end in sight, "Seraphim Falls" from TV director David Van Ancken will put most viewers to sleep as this western saga drags on and on. The revenge plot which this film is centered on has been done many times before and with much better results ("The Outlaw Josey Wales" for one example). In this film, Liam Neeson chases Pierce Brosnan across most of the southwest territory of the United States as both men use up horses and canteens by the dozens. Along the way, we meet a number of what are supposed to be colorful characters or "visions" that may symbolize good and evil. Anjelica Huston and Wes Studi show up near the end of the film, but neither of them make much of an impression except to have their names added to the credits. What Ms. Huston is doing in the middle of the desert selling mysterious potions isn't given any adequate explanation other than the fact that she may be just a mirage. Veteran character actor Ed Lauter has the thankless role of one of Neeson's henchmen who gets left hanging in the middle of nowhere. His fate is quickly forgotten as the long chase continues. As for the two leads, Neeson and Brosnan, both gentlemen have seen better movies and scripts than the one they're stuck with in this box-office fiasco. "Seraphim Falls" director Van Ancken has plied his trade mainly on the small screen and been very successful there. His try for the big-time with this film did not turn out so well. You can't win them all. One of the problems with "Seraphim Falls" is that neither of the main characters qualify as the real protagonist. Neeson has good reason to be hunting down Brosnan who ordered the burning of his home during the Civil War (which also inadvertently killed Neeson's innocent family). Unfortunately, this key information is handed out "piece-meal" to the audience and Neeson's motivation for vengeance is revealed too late in the film. What we do know about Neeson's character is that during his chase for Brosnan, he becomes a murdering psychopath and gains little sympathy from viewers. Brosnan isn't much better himself although it seems he somewhat regrets his earlier actions. The problem with "Seraphim Falls" mainly lies with the ambiguous script which elongates this sad tale to an excruciating length. Viewers will need their own canteens of water just to sit through it. The ending is neither satisfying nor logical and the whole ordeal of watching this film is an exercise in futility. To put it bluntly, "Seraphim Falls" misfires on both barrels.

Okay, I read all the glowing reviews of this film, and I have one question for anyone who gave this thing more than a middle zone rating; Did you actually watch this movie? I won't recap the plot, that's been done a number of times already. I will say that both the leads to a great job in their roles, and the film looks great. But none of that matters if you don't have a story that is engaging. The simple fact is there is no character in this film who is wroth caring about. And then it goes all siddhartha in the end. I'm open to new ways of using the western formate, I love a movie that surprises me and makes me think. This movie does neither. I gave it a 4 because it's well acted and well shot, but it's not entertaining, informative, or though provoking.

I 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.

This movie was BORING! Almost the entire first hour is Liam Neeson and his posse chasing Pierce Brosnan through a wintery forest. That's about it. Liam shoots Pierce at one point. Both parties come across a frontier cabin at different times; not so wacky hijinks ensue. Watching people walk across the frontier does not make for an interesting movie. It would have helped if the filmmakers would have given the viewer at a hint as to why Liam is chasing Pierce, instead of oh so vaguely alluding to some sort of wartime grudge between the two. Seriously, even a red herring would have kept my interesting in this movie going. I turned it off after an hour, because I had some drying paint that needed starting at. It's remarkably similar to the experience of viewing Seraphim Falls.

Just saw the movie in DVD. Was curious about all the biblical implications so I came out here to read what others were saying. The opinions are either thumbs up or down but so far I think everybody has missed the metaphors. First off Seraphim refers to Angels. But who are the fallen angels? The two protagonists? Or more likely the bizarre characters they meet up with during the course of the movie manipulating the characters to a final showdown on more balanced terms. Angelica Huston's character is Lucifer, a fallen angel. On the back of her wagon is her name, Louise C. Fair, AKA Lucifer. In retrospect the movie was somewhat predictable and a bit contrived for me. However I did like the religious allegory, anti-war message, beautiful cinematography and great acting from Liam and Pierce. For those who didn't get it I recommend that you watch it again. Enjoy.

Watched this excellent western on a Sunday morning, not knowing more about the film that it was a western - a man being hunted by another and that there was a grudge from the past between them. I always loved a good western movie, stories are usually kept simple, and so is this one. That however doesn't keep it from being a brilliant movie, beautifully shot and with the right cast. Since i didn't know who was starring, it took me all the way to the end before i realized that the leading part was played by no other than Pierce Brosnan, who once again proves to be a top of the line actor who can play a very wide variety of roles - from James Bond to this. If you ever liked watching a good western this is a must, all the way up there with the other nine best western movies of all times! //Tobey

