Seraphim Falls (2006) User Reviews

Powerful but misdirected

[IQpierce · 7/10 · 25 May 2007]

I think you're going to see some very mixed reviews for this film. The tragedy is that it's going to be picked up primarily by fans of westerns, who are looking for shootouts and plots that can be boiled down to "good guys" and "bad guys." Do not go into this movie expecting that.

This is ultimately a revenge story, but not a straightforward or clean-cut one; in this way I would compare it to "Memento" and "The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada".

It's not clear who we're "supposed" to sympathize with at the beginning. We want to sympathize with the revenge-seeker; but we're told almost nothing about why he wants revenge. As he displays at least as many brutal and mercenary traits as anyone else in the film, we question why we side with him, and realize that we're only inclined to do so because our previous experience with "revenge" stories has programmed us to do so.

But the quarry is far from a sympathetic character as well, and we're torn emotionally on what we want to see happen. That is, until the original tragedy is finally revealed. And I've honestly never seen such a well-conceived scene of this type... the tragedy is heart-rending.

I won't say much more except that as the film goes on, the degree to which it will appeal to fans of literal straightforward westerns decreases significantly. You see, as the film begins, Carver's pursuit of Gideon takes them through various isolated episodes: encounters with various characters. As the film goes on, these encounters become more and more obscurely surreal; the final such encounter seems almost supernatural or fantastic. The writer and director have peeled away the internal reality of the story, and are speaking to us through the form itself. Not something that your average Western viewer is likely to accept or appreciate.

Viewers will come to this film expecting a completely realist story; and that's what they seem to be getting at the beginning of the movie. The viewer is not prepared for this realism to slowly and obscurely fall apart - and while that may be the reason that the film creates such a powerful and somehow creepy experience by the end, the same factor is likely to leave most viewers feeling robbed.

Ultimately this film is definitely worth watching, but may not have enduring appeal to lovers of the traditional Western genre. A note while viewing: pay attention to the theme of loss, and how various possessions of the characters are lost.

Good-looking western, but turns into a different film at the end

[Leofwine_draca · 6/10 · 3 December 2012]

SERAPHIM FALLS boasts outstanding cinematography from the very beginning, with scenery ranging from snowy mountainous locales to sun-scorched deserts. The landscapes look and feel beautiful and the characters all have that weathered look, particularly Pierce Brosnan who's almost unrecognisable in the leading role.

It kicks off with action at the outset and remains a chase film throughout. The storyline is slender and the back story annoyingly ambiguous, at least until a late-on flashback that solves that particular mystery. The chase stuff is done well, with tension, drama and violence. I always enjoy these survival-style stories so this is a bit of a no-brainer for me.

Another highlight is the film's cast. Brosnan is on good form (I've always liked this actor, just not when he played Bond) and Neeson his match, but it's the supporting cast who interest me the most. Michael Wincott (ROBIN HOOD: PRINCE OF THIEVES) had me thinking of a young Fred Ward throughout, Xander Berkeley gets to be gruff, scary Tom Noonan (THE MONSTER SQUAD) shows up as a preacher and Ed Lauter appears just as I was thinking of this film's similarity to the Charlie Bronson flick DEATH HUNT (in which Lauter also starred in virtually the same part).

The ending is a little weird, moving on from the action-adventure format and becoming almost mystical and allegorical, featuring late-on cameos from Anjelica Huston and Wes Studi. It's not the most entirely satisfying ending I'd have considered, as it goes against the heartfelt vengeance focused upon for the rest of the movie, but at least it's different. A good, if not great, little movie.

Intelligently-made western a refreshing surprise

[Whythorne · 8/10 · 17 July 2007]

I 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.

Fallen Angels and the Devil

[lputterdvm · 1 June 2007]

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.

solid western

[Buddy-51 · 7/10 · 27 June 2007]

Written by Abby Everett Jaques and David Von Ancken and directed by Von Ancken, "Seraphim Falls" is a rough, tough, old-fashioned western set on the dusty plains and snow-covered mountains of western Nevada. The plot is little more than a straightforward revenge tale involving Liam Neeson (sans Southern accent) as a sadistic Rebel army colonel who hires a posse to track down the marauding Union officer he believes slaughtered his family in the days following the Civil War. The officer, played with steely-eyed determination by Pierce Brosnan, is a savvy, quick-on-the-draw survivalist who, through sheer ingenuity and skill, stymies and outwits the colonel and his men at every turn.

