Too many silly/non-sensical moments...

While I find most criticism of this movie to be ill thought out, and tend to defend it a bit zealously, it is refreshing to find a post containing a limited number of criticisms where it is obvious that the OP was at least paying attention to the movie.

1. Remember that Gideon was in pretty sorry shape at this point. Throwing the knife or dropping 15ish meters isn't really an option for him. Note that his movements are slow and look like a very cold person (and growing up in Minnesota, I had some days where I could barely move, so I can attest to the debilitating effects of cold). So, his dropping the knife, while having a low probability of success, is a last ditch desperation.

2. Maybe. They did show Gideon to be very good at misdirection earlier, showing it again might have used up a lot of screen time. I guess I never thought it was necessary to show. I thought it was implied very well the type of method he would use.

2. This is a very good question, but remember that he doesn't know the character of Carver's posse. He only knows that they've put a bullet in Gideon and that they are marauding his house in the early morning while he is still drowsy. Not all decisions are made with the benefit of a clear mind and a solid logical process. Still, it wasn't a good decision and is a valid point.

3. Carver "took the bait" deliberately to draw Gideon out. I thought this scene was a pretty good depiction of "cat and mouse" so to speak, but I think you as a viewer like to see more details. Nothing wrong with that, but I think a good film is more concise and tightly scripted, so I think that's why this film may have more appeal to me.

4. You didn't miss anything, the only details about his sons comes from the former soldier/bank robber who witnessed their deaths. I have to admit I think this is a case where they intended to put more in that got left on the cutting room floor, as it is somewhat of a dangling hook. It's a pretty important characterization detail to mention and then not follow up. Not a script killer, but more could have been done.

I hope that helps. I followed your odd numbering pattern not to be a smart aleck, but to keep straight my responses.

Fear is the Mind Killer

I agree with most of Hotwyre6's answers (above) to your queries.

1) I think MYTHBUSTERS should test the efficacy of dropping the knife from 30+ feet. But I don't know if jumping 30 feet thru branches would work any better -- plus there's the risk of further injury. Plus, it might elicit a gunshot that would lead the others directly to him. The knife was silent (however questionable) and gave him a little extra time.

2b) You ask "why did the owner of the shack lie to Neeson about selling his horse to Brosnan"? Cuz he didn't sell it. When Gideon was about to hand the money to the father, he closed his hand and held on to the coins saying "I'd rather not." I think he suspected what would happen to the father if his pursuers found out he aided their prey. But Gideon didn't anticipate the boy would steal his coins.

3) I seriously questioned Gideon's plan of waiting nearby the campsite -- altho taking off on his horse with them so close was probably not a good idea either. This seems to be a failure on the writer's fault. The writer probably felt the need for a confrontation between the two men to ramp up the drama -- but he couldn't come up a logical device for it. And he needed Gideon to get away to continue the story -- so Gideon simply runs into the dark and Carver shoots and misses -- maybe deliberately considering he didn't pursue the man when the others had gathered around him. He didn't even mention Gideon's presence. But I could not discern a motive for that.

4) While, as Hotwyr6 said, one of the 3 young bank robbers briefly mentions Gideon's loss of his 2 sons during the war, based on the director/writer's commentary, that was about all there was of the backstory -- just a mention. (Well, plus Gideon's tears in an earlier scene with the homesteader's young son.) One positive trait of the movie was to minimize backstory and flashbacks that interrupt the tension of the chase.

I haven't seen the movie yet, but in looking at the photo on the dvd cover,the large "Bowie" knife in the hand of the Brosnan character looks quite heavy,not to mention pointed, and, in a real-life situation, if dropped from a height of thirty feet or so would be capable of doing severe damage to even a hard skull, with probably the force of a strongly-swung hammer, a thrown brick, etc. add to this the effect of the pointed blade and something's gonna give. I have no doubt that the impact could lead to unconsciousness, even fatality. But, since I haven't yet seen the movie I have no idea as to how "real" it appeared in that particular scene. I certainly wouldn't want to be the target receiving such an impact.

I agree with Hotwyre's explanation. When I was watching the film I was going "No way, he's not gonna do that." Not because it's better to jump down, but because he'd get hurt even worse - though, he is hurt, and probably shouldn't have been able to manage climbing up that tree - and because it's just too silly to drop the knife. Again, not because I don't think the knife would be able to kill the man, but because I just can't believe he's going to be that accurate.

Now that I looked it up by googling a bit, I'm not quite sure if a knife could penetrate a person's skull in that fashion (I thought it would). It takes around 73 newton to cause a simple fracture (and a knife going into the skull to kill someone isn't a "simple fracture"), and a knife, even if it were 5 pounds (I think 3), traveling at 9.8 meters per second in free fall, would have only 22 newtons. But again, I looked it up on the Internet, with some cobbled together math, I can't say with certainty that I'm right.