SERAPHIM FALLS (2007) *** Pierce Brosnan, Liam Neeson, Angie Harmon, Anjelica Huston, Ed Lauter, Michael Wincott, Robert Baker, Kevin J.O'Connor, Xander Berkeley, Wes Studi, James Jordan, Nate Mooney, Jimmi Simpson, Tom Noonan, Shannon Zeller. Vengeance has its price. The revenge Western has been around for quite some time – as long as revenge has been around I suppose (which may be redundant) – and the latest of this sub-genre owes quite a bit to John Ford's "The Searchers" and a kissing cousin to the Clint Eastwood revenge oater "The Outlaw Josey Wales'. In its latest incarnation, the story begins in the wintry confines of the Ruby Mountains circa 1868, and Gideon (a nearly unrecognizable Brosnan as far away from being The Artist Formerly Known As Bond here) is being pursued by a relentless tracker in the form of a taciturn man named Carver (low-key Neeson speaking volumes in his determined yet steely silent eyes), hell-bent on catching his fugitive, in tow with several hired guns to get the job done, by any means necessary. Opening with Gideon being shot in the arm and running through the wintry landscape, falling into a freezing river and eventually excising the silver-dollar sized bullet with wincing dexterity, the pace continues to be breathless and anticipatory as Gideon manages to be one-step ahead while Carver's troupe are two-behind. The reason for Carver's intent is not revealed until the final act (which is the weaker part of the film) but consider its post-Civil War thread and that should sate those who don't want a spoiler thrown in for good measure. Both actors give finely tuned turns here with Brosnan in one of his most physically demanding performances with a certain dirt-under-the-fingernails grittiness, sporting a Don Quixote VanDyke and thatch of graying hair, a grizzled wrinkling pre-aged look that suggests his suffering character is damned in the long run. Proving it takes two-to-tango, Neeson is at his most subtle yet still a looming presence with his brawn and stalwartness bellies his real intent: revenge at any price. There are a few tweaks to the genre's stock characters: young gun bank robbers; a railroad crew of hostile Irishmen and victimized Chinese slave labor; wise Indian proclaiming nuggets of choice phrasings; a snake-oil sales(wo)man (Huston at her slyest) who may-or- may-not-be-a-desert-mirage; and the off-beat missionaries on pilgrimage. But director David Von Ancken making his big-screen debut (a TV vet of such shows as "Numb3rs" & "CSI: NY") – who collaborated on the script with novice Abby Everett Jaques – manages to incorporate some shrewd machinations (a dead horse sequence that actually had me jump out of my seat; kudos to editor Conrad Buff IV) and allow his leads enough space to make the most of their environs (the scenery is a character itself going from the wintry mountains to the arid, no-man's land salt flats) to their advantage. Although when the two characters finally come together after many bloody, graphic sequences, it is somewhat anti-climatic but the theme of doing the right thing at the right time nearly defeats what has transpired in the first half of this revisionist Western, the best since "Unforgiven" and last year's "The Proposition".

Pierce (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.

Liam Neeson as Carver is hunting Gideon (Pierce Brosnan) through the wilderness of the old west, in this minimalistic western that takes place a little after the Civil War. Very well acted by all involved, and I found myself enjoying it quite a lot. At 2 hours, the film hardly feels it and is seems like a fast watch, never wearing out it's welcome (although coming close to it around the end due to the cameos of Angela Huston and Wes Studi, both parts felt forced and didn't jibe with the film in any way) Aside from that, if you're a fan of the Western genre, you'll find much to enjoy in this one. It's probably the best we've had in a good decade or so. To say Writer/ Director Ancken hit his stride here wouldn't be the right word (I've yet to see his short "Bullet in the Brain", but hear it's excellent), but it IS the film that really made me take notice of his talent and I strongly await whatever he has up his sleeve next. My Grade: A

I like going into movies knowing little about them other than a few basics. Quite often, the less you know beforehand, the more enjoyable a movie can be. So all I knew about Seraphim Falls when I watched it was that it was a western. I didn't even know who was in it. Now, to start with, all was well. The frozen mountainous setting, Brosnan and Neeson, a tale of revenge. Who was Brosnan's character? Why was Neeson after him. All good stuff. Over the course of the next hour or so, more is revealed as the manhunt continues. Again, all good. But, oh dear, having convinced me it was a revenge-western, Seraphim Falls then proceeds to get a little bit weird. Characters appear in the middle of nowhere, offering temptations to Brosnan and Neeson's characters. At first I thought "The characters are losing their minds, and this is what they are seeing." But the gifts thus given to the duo are apparently real. If they had both died of thirst at the end and been found by a wandering cavalry detachment, say, then I could have forgiven this. But this is not what happens. I won't try and gloss over it. For a revenge flick this is a deeply unsatisfying conclusion. The trippy insanity is never explained and the whole thing leaves a rather unpleasant aftertaste in the mouth. It's almost as if, having given us over an hour of blood and thunder, the director wanted to point out the folly of vengeance and how we should all just "get along...." If you like good old fashioned westerns give this one a miss. It starts off promising, but will hugely disappoint you in the end.