What "Seraphim Falls" lacks in substance, it more than makes up for in grit and style. For even though there isn't a great deal of depth to the characters, there's much pleasure to be derived from merely watching two actors of the caliber of Neeson and Brosnan squaring off in a grueling game of cat-and-mouse played out in a punishing, unforgiving landscape. Brosnan's character achieves an almost Superman-like quality as he stays one step ahead of his pursuers, devising ever-more elaborate means of ensnaring them in his traps. The movie takes a decidedly metaphysical turn in its closing stretches, with the divine Anjelica Huston, no less, appearing out of nowhere as a desert apparition to set the boys straight on a few eternal verities like redemption and forgiveness. But it is as a simple tale of vengeance and obsession that "Seraphim Falls" most captures our imagination and interest.

Revenge and the Wilderness Struggle for Survival

[gradyharp · 6/10 · 4 June 2007]

SERAPHIM FALLS is an odd film, one that on the surface appears to be an homage to the old Westerns, but proves to be a psychological battle for survival between two men engulfed in revenge. There is very little story to relate: Carver (Liam Neeson) with a small posse of bounty hunters (Michael Wincott, Ed Lauter, John Robinson and Robert Baker) treks Gideon (Pierce Brosnan) through snow, forests, mountains, rough water, and desert over a Civil Ear seed of hate. The 'story' fades to a philosophical stance (somewhat clumsily) by the intervention of some ghostly creatures (Anjelica Huston, et al) and ends without much more than a whisper of a memory about the futility of revenge.

Bronson and Neeson do well with their scant dialogue, revealing more of their character's minds with physical action and the power of facial expressions. The mood of the film is in the superior hands of cinematographer John Toll and Harry Gregson-Williams' musical score. Director David Von Ancken keeps the tension at peak level even though the film is desperately in need of editing (just under tow long hours in length). But for a diversion and an appreciation for the wilderness of America in the mid-nineteenth century, SERAPHIM FALLS is a visually satisfying experience. Grady Harp

Perfect

[hpagan14 · 7/10 · 22 May 2007]

With this film you have to take your hat of for Mr. Brosnan he is great in his acting, This is a movie that will remain as one of the greatest western films of all times and some sequences of this film will be remembered for ever I will not tell anything but if you see it(and you must) you will remember this.

It is beautifully shot and has a solid script, great action and deep emotions mixed along the way. If you like western you will not be disappointed.

When you watch Seraphim Falls you will have your emotions mixed as the movie develops and when the fantastic finale arrives you will be even more pleased. It has one of the mos original showdown finale I have ever seen.

This movie is a must see!

Cat and mouse without the speed...

[sinncross · 7/10 · 29 May 2007]

After the events of the Civil War in America, Gideon (Pierce Brosnan) is being hunted by a group of mercenaries headed by Carver (Liam Neeson). Both are connected to an horrific event at Seraphim Falls, and Carver will do anything in his power to exact revenge upon Gideon.

Seraphim Falls is a story about survival, and is evidently so from the opening scenes where Gideon is immediately shot by an unknown rifleman, who we find is part of the group headed by Carver, and has to constantly be on the run to remain alive. This is pretty much the story throughout, except for background story of the events at Seraphim Falls, but this background information is never done in an intriguing way ad instead is hinted at in the beginning of the story, and then explicitly shown towards the end. This is one of the problems with Seraphim Falls as it tries to build this sense of mystery but it never hints at the events constantly enough and when it does come, it comes across as a last ditch effort in trying to get the viewer to sympathise for both Gideon and Carver, which does however work. While the story has a fairly stable pace, with the many slow scenes having the inclusion of a death. While the slow pace only serves to emphasise the struggle of the chase and escape through rugged terrain, except the luscious snowy forest in the opening scenes, it is still a somewhat annoying experience, especially so when the story seems to go absolutely nowhere. There is also an issue in regards to the pace that both Carver and Gideon seem to travel at, but it never distracts from the overall film. It is only towards the end where the pace seems to pick up and the story tries to bring some sense of advancement. It works in its own way, but potential for something for more grand is wasted. Still, it is the characters that really push the film, and they do makeup for the strained story.

