In a Valley of Violence

Paul (Ethan Hawke) is riding to Mexico with his dog Abbie. He's a former soldier who has had enough of violence after killing Indian civilians. In the town of Denton, he is challenged to a fight by braggard Deputy Gilly Martin (James Ransone). Only after Abbie is threatened, Paul decides to knock out Gilly with one punch. Ellen (Karen Gillan) is Gilly's equally annoying girlfriend. The only friendly face is Mary-Anne (Taissa Farmiga). Gilly's father Marshal Clyde Martin (John Travolta) pushes him to leave the town and he's happy to do so. Gilly and his friends catch up to Paul and kill his dog.

From the opening credits, this is trying to be a spaghetti western. The outlines of the genre is absolutely there. The problem is that everybody seems to be a bit off. Ethan Hawke is being too modern in his performance. He should really be the man with no name. As an actor, he's not great at being quiet. He's too fidgety. Compare this to Keanu Reeves in John Wick and that's what this needs. Ransone is too weak and doesn't pose a real threat. Karen Gillan is too silly. Taissa Farmiga is at least trying to do good work. Travolta is completely wrong. As I'm watching this, I keep thinking of how it could have been done right. The movie in my head is vastly better than the one on the screen.

(The title of this review in honor of the 1995 Sam Raimi flick "The Quick and the Dead," yet another director who decided to take the Italian Western genre out for a spin, wind her up, and see what she can do.)

Now it is Ti West's turn at bat, a director known for "fringe" pictures but, to be fair, this type of film probably qualifies as fringe too.

Although a great many directors (including, believe it or not, the great Tarantino and even Eastwood himself) have taken on the challenge of this genre, the truth is that Sergio Leone -- the man who invented the category -- is the only director in history to have fully mastered it.

(Have seen the Man With No Name trilogy a half-dozen times so far, and I am not done yet.)

Which does not mean -- as the other reviewers have already noted -- that the attempt, even if it falls short a mite, cannot be fun.

And this movie definitely qualifies as fun.

Hawke is a great choice, at the same time skittish, taciturn, and yet also strangely dangerous.

Travolta will always be Travolta. He has been playing the same role since Kotter, and audiences never get bored.

The most fun is watching Taissa Farmiga chew up the furniture. Clearly the young lady wants to show the world that she has her sister's acting chops, so she does not merely enter a scene, she attacks it and wrestles it to the ground.

In different circumstances, this strange brew might have missed the mark. But it didn't. Clearly West's main goal was to entertain.

And that is exactly what he did.

What a lousy B movie. The screenplay could never be worse. The scenario and the plot both failed miserably. The dialog also felt wooden and unnatural. The characters in it all looked funny and out of place. There's nothing you could help making this movie even worth paying more attention. Two young women wearing nicely custom made dresses in a middle of nowhere deserted town, running a hotel without any help? The whole on-going of the story simply felt hollow and awkward to watch, panned out to nowhere. The gunfight in the street looked even more funny than you'd have usually seen. A cartoon-like preacher is totally unnecessary. A run-down dead town with population under 20 still got a grocery store, a bar, a hotel, and the males were all white trash thugs reigned by a crippled Marshall...blah, blah and blah.

I have to tell you guys that this movie still worth watching. The only reason is that GREAT DOG. It's a SHE if you buy those guys in the movie called it. Her acting was so great and would even make a not-a-dog-loving guy like me fall in love with her. The dog's I.Q. obviously is higher than 60% of the human population on this planet. What a great dog!!!! Other than the dog, there's nothing worth watching in this movie. This dog was the only shinning and bright spot in it.

This film tells the story of a lone man who travels around with his dog in the cowboy country. The lone man stumbles upon a town where the son of the marshal picks a fight with him, leading to a series of bloody revenges.

"In a Valley of Violence" has a very simple and linear plot. The lone man is aggravated, there is revenge then more counter-revenge. The simplicity of the plot means that the pace is quite slow. I find the first half rather uneventful and lacks excitement. The second half picks up and is much better. I like Ethan Hawke's calm character, standing up to the son of the marshal, who is the local bully. The local bully evokes disgust as he is very unlikable.

I am not usually a fan of Western films, but "In a Valley of Violence" is alright to watch.

In a Valley of Violence stars Ethan Hawke as a wandering deserter, Paul, who happens upon the town of Denton. Run by a tough but fair Marshall, and his psychotic son and cronies, the town has seen better days. Paul is just looking to pick up some supplies for his journey to Mexico, but runs afoul of the Marshall's son. He tries his best not to become involved, but soon finds himself gunning for revenge in a town that needs saving.

This was a well made Western heavily stylized after many classic Spaghetti Westerns. It had many campy elements, and presented a lower budget sheen that really nails the Spaghetti Western feel. The acting was competently done, with some moments feeling cheesy and slightly comical, and others offering some heart. The direction was solid, with scenes, close ups, vistas and so on handled with care. The story itself was predictable, but far from bland. The relationship between Paul and his dog, Abbey, was especially well done. All in all, this was a fun and campy Western very much paying homage to the Spaghetti Westerns of the '60's and '70's. It is worthy of a watch for those interested in Western films, and certainly for fans of the more campy Spaghetti films.