Started out great, then )+%^#^+

agreed 110%

The chief reviewer for this film cited how avant-garde this movie is at the end, and it's deviance for the better from formulaic plots. I would argue that any script or storyline has been played out before, whether in part or in whole. This in mind, I like what I like - and this wasn't it.

The Indian (God) "What's yours will come back to you and what not your's will be taken away" comment could refer to Carver's wife and children coming back to him in death, but that the taking of Gideon's life (not his) or horse/gun (he gets both back) cannot really ever be taken, etc. Yet this is all very flimsy. Huston's character(Devil) seemingly was a hallucination. We knew there were no bullets left, and as the two men ultimately could only be free of each other in forgiveness or death, either they killed each other with metaphysical bullets or died of dehydration. Some respondents have stated the import of the story to be above forgiveness, stating Gideon grazed Carver with the bullet, not fatally injuring him, and that they were able to then leave their desert of suffering through forgiveness blah blah blah... I've heard other respondents state the director to be serious about really being bullets given out by a physical devil (Huston) character, but to believe this makes me cringe.

I'm glad the two men appeared to make peace with each other and their souls in death, but they didn't need to show this so abstractly. Since this was such a departure from the rest of the movie, I have to scream foul.

Have to agree. The main thing that always bothered me is the way in which the script writer seemingly didn't have the courage to kill one of the main characters. However, after I thought about it I realised that the truly frustrating thing is that the writer never seems able to be realistic about the actions of the characters. Throughout the film I was quite excited about learning what terrible thing that Brosnan's character did at Seraphim Falls, something so terrible that it led to Neeson's crusade for revenge. But then the film lost alot of my respect with an awful cop out, proving that it can't put either in a bad light, even for the sake of the plot.

And all the symbolism and metaphorical plot devices became a little over done and generally confusing. It's one thing for a film to challenge the imagination and understanding of it's viewers, but entirely another for it to simply leave them with unsolvable riddles that distract them from what's going on. The ideas used could work if they held up, but sadly not. That's another star gone.

In many ways it appears that the writer was looking for greatness with his script but just took things too far and tried far too hard. Shame as well, because it started so promisingly.

A man is basically as faithful as his options

Good for them not making the millionth Western that are all the same and instead doing something different, advancing the genre.