The acting is utterly convincing, and only possible due to the ease that both Brosnan and Neeson are able to portray their respective characters. The range of emotions that both veteran actors create is remarkable and will easily allow any viewer to feel for the characters. This is also due to the character development, as we learn that Gideon and Carver do not represent merely black and white, villain and hero: they share characteristics that in fact make them human since neither of them are truly good or bad in their ideals.

There is no nudity, some suggestive sexual movements, which were not in a sexual situation, and only a few profanities which are far and few. However there are a few instances of violence, which involve a little shooting but is more in dealing with cutting and stabs from a knife. While never graphic, except for the closeup of a horses internal organs which have been removed from its body, there are still scenes of the dead bodies with their respective gashes.

Seraphim Falls is not a long film, but it does seem so upon viewing. Its rather pointless direction does have a definite end, but has to be aided by some really good acting to keep one's interest. Ultimately, its the definite emotion exuded by both Brosnan and Neeson that keeps this survival story alive.

--- Also available on Entertainment.Wikia ---

Go as you wish. That which is yours will always return to you. That which you take will always be taken from you.

[hitchcockthelegend · 8/10 · 19 May 2011]

Seraphim Falls is directed by David Von Ancken who also co-writes with Abby Everett Jaques. It stars Liam Neeson, Pierce Brosnan, Michael Wincott, Xander Berkeley, Tom Noonan, Kevin J. O'Connor, John Robinson, Ed Lauter, Wes Studi and Anjelica Huston. Music is by Harry Gregson-Williams and cinematography by John Toll.

It's post American Civil War, 1868, the Rocky Mountains, and Gideon (Brosnan) is being hunted by Colonel Morsman Carver (Neeson) and his hired killers. The reason why is not yet known, but it's the beginning of a relentless pursuit that's propelled by rage and hatred, a pursuit that will force both men to the day of reckoning.

The premise is as simple as it gets and on the surface the film holds no surprises until the divisive ending. However, before taking in the thematics of the story, it's refreshing to find a film of this genre type utilising the scenery to the max, whilst simultaneously playing out with sparse dialogue as two grizzled actors tell the story. An obvious forebear to "The Outlaw Josey Wales", Seraphim Falls is ultimately a meditation on revenge and remorse. Moments of violence flit in and out of proceedings, these moments cloaked magnificently by natural surroundings, where the expansive wilderness plays host to the intimate human drama unfolding. It's also a film that pulses with mythical atmosphere, where Carver's pursuit of Gideon plays out like that of the Grim Reaper and his charges sent to capture the soul of the fleeing man. The falls of the title clearly indicates man's decent into hell, because it's not for nothing that the finale is played out on a blistering plain, which as you cast your eyes upon it, it is indeed hellish.

It's also worth noting that we the viewers are never sure who we should be rooting for - if either of them!? Gideon is out on his own, but he is an immensely skilled mountain man, one who is seemingly out skilling his pursuers. Is he the bad guy here? Or is it Neeson's Carver? One is ex Union, the other Confederate, this gives added spice to what then develops into a most intriguing journey. Where the film has irked some critics is with the ending, with some calling it pretentious and a very weak pay off. It's true enough to say that Ancken has slackened the grip slightly, as the tight gritty tone gives way to something more open and even airy. Yet I personally like it a lot, it helps to round out the supernatural feel that appears to loom as we have headed towards the day of reckoning. It lacks dramatic impact for sure, but thematically and for tonal bedfellow process, it pays off on what had gone before it.

Brosnan (stepping in when Richard Gere bailed out) and Neeson revel in the roles, seemingly enjoying the complexities and war torn burdens that their characters carry. Their scenes together are as professional as one could wish, both men comfortably doing world weary characterisations. Wincott is on hand for gravel voiced villain duties, his portrayal of Hayes is cold and in keeping with the movie. The other notable names in the cast drop in and out of the narrative, each important, and in the case of Huston and Studi, suitably weird. But the real star of the show is John Toll (Braveheart/Legends of the Fall), whose photography is pristine and always remaining atmospheric, he captures the natural beauty of Oregon and New Mexico with great keen eyed skill. Switiching seamlessly from the blue, grey and whites of the mountain pursuit to the browns and yellows of the salt flats, we witness a master cinematographer at work.

