Many modern westerns are giving the audience a good flavour of what life was like back then - this is one of them.This is, at last, a movie that allows Donald Sutherland a chance to use his considerable talent - he was criminally wasted in Pride & Prej, which was a movie that demanded it.Both Sutherlands are excellent in this movie, as are the costars who solidly back them up.I'd better also mention the photography and the scenery - both excellent and high quality.This DVD is a keeper, and is one that will be watched again.

In 1872 Wyoming, a former gunslinger and his estranged father encounter a ruthless businessman and his posse of thugs.Director Jon Cassar's Forsaken is very much a paint by numbers Western, however, the draw (no pun indented) is having father and son Donald and Kiefer Sutherland share the screen. In addition, the supporting cast elevate Brad Mirman's screenplay with the likes of Demi Moore, Brian Cox and Michael Wincott. Wincott's Dave Turner, a dangerous principled gun for hire is particularly notable aiming for the heights of Tombstone's (1993) Kilmer Doc Holiday and underrated Aaron Poole shines as thug Frank Tillman, both actors leave an impression.Along with Jonathan Goldsmith's score Cassar's low-key Western captures the essence of the classics including Shane (1953). And while it's not a novel as the recent Bone Tomahawk (2015) or as broodingly fun as In a Valley of Violence (2016) it ticks all the American West boxes. Kiefer Sutherland's John Henry Clayton like Ethan Hawke in the aforementioned film is haunted by the war, Here writer Mirman doesn't really offer anything new, however, thanks to Kiefer's simmering cowboy performance he sells the heartache and torment of a repressed killer. The love triangle between Moore's Mary, her husband and John adds some drama in amongst Cassar's well staged fights and shoots out as people are force to sell of their land.Donald Sutherland's Reverend William Clayton only gets one scene with Cox (who sadly isn't given much to do) an unscrupulous business man James McCurdy. But the Sutherland's father and son relationship tensions offer some weighty telling scenes with tragic accidents, war, mother and brother back-story dynamics which hold interest. The preceding peak in the showdown closing act and Winacott and Kiefer cement their gun slinging positions in a satisfying close.Overall, it doesn't shake the genre up but is worth watching if only for the Sutherlands, Winacott and Poole's performance.

Released in 2015 and directed by Jon Cassar, "Forsaken" is a Western starring Kiefer Sutherland as a repentant prodigal son who returns to his hometown in the Northwest after going off to fight the Civil War and afterward morphing into a notorious gunfighter. His mother's now passed away and his father, the town preacher (Donald Sutherland), has a hard time embracing him. Demi Moore plays his youthful flame, now married (the husband played by Jonny Rees). Brian Cox is on hand as the land-grabbing villain with his hired guns (Aaron Poole and Dylan Smith). Michael Wincott stands out as the southern Gentleman Dave, an honorable gunfighter.This is a nigh excellent realistic Western even though parts are too by-the-numbers and it clearly borrows from past Westerns, like the towering "Shane" and "Unforgiven." But it's different enough to stand on its own and holds some agreeable surprises up its sleeve.I like the subplot about the Civil War causing John Henry (Kiefer) to become disillusioned, falling into the gunfighting lifestyle. Kiefer is unexpectedly good as the protagonist, easily carrying the movie with the help of his father; the church sequence is particularly effective. I also appreciate the message with the romantic subplot, which is the antithesis of the eye-rolling events in "Pale Rider," a film that borrowed even heavier from "Shane" and could be called a total rip-off (or homage). I thought I had the ending figured out, but I was wrong, which is good.The movie runs 90 minutes and was shot in CL Ranch, Springbank, Alberta, Canada.GRADE: Borderline A-/B+ ADDITIONAL COMMENTARY *** SPOILER ALERT ***Someone criticized "Forsaken" on the grounds that it was a "low-budget Pale Rider," But there are significant differences between the two movies: John Henry (Kiefer) in "Forsaken" is a human being rather than a mysterious supernatural figure like the Preacher (Eastwood) in "Pale Rider." John Henry served during the Civil War, clearly suffering PTSS and swearing off killing whereas the Preacher appears as a sort of angel of vengeance with zero qualms about killing those who deserve it.John Henry humbles himself, allowing himself to get his axx kicked, whereas the Preacher is superhuman, always kicking axx from the get-go.As a human being, John Henry repents in tears in the church facility, hugged by his father, whereas the Preacher needs to do no such thing.John Henry loved the woman (Mary Alice) enough to not mess with her in any way and thus risk destroying her family whereas the Preacher has sex with the woman even though her kindly husband, Hull, is his friend and he's supposed to be an agent of righteousness (!), which is a gaping plot hole.John Henry doesn't want to take on Gentleman Dave, if he doesn't have to, likely because they're birds of a feather and he recognizes Dave's code of honor, unlike the other scumbag thugs hired by McMurdy. He also mercifully allows the young hirelings the chance to leave the gunfight. By contrast, the Preacher basically kills everyone linked to the villain without mercy."Forsaken" is real-life dramatic Western whereas "Pale Rider" is a mythical Western with supernatural elements.

This movie had some wonderful shots of a small town but lacked reality in a few areas. The movie is set in 1872 and John Henry Clayton (Kiefer Sutherland) is an adult but I had to laugh watching him use an ax and hook a chain on some fallen trees. Looked the first he ever swung an ax. I would think actors would be give some basic training with they don't know these basic skills. At least they would look like they know what they were doing. When a gun is fired, it recoils or jumps back and up. In this movie they pretty much stay still. And guns are LOUD. But here, even when shot in a building no one ever flinches or even reacts to the noise. And did I hear correctly? Did the store clerk say the revolver held nine shots of 10 gauge? That would make the cylinder a big as a grapefruit and kick like a mule. Why would anyone wear gloves when they are handling a revolver, particularly if they need to draw the gun from their holster? Millions of dollars spent on making a movie the director misses this stuff.