User Score
7.7

Generally favorable reviews- based on 30 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 26 out of 30
  2. Negative: 2 out of 30
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Jul 8, 2012
    7
    The description says epic, but I wouldn't call it that. I would say it is worth a watch. The role Bronson plays is far from the Bond characters-which I liked. The storyline isn't that original but the backdrop of the Civil War makes it more intriguing.
  2. Nov 28, 2010
    8
    Wow. I caught this movie by accident on late-night television, assuming it would be a mediocre dud appropriate for falling asleep to. But far from it. The acting is excellent and the imagery is positively mesmerizing. The recreation of the period is convincing, capturing the rawness and strangeness of the era and place. Using nature as a protagonist is hardly a new idea, but it is done soWow. I caught this movie by accident on late-night television, assuming it would be a mediocre dud appropriate for falling asleep to. But far from it. The acting is excellent and the imagery is positively mesmerizing. The recreation of the period is convincing, capturing the rawness and strangeness of the era and place. Using nature as a protagonist is hardly a new idea, but it is done so well that it's brilliant. A simple story executed impeccably. The ending, contrary to what some reviews have said, I found perfect. Extremely underrated movie. Expand
  3. DeniseS.
    Nov 18, 2007
    8
    Gorgeous scenery. Great acting. I found some of it forced. The scenes with Anglia? Houston in the desert did not fit in at all. And noone with no clothes, no horse and no gun would throw his one means of protection and food on the desert floor (when Bronson threw his knife down and walked away). That aint reality!
  4. PatC.
    Sep 4, 2007
    6
    Looks like a good western can still be made. No new ground broken here, as Clint Eastwood previously covered all the cliches replicated here, but Brosnan and Neeson's performances are compelling.
  5. Kev
    Aug 9, 2007
    3
    This movie really isn't very good. It starts off as a semi interesting chase movie and makes the viewer wonder about the back story. But then it explains the back story and it's not very interesting, and just when you think it's going to end, it doesn't... it keeps going for another half hour of pain. The final scene in the desert is one of the worst things I've This movie really isn't very good. It starts off as a semi interesting chase movie and makes the viewer wonder about the back story. But then it explains the back story and it's not very interesting, and just when you think it's going to end, it doesn't... it keeps going for another half hour of pain. The final scene in the desert is one of the worst things I've ever watched in my life. It's supposed to be meaningful and deep but it ends up painful and kinda funny in the wrong way. Expand
  6. JasonE.
    Jun 6, 2007
    6
    Though filled with appealingly random peripheral glimpses into post-Civil War settings and booming entrepreneurial opportunities, watching this tersely written and sparingly verbose film is a laborious process. Though the story's details are unspooled with precision, the refusal of the film to pass judgment on its protagonists makes the final reel increasingly silly and Though filled with appealingly random peripheral glimpses into post-Civil War settings and booming entrepreneurial opportunities, watching this tersely written and sparingly verbose film is a laborious process. Though the story's details are unspooled with precision, the refusal of the film to pass judgment on its protagonists makes the final reel increasingly silly and metaphorically sanctimonious. I appreciated the refreshing lack of irony and stubborn reliance on classical though stylish action. However, in order to induce emotional attachment the audience must buy into Pierce Brosnan as the ultimate survivor in a frontier environment. Pierce has always been a skilled actor at suggesting superficial feats of incredulous stunts in slick Hollywood fare. This film demands an actor who convinces with a moody gruff apathy. Pierce is visibly straining during the rigorous physical challenges. Liam fares better, but the film is hesitant to adorn its sympathies with him choosing loyalty to biblical questions of righteous vengeance. Expand
  7. AndrewK.
    Mar 3, 2007
    6
    This was a very strange film. The first half of the movie gets you caught up in the chase, and then the second half takes a strange turn. Things get really surreal by the end, which was probably one of my favorite things about the movie. This isn't your typical film in that it doesn't really have a story. "It's just a bunch of stuff that happens." One particular moment, This was a very strange film. The first half of the movie gets you caught up in the chase, and then the second half takes a strange turn. Things get really surreal by the end, which was probably one of my favorite things about the movie. This isn't your typical film in that it doesn't really have a story. "It's just a bunch of stuff that happens." One particular moment, where Pierce Brosnan's characters hides himself inside of a dead horse, unbeknownst to us, and then leaps out at Liam Neeson when we're least expecting anything to happen. That one had me laughing very loudly in the theatre. I guess this works better as an "art film." The ending, with the strange native american guy in the desert (who for some reason, sort of resembles a leprechaun) and Anjelica Huston popping up out of nowhere to give the characters the implements to destroy each other, really seem like the director is trying too hard to be meaningful, so that it's really hard to figure out just what it is that he means. The most unsatisfying part of the film was the last few minutes. Very anti-climatic. It ended in a nice way, but I was hoping for a better payoff. There's probably a lot of better films to see right now. But if you're insterested, it'd still be better to wait until this one comes out on DVD. Expand
  8. Monica
    Feb 6, 2007
    6
    Well, I loved the last third better than the first two so I guess with Jason's and my review, it scores a 9. By the way, it wasn't mysticism, it was imagery.
  9. Jason
    Jan 31, 2007
    3
    The first two thirds are spectacular!!! Then Seraphim Falls declined into a ridiculous mess of propaganda and mysticism. Hollywood, take heed - humans watch these films, not LATimes readers!
Metascore
62

Generally favorable reviews - based on 21 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 12 out of 21
  2. Negative: 1 out of 21
  1. A beautifully shot (by Oscar-winning cinematographer John Toll) but dramatically empty pursuit picture set in the untamed West.
  2. Reviewed by: Todd McCarthy
    50
    Aside from spasms of brutal violence, however, there's nothing rousing or new here.
  3. Reviewed by: Robert Wilonsky
    60
    Seraphim Falls has decent pep in its step till the final 30 minutes, when it's finally revealed why Neeson's bounty hunter is after Brosnan's surly mountain man. The flashback finale and all that comes after (and keeps on comin') drags on so long even the leads look exhausted. Till then, it's yet another replay of "The Most Dangerous Game," and Brosnan and Neeson are game for it.