Likely to infuriate as much as it enthrals, one just hopes that it's the latter that anyone reading this does indeed find to be the case. 8/10

The reveal inevitably disappoints

[SnoopyStyle · 6/10 · 11 January 2014]

It's 1868. This starts in the Mountains of the west. Gideon (Pierce Brosnan) barely escapes a posse led by Carver (Liam Neeson). They chase him from the mountains down to the deserts. It doesn't really explain the reason for the manhunt until close to the end.

That's the big premise of this movie. It dives right into a chase without telling the audience the why. There is a certain fascination. It's almost as if the reason doesn't matter. In a certain way, it almost doesn't. That's why the reveal is rather a minor disappointment. It could never really satisfy the build up. I think it would be more compelling if they never showed the explanation. The ending does get a bit too surreal especially since the movie never hints at that kind of bent.

Good start, but goes a bit trippy crackpot at the end.

[Rob_Taylor · 5/10 · 23 November 2009]

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.

Too slow for some but for others this is a fantastic film with a superb ending

[lekgolah · 8/10 · 15 June 2010]

It is easy to dislike a film that slows down during the middle to the point where very little is happening and for that reason, many people may not enjoy this film. Thankfully the performances kept my attention on the screen. The two leads are fantastic with Liam Neeson as the predator and Pierce Brosnan as the hunted. Brosnan particularly stands out giving a performance much different to what he has done before this. Right from the beginning you believe that he is trying to survive in the snowy Ruby Mountains whilst he is being hunted. Were it not for the two leads, this film would have been uninteresting to watch.

This is not an action western like 3:10 to Yuma, which is one of my favourite films I might add but is instead a drama that focuses on how far men will go to get what they want or what they will do to survive. Thats not to say that it is devoid of any excitement as the film starts off with Brosnan being chased through the woods and into the rapids. Without spoiling too much the ending is also gripping and concludes the film nicely.

The soundtrack for the film is great and works well with what is happening on-screen. While it may not be as rememberable as The Assassination of Jesse James, it nice to listen to as you look at the films fantastic cinematography. When they are in the cold mountains, you feel cold and that there is little chance of survival for the characters. When they are in the desert, you will feel their thirst for water.

If you watch the film expecting it to be slow and uninteresting, you will be surprised. Watch this film with an open mind and you will see that this is a very well made film boasting fantastic performances from the two leading actors.

It was OKAY

[rockbandwii · 6/10 · 6 July 2021]

I got bored during the movie but good acting and very realistic interpretation of the wild wild west.

Well made, well acted, and not worth your time

[jpathomas · 4/10 · 26 July 2007]

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.

Kind of a "Reservoir Dogs" meets Western, movie!!

[katiemartens-1 · 7/10 · 28 June 2007]

What does a post civil war, quasi-western-movie (recollections of "Cold Mountain") have to do with shoot-em-up-Tarantino- "Reservoir Dogs" you ask??? Well, because besides being a bit of a western, with rugged men toting guns on horseback, and a bit of a drama, with sad faced innocents, glimpses of lost love, and lots of deaths, "Seraphim Falls" plunges along into a great chase story without ever revealing who the bad guy is.

Peirce Brosnan's character starts off getting the run-down and the gun shots, so you figure he must have done something bad. But then you see Neeson's character is acting like, well, an ass, so you figure maybe Brosnan's the good guy. And it goes back and forth like that with only brief flashbacks of the past to keep you guessing. Thus, I give it a "Reservoir Dogs"-esquire quality. :)

FYI: A few pretty pretty vivid, squeamish scenes. It shouldn't dissuade the girls from watching, just cover you eyes for a while!

A good movie but not great

[okky-1 · 7/10 · 24 January 2008]

I 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.

What are movie makers thinking?

[redwhiteandblue1776 · 7/10 · 25 July 2015]

I can never understand why a movie producer or director will go to all the trouble and spend millions of dollars and end up with a film with so many obvious errors. These always show up in the "Goofs" section. Some are pretty obvious while others can be subtle. I see this as laziness on their part and an insult to the viewing public. I have ridden horses all my life and when you are out in the middle of nowhere and dismount, the last thing you do is let loose of the horse and let them wander off. REALLY! How stupid! Gee, it's only thirty eight miles back to the farm, I don't have any water or food so I think I'll just turn O'l Buck loose. How unrealistic. When the Chinese railroad crew set down the two rails on the ties and just started whacking them with their hammers, (no railroad spikes involved) I really had to laugh. Think how many people watched that scene and thought how stupid it was? You don't have to be a railroad expert to see the problem. For all the money these directors get paid, you would think they could have someone around who would clue them in.

