New Knife movie: Seraphim Falls

Haha,I thought it must be this brand)):)
I had the first contact with this beer(very good beer I think) on a Finnjet trip from Travemünde to Helsinki.And Finnland was way cool :thumbup:,really it was stunning!

Alex
 
boef800 said:
Haha,I thought it must be this brand)):)
I had the first contact with this beer(very good beer I think) on a Finnjet trip from Travemünde to Helsinki.And Finnland was way cool :thumbup:,really it was stunning!

Alex
Click to expand...

Cool! If you ever come back, give me a call and we'll take some more! :D
 
boef800 said:
HeHe,yesss:D :thumbup:
I'll quote you on this one if I'll really come someday))....then we'll make intereuropean bladeforum summit))
Click to expand...

Ofcourse! :D The deal is real, the finnish hospitality doesn't know boundaries!
 
I watched this movie tonight. I ordered it from Netflix with high expectations after reading the comments here. I'm a big fan of western adventures, but I thought this was one of the most dumbass disappointing flicks I've seen in a long time.

1. The "knife" is totally out of period. Yeah, it looks nice, but it's not even a good period Bowie. And no mountain man would have carried anything like that, even in 1868.

2. Nobody drops a knife out of a tree like that with any expectation of killing somebody.

3. Our "hero" never wears a hat, whether in a winter landscape or a desert landscape.

4. Costuming problems all over the place.

5. Acting: the only good actor was the guy in the derby, early in the movie, and he didn't say much. Brosnan and Neeson should have been great, but they weren't. Wes Studi (Magwah, Last of the Mohicans, and other Capt. Leaphorn Navajo movies) is a great actor but they gave him a weak cameo performance.

Any Clint Eastwood "spaghetti western" is more authentic than this, and certainly more entertaining.
 
I watched this movie tonight. I ordered it from Netflix with high expectations after reading the comments here. I'm a big fan of western adventures, but I thought this was one of the most dumbass disappointing flicks I've seen in a long time.

1. The "knife" is totally out of period. Yeah, it looks nice, but it's not even a good period Bowie. And no mountain man would have carried anything like that, even in 1868.

2. Nobody drops a knife out of a tree like that with any expectation of killing somebody.

3. Our "hero" never wears a hat, whether in a winter landscape or a desert landscape.

4. Costuming problems all over the place.

5. Acting: the only good actor was the guy in the derby, early in the movie, and he didn't say much. Brosnan and Neeson should have been great, but they weren't. Wes Studi (Magwah, Last of the Mohicans, and other Capt. Leaphorn Navajo movies) is a great actor but they gave him a weak cameo performance.

Any Clint Eastwood "spaghetti western" is more authentic than this, and certainly more entertaining.
Click to expand...


wow, so I guess you did not like this movie.

I don't know about the Bowie, I was not around in 1868 so I do not know what kind they carried, nor what kind mountain men carried, I do know I've seen pictures of Civil War Soldiers carrying knives of a similar build.

That knife would weigh what? 25, 30 oz? even if it didn't penetrate, it would knock the guy out.

He lost his hat when he fell into the river

and I don't know a thing about costuming, or what people dressed in back then.

I don't know, I liked alot, I thought it was thouroughly entertaining, with some different things thrown in there, IE the horse.

I recomend it to people, especially knife people
 
This thread is making me want to re-watch the film. I can't seem to remember much of it, no idea why :rolleyes:

oregon said:
Oh yea, the knife, it flies in the face of the saying "don't take a knife to a gun fight."
Click to expand...

Actually, bringing a knife to a gun fight flies in the face of the saying "don't take a knife to a gun fight". Most gun fights occur within seven feet. A knife, within its effective range of arm's length plus a step, will inflict greater trauma than any firearm short of a .50 BMG or 12 ga. slug. Besides, I'm more likely to be carrying a folder than one of my .45s at any given time.

Here are some pictures of a cop who brought a gun to a knife fight.

http://blogidaho.blogspot.com/2007/01/why-cops-shoot-guys-with-knives.html
 
I was under the impression that was a Braizilian inmate or something like that.

and I'm sorry but the wound from a .45, 9mm, .38, .357, 10mm, .40, heck even a .22 are all gonna be worse than a stab or slash, unless of course you carry a Katana and are well trained in Ken Jutsu.

The permanent cavity from even a .22 can, and often is devestating to the human body:
http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound%20Profiles/M855.jpg

I'm not saying a knife is not an effective and severly brutal weapon, it is both. A gun is just more effective. The permanent cavity froma knife is relatively small unless you are using some sort of multi sided spike, or you twist the blade. Both of which are unlikely scenarios(I hope).
 
A good bowie knife can create a pretty nasty cavity of its own though...

I believe it could sever a limb if swung with enough force.

Try doing that with a handgun caliber!

I've heard that only 1 in 4 handgun wounds are fatal.
 
gruntinhusaybah said:
and I'm sorry but the wound from a .45, 9mm, .38, .357, 10mm, .40, heck even a .22 are all gonna be worse than a stab or slash, unless of course you carry a Katana and are well trained in Ken Jutsu.
Click to expand...

A trained person with even a small knife, say four inches, can, in slightly longer than it takes to blink, remove a silver-dollar sized chunk from the bottom of the heart, and then open the victim's lower abdomen spilling its contents. Try that with a .22, or heck, even a .44 mag. A bullet makes a hole the diameter of the bullet, with a few inches of severely damaged tissue surrounding it. Something very powerful in a hollow point type round may open up, leaving a bigger exit wound.

Not saying I wouldn't want a gun, just that at close range I'd feel okay with a knife. It's also much more difficult to disarm someone weilding a knife than someone with a gun (all you really have available to grab is the blade). Of course the other nice thing about a blade, is that it allows one to injure to degree. If you shoot someone, they're just shot. Maybe they'll die, maybe not. If you're armed with a knife within its range, you can cut the opponent's gun hand, or within grappling range deflect it and cut somewhere else further up the arm, rendering it useless.

Don't take my word for it though, there are plenty with more experience. Try googling what Masaad Ayoob has to say about it, and he's a police firearms trainer/expert witness.
 
Last edited:
Coldwood said:
1. The "knife" is totally out of period. Yeah, it looks nice, but it's not even a good period Bowie. And no mountain man would have carried anything like that, even in 1868.QUOTE]

But he wasn't a mountain man, being an captain he was a "gentleman" so he could afford the knife, and he wouldn't have known the proper equipment for a trapper.
Click to expand...
 
H2H907, I hear what you're saying loud and clear, however, you are sorely mistaken about terminal balistics. And this is turning into a discussion for prac tac not here, if you want to talk about it any more feel free to PM or email me.
 
seraphimfalls%20poster.jpg


seraphim-falls-0.jpg


seraphim-falls-7.jpg


070122_seraphim_vmed_7p.widec.jpg


Magnums%20-%20Alcaraz.jpg
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top