Generally favorable reviews - based on 21 Critics What's this?

User Score

Generally favorable reviews- based on 27 Ratings

Your Score
0 out of 10
Rate this:
  • 10
  • 9
  • 8
  • 7
  • 6
  • 5
  • 4
  • 3
  • 2
  • 1
  • 0
  • 0
Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 12 out of 21
  2. Negative: 1 out of 21
  1. You could say that Seraphim Falls, was no better than the typical Westerns of the 1950s and '60s--which I think underrates it. But those typical Westerns were pretty darn good, and so is Seraphim Falls.
  2. Reviewed by: Ethan Alter
    Neeson and Brosnan, along with the beautiful location photography from DP John Toll, keeps you involved even when Von Ancken's heavy-handed direction threatens to bog the proceedings down.
  3. This is an entertaining Western with some earnest ideas about forgiveness, redemption and the loss of innocents.
  4. Neeson and Brosnan are supremely well-matched foils, though I do wish that the filmmaker, David Von Ancken, had lent his sparsely mythic tale just a twinge of
  5. Reviewed by: Robert Wilonsky
    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.
  6. Seraphim isn't totally satisfying, even if you're prepared for an arty Western. It's pokey and odd in a distant, slightly self-conscious way.
  7. A Western short on dialogue and long on pomposity, is little more than an extended chase scene down a snow-filled mountaintop to a desert floor.

See all 21 Critic Reviews

Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 7 out of 9
  2. Mixed: 0 out of 9
  3. Negative: 2 out of 9
  1. Nov 28, 2010
    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 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
  2. DeniseS.
    Nov 18, 2007
    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! Expand
  3. Jul 8, 2012
    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. Expand
  4. Monica
    Feb 6, 2007
    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. Expand
  5. JasonE.
    Jun 6, 2007
    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
  6. AndrewK.
    Mar 3, 2007
    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. Collapse
  7. Jason
    Jan 31, 2007
    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! Expand

See all 9 User Reviews