Let him bleed.

[lastliberal · 7/10 · 29 December 2007]

Westerns 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.

great movie

[jherman-5 · 9/10 · 2 February 2007]

This is an excellent western - with two great stars that show grit and go beyond their usual work. The photography is stunning and the story is meant to make you think - not pander to the usual formulaic plot. The first 30 minutes will make your hair stand up and the rest will keep you going - definitely a must see. Pay attention to the cameos at the end. They have gone about the heads of some reviewers, but really bring a sense of classical reference to the story. War has been a societal issue since ancient Greece, and perhaps we have not yet learned the lessons that need to be learned.

Kudos to the director who has brought together story, talent, and visual art in one epic piece.

Great movie that can't be spoiled by a beyond lousy ending

[MBunge · 6/10 · 15 October 2010]

For the first 100 minutes or so, Seraphim Falls is a great movie. Its story of two men driven by the awesome powers of revenge and survival could be favorably ranked alongside Unforgiven as one of the best modern Westerns. In its last quarter hour, though, this film takes a perplexing turn into inappropriate fantasy and ham handed metaphysics that'll leave you wondering what the hell is going on.

In the aftermath of the Civil War, a man named Gideon (Pierce Brosnan) has sought refuge from the world in the cold remoteness of a Western mountain range. His solitude is split by the bullet that slices into his shoulder one morning. A man named Carver (Liam Neeson) and his hired posse have come into the mountains to kill Gideon. Well, Carver is there to kill him as he makes it clear that no one else is to take Gideon's life. Through willpower and suffering, Gideon is able to flee from Carver and his men. He leads them down from the mountains, through the prairies and into the bleakness of the desert. Carver's relentless drive is more than matched by Gideon's deadly brilliance as he slowly whittles away at Carver's posse until only the two are left to face each other in an inferno of their own hate and self-hate. If you want to know the wrong that ties them together and how it is resolved, you'll have to watch the movie.

Seraphim Falls plunges you right into the story without explaining who is who, what is what or why is why. Though the answers do come, the first hour of the film has to rest of the performances of Pierce Brosnan and Liam Neeson. Gideon is like a Wild West Odysseus, capable of the most extraordinary tricks, while Carver is as unyielding as the bitter cold of the mountains, the rush of the raging river and the searing heat of the desert. You won't know which of them is the good guy and which is the bad, only that both are capable of the most terrible things. Without a lot of dialog, Brosnan creates a man who is not just physically but spiritually running away from something. Neeson makes Carver more than just a pursuer. He's a man who's already left everything behind in life and himself but the pursuit.

These filmmakers take such powerful lead actors and surround them with both lesser men and greater surroundings. Wounded and harassed by Carver, Gideon must also conquer the enormous challenges of nature. He's often stranded in the most trying of circumstances with only his determination and guile to see him through. With Carver, it is his encounters with his fellow human beings that illuminate his character. From the reasonable fear, greed and foolishness of his posse to the basic decency of a mountain family to the rough and tumble of the men in a railroad camp, the contrast shows Carver to be a man who's transcended such normal impulses or desires.

Seraphim Falls also offers loads of gorgeous scenery, sharply sparse dialog and an uncompromising look at the dirt and savagery of the untamed frontier. And then we get to that ending….

I don't want to give to much away because even with such a bewildering and blatantly mannered conclusion, this is still a film very much worth seeing. Let me put it this way. Imagine watching The Wizard of Oz and having Freddy Krueger show up at the end and rape Dorothy. That's what Seraphim Falls is like. And it's not simply a bizarre shift in tone. The story then spins off of that to a climax that, while morally admirable, is dramatically and thematically contradictory to every other thing that happens in the movie. If the stark weirdness had led to an ending that seemed appropriate to the story, you could forgive that. If they'd avoided the strangeness and built to the counterintuitive finish in a realistic fashion, you could accept that. What we get instead is a whiplash that feels like the filmmakers are either chickening out or cheating the audience of the story they deserve.

I don't think I've ever recommended another film that finished as weakly and poorly as this one. That I still strongly encourage you to seek out and watch Seraphim Falls should say a lot about how everything but the ending is tremendous.

