In a Valley of Violence

I started writing down the problems with this movie after about 20 mins. I had to stop. From the lack of character development to the poorly written dialogue to the over/under acting. Yes. Over & under. At the same times often.

I cannot believe Travolta & Hawke took this high school production on. I do not write reviews ever. I actually looked for a place to leave comments on this movie. It was truly awful. From writing to its acting.

After you write a review here there is a question asking if this review contains spoilers? I laughed out loud. If I included a clip of the movie in its entirety I couldn't spoil this movie. Watching it does that itself.

In a Valley of Violence follows a travelling cowboy who, after stopping by a small town, unintentionally starts conflict among the more powerful members there.

Let's start with the obvious part: Ethan Hawke. He's fantastic, as per usual. I don't think I've ever not been impressed by this guy, and that trend continues here. John Travolta pulls off a solid performance as well, playing one of the most interesting characters in the movie. And James Ransone does the same, pulling off a good ol' western hothead. Personally I don't think that Taissa Farmiga was very fit for this role, but she did her best and thankfully fails to take anything of significance away from the movie.

The writing is good as well. The movie builds the characters and conflict for a while before anything of real significance happens, and it makes it all the more effective. It excels at building tension, making the last 40 minutes of this movie just that much better.

Speaking of the last 40 minutes, they're awesome. After an hour of solid build up, we are treated with some great western action. It's tense and exciting, yet not over-the-top. It's just right.

Overall I really enjoyed In a Valley of Violence. The acting, writing, and action are all great, and in the end I would definitely recommend it.

At least "In a Valley of Violence" is not as agonizingly predictable as the director's previous waste of time. I am someone who believes that a movie without one single moment you can't see coming after reading a one sentence, or even one word, description of the plot, is a movie you have no reason to watch.

How is it that you know the name Ti West? A guy whose movies are as formulaic as these should be directing episodes of Big Bang Theory. But he does do them well, and gives his superior actors room to breathe. The problem is that he "writes" these movies himself - if you can call stringing a bunch of clichés together "writing".

This is a movie that is so predictable that you don't notice the genre clichés that would have rubbed you wrong in a better movie, i.e.. the main character being the typical hard-bitten and reluctant hero type who doesn't say much, who never intended to draw steel but ended up being forced to. And how about the town being basically just two rows of houses with a "main street" running down the middle? Is there a "saloon" with rooms to rent upstairs? How about a plucky young heroine who dreams of escape and thinks the hero might be her ticket out? He doesn't take her at first. Of course.

No, it was the smaller details that rubbed me wrong. For example: before killing his first victim, why does the typically terse hero suddenly become insanely verbose, rabbiting on like someone who has truly lost control of himself? What was the point of the speech where he outlines exactly what he's doing as if it wasn't already completely obvious, not only to the audience, but also the victim? A less trite storyline might have needed an exposition dump here. Here it's just distracting and unnecessary. And when the bad guy has the plucky heroine up against the wall with a gun to her throat, and he begins threatening her, what does she do next? Her response is engraved in stone, alongside the "all towns in Westerns are just two rows of houses with a street down the middle" rule, in a tablet enshrined in the Screenwriters' Guild bathroom.

When the camera focused on the heroine's determined eyes in the climax, I cringed. This is West relying not only on cliché, but on the trend of the day: girl power.

Having read this far, you might wonder why I didn't give the film a lower rating. The answer is that for all the predictability, "In a Valley of Violence" has actors who you can't help watching and rooting for, especially Taissa Farmiga, one of the best young actors in the world, who gives this tired material more energy than it deserves.

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.

Considering this is basically what Ti West cooked up following a double viewing of John Wick and any given Sergio Corbucci flick, it's... really f***** good! Damn I'll just go ahead and say it: I was more entertained by this than John Wick (some of that I simply chalk up to Hawke being a more emotional and curious presence than Reeves, personal preference, and beyond the premise and some key moments it's not exactly the same as that).

This is no masterpiece or anything, and I don't necessarily think it was trying to be. West clearly loves this genre, and wants to do his own twist on it, which carries some especially graphic violence (if you had trouble with movies like The Thing, don't watch this), and some strong supporting work from Karen Gillan and John Travolta (the guy who plays Travolta's son, the real main bad-guy, is one note but the actor plays him for all his worth).

This kind of well-produced, surprisingly and wildly funny straight-faced homage western (especially near the super intense and, as the title says, violent climax, that threw me for a loop, such as everything with the one guy who protests being called by his nickname by John Travolta and demands to be called 'Lawrence') is something that pleases me. If it's ever on TV I'll stop and watch it. 7.5/10