Very mixed experience

[chrichtonsworld · 5/10 · 10 July 2007]

There are many types of westerns! "Seraphim Falls" falls into the revenge category! We are witnesses to Pierce Brosnan being chased by Liam Neeson! Neeson wants revenge! The viewers are kept in the dark until the end! Only then it gets clear what the deal is about! What amazed me that Pierce Brosnan made very good use of his environment and knife! His guerrilla tactics isn't something you expect to see in a western! It could be that I am too old fashioned when it comes to this genre! But I did miss the shootouts! Somehow a western without shooting is like a kung fu movie without martial arts! At least that is what I expect ! I don't like realism in this type of genre! With shows like "Deadwood" very little is left to the imagination! Experimenting and doing something new is always appreciated! But isn't it possible to do so and still maintain some of the charm of the old westerns we all loved to see! (Movies like "Blueberry" or "The missing" are examples of these movies which successfully added new elements to typical western movies!) It is obvious that "Seraphim Falls" isn't your typical western! This western is not an action movie but more a drama about two men dealing with their past and the consequences of their actions in the past! Personally I liked the ending very much! I do have to say that this ending never would have worked if it weren't for the excellent performances by Pierce Brosnan and Liam Neeson! Brosnan has shown that he can do more than Bond and similar roles! He shows an intensity without using much words! Just brilliant! The wonderful performances however can't hide the fact that the story isn't that special or interesting! Overall I have very mixed feelings about this movie!

Very Good

[mboytiman · 8/10 · 12 May 2007]

I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. It's a hunt movie, in the genre of Jeremiah Johnson or The Searchers type. Not gripping,then isn't supposed to be, but contained enough excitement and adventure to keep me fully engrossed. I thought Pierce Brosnan was excellent, almost unrecognizable with his beard and make up; poles apart from Bond. He really looks and plays his character as the quarry very well indeed. The locations photography, New Mexico and Oregon, are stunning. Liam Neeson never seems to give a bad performance plays his character well as the cold hearted, totally obsessed predator, He is well supported by a bunch of bounty hunters/villains lead by Michael Wincott.

Seraphim Falls short

[MalcolmJTaylor · 7/10 · 30 May 2011]

SERAPHIM FALLS is a Western that gets so many things right, it's a shame the one it doesn't: character destiny, ends up cracking apart the integrity of the whole.

SERAPHIM FALLS is an outstanding Western action drama, completely riveting throughout. It contains an outstanding performance from Brosnan and gorgeous location cinematography in New Mexico. It presents an intensely gripping opening 30 minutes unlike any in recent memory hinging on Brosnan's compelling performance and supported by the breath-taking landscapes. It is visceral, gutsy and extremely real. It grabs you and won't let go...until the end that is. Then it just plain loses it.

Without forecast, the film veering off-course in the third act into unsubstantiated surrealism territory. A departure that is inorganic and comes at the expense of its characters' journey. This is its only downfall. Unfortunately it's a big one. This bit of fantasy in the desert, though clearly well intentioned, with Anjelica Houston as a welcome stand in for the devil and an Indian Shaman dispensing proverbial wisdom, is sadly a step in the wrong direction given the stellar work laid down up to this point.

The effect is thereby to wipe out the intense and gutsy work hitherto on display, even literally as Brosnan's Captian Gideon disembowels a horse in a stroke of brilliance to conceal himself. In spite of this gut level reality, the film unexpectedly descends into a didactic anti-war message in favour of fulfilling its character's destiny.

Neeson's Colonel Carver chooses bloodthirsty revenge at the cost of everything else and deserves a good death by the end. This would be a positive result, fulfilling his unconscious desire to reunite with his family who were slaughtered by arson. Through his single-minded determination for revenge he has carelessly led his entire posse including an adolescent youth to their own demise and at the end even shoots the last remaining one once he becomes hostage bait. The body count on his back is not so easily explained away.

There is one member of his posse who walks out in the middle of the film with what should be prophetic words for Neeson's Carver, "You all go on and get yourselves killed." Shortly after which Carver kills his horse to disable the man's departure. These words should have been prophetic for Carver, whose destiny, created by his blood lust for revenge, should be to die at the hands of Brosnan's incredibly efficient killer, Gideon. For this reason, amongst many others, the "throw down your weapons and go your separate ways" sentiment at the end hits a false note.

Carver has had nothing to live for since his family was slaughtered due to a tactical error made by Gideon in the aftermath of civil war. In contrast to Carver, Gideon has only killed in self-defence and only after issuing strong warnings, which no one ever heeds, including Carver. The structure is in place then to allow Carver the arrogant demise he seeks. Yet the film does not employ it and instead takes a fantastical turn that sells itself short. And here Seraphim takes a great fall and all the King's horse can't put him back together again.

Disappointing, long and meandering

[LilyDaleLady · 2/10 · 12 June 2007]

****(some minor spoilers within)**** This film was a real disappointment to me, because I love westerns and thought it had a lot of potential, including a great cast. Like most inept movies, it is done in by a weak and unfocused script, and like most inept period films, it is done in by a lack of knowledge or interest in the period.

Both Neeson and Brosnan are very capable and even excellent actors in other material, and they express (in the interviews) a deep interest in westerns, but they are out of their depth here, struggling awkwardly with their accents (though with some back-story, it is not impossible for an American soldier at that time to be of Irish birth). The setting in New Mexico is spectacularly beautiful, but there is no real explanation for how two protagonists from the Civil War, presumably fighting in the rural South, got to New Mexico, or why, except that the director wanted to film there and take advantage of the huge climate differences in the state. This is not a good enough reason. It's beautiful, but irrelevant.

Neeson plays Carver, a farmer and former Confederate, whose farm (and wife and children) were burned to the ground by Brosnan (Gideon), a Yankee who is somehow hunting him AFTER the end of the war. It's not clear why, and this lack of detail muddles the character's motivation. (I think MAYBE Carver was suspected to be leading some rebels after the war is over, but that's not really clear.) The family is killed mostly by clumsy accident and not deliberately.

Carver then spends the next several years hunting Gideon, accompanied by four henchman. Gideon has nearly magical powers of escape and surprise and survival, and picks the henchman off one at a time...often in rather unbelievable ways. For example, one luckless character is killed when Gideon drops a knife from 30 ft up in a tree, and it magically hits him right in the head. (Just try that...on second thought, don't, but honestly it wouldn't work most of the time.) Later, another henchman (Michael Wincott, in a thankless role) is killed when Gideon jumps out of a gutted horse carcase, rotting in the sun, and attacks him.

Now, this is the point where the film utterly lost me, and my viewing companion and I started laughing out loud! Brosnan is a fairly large man, I guess at least six foot, and he's riding a fairly ordinary quarter horse (or similar). He heartlessly (and stupidly, for a knowledgeable man of the time) allows his horse to die of thirst and exhaustion while HE sits his fat ass on the animal and guzzles the only water (he has also, stupidly, only brought a tiny flask of water, maybe 12 ounces!!!). Then -- mind you, HE is amazingly fit as a fiddle though a HORSE has just dropped dead of the same desert conditions -- guts the animal, climbs inside it, and waits, possibly for hours, until the bad guys arrive, jumps out and kills Mr. Wincott's character.

OK, fellow viewers....this is about the dumbest scene I have seen in any film in a long time. As well as gross! Can you imagine what a rotting horse carcase laying the sun would smell like??? And face it, a large man cannot fit inside a horse, even with the entrails removed. I don't even think a small woman could fit inside a large draft horse, like a Percheron -- but that's a possibility. This is simply, utterly ridiculous and laughable. You simply lose all your belief in the film and characters when this occurs.

After this, the film devolves into one of those bad, 1970s art films. Lots of religious references, spacey characters that may or may not exist, a woman (Angelica Huston, one of our finest actresses, utterly wasted) appears out of nowhere and she's apparently "LUCIFER" (gosh, her wagon even spells it out..Louise C. Faire! Cuz it wasn't obvious enough!).

The two protagonists slug it out, then I guess they make up and walk off in the distance...are they dead? Alive? In heaven? Hell? Have they reconciled? Are they forgiven now? (Brosnan buries his big knife.) Could anyone possibly care less? 112 minutes, and it feels like 4 hours. My recommendation: if you love any of the actors, and really wanted to see this, as I did, please use Netflix or something. Don't invest in this -- you will not wish to see it twice.

Overly Long Manhunt

[Slarkshark · 6/10 · 26 May 2022]

Starts off well, but then just seriously drags. Pierce Brosnan and Liam Neeson, two UK folk squaring off in a western sounds pretty great, and they do fine but just the style was unnecessary.