South of Heaven, West of Hell

Having viewed this film three times now, I think I finally have enough together to write a decent review for it. First off, I waited a long time to see this (over two years) and it definitely did not dissapoint. Mainly because I knew the direction that Dwight Yoakam was moving in on this one. He wanted to create a western that was a bit different than the standard shoot 'em up and he wanted to create a story that mirrored a lot of events from his own life while ,at the same time, not spelling everything out for the audience and letting them think and decipher for themselves. While he certainly succeeded in doing this, he also manages to use the ensemble cast for all its worth by bringing in the biggest mix of oddball and eccentric characters I've seen since Jim Jarmusch's "Dead Man".

"South of Heaven, West of Hell" uses the pretty basic story (seemingly) of a man, Valentine Casey (Yoakem) who has been raised by an adoptive family known as the Henrys. The Henrys are led by none other than western vet Luke Askew who seems to have the most level head of the gang. His socio-path son Taylor (Vince Vaughn) does most of the running while his cronies (Paul Reubens and Michael Jeter) follow him around like whipped puppies. Natalie Canerday (Linda from Sling Blade) plays Sissy, the child like sister of the brood who is desperately in love with Valentine. At some point, before the story starts, Valentine dissowned the outlaw family who raised him and fought in the Spanish American war, later becoming a sherriff.

All is peaceful for Valentine, living the life of a sheriff in a town where nothing happens, until the Henrys come riding into town raising all manners of hell and pulling a "wild bunch" style attack. A few people are killed (the Henry's must not be much for target practice since they fired over a hundred rounds) and a couple more are shot. Valentine waits about a year, then retaliates. That's all I'm going to say in the way of the story, but there's a lot more than that.

Let's talk about the characters for a minute. Ol' Val is about the sanest one of the bunch. He's a mild-mannered, likeable guy who is tough only when he has to be. His side kick is an "odd bird" who has a thing for wearing dresses. Bo Hopkins plays Doc Angus Dunfries, a blacksmith. A barely recognizable Billy Bob Thornton comes into town as a traveller named Brigadier Smalls. With him is his travelling buddy, the nearly mute Babcock (Warren Zevon). They are escorting Adelyne (Bridget Fonda), Doc Angus's niece, and Val's soon-to-be love interest. Paul Reubens (looking very much like he did in "Buffy the Vampire Slayer) plays one sick puppy here, as one of the twisted members of the Henry tribe. One of my favorites was Bud Cort, playing a government agent with some papers that strongly suggest that Valentine was killed in the war. He gets off the train, whining about the heat and a toothache. It's pretty clear that this guy is here mainly for comic-relief. He appears to have the worst luck in history and the belt scene had me in stitches.

It's easy to see why this only got a limited theatrical release. "South of Heaven, West of Hell" isn't necessarily the kind of film that the masses will flock to. I think Yoakam made the film with that in mind, knowing that it would find it's intended audience on video. It's true that the majority just won't get it. To enjoy this film, you have to go into it with an open mind and sort of block out everything around and that's something that a lot of people just aren't capable of. It's hard to explain just what kind of movie this is but I think Vince Vaughn summed it up best, in an interview, by saying that it is the "punk rock of westerns".

I enjoyed this movie a lot and I'm sure it will probably go down as one of my year's favorites. There is a lot here to enjoy and one viewing is not enough. There is a lot of black comedy that I didn't pick up on the first time around and there is also a lot more going on with and between the characters than what is going on on-screen. It's not just "worth a viewing". It's worth several.

I love Dwight Yoakam's music and songwriting, he's surely one of the best singer/ songwriters out there but I think he should leave the screenwriting to professional screenwriters. This film looks beautiful, but the plot leaves a lot to be desired and the dialogue is often very dull. It also makes no sense that I can decipher. Dwight has some positives in this, as bad as it is. For instance, he looks great on a horse, but he looks uncomfortable in front of the camera here, which is unusual for him, given his other movies. The characters are interesting enough, but not given enough development that we can see. I don't think Dwight should give up directing entirely, but I would not recommend seeing this. The beautiful scenery and cinematography make it watchable. The horses are beautiful, too.

I'll grant you, this isn't for everyone. But there is a lot to recommend this film, fine acting, fun characters, great photography, and a haunting score (by Director Yokum). Also I thought that the use of the Western metaphor was interesting, as it is often used as the stage for American morality tales. What it lacks is a consistency - it would have been a much better film if this cinematic purgatory had some rules that were understandable.

Everyone seems to be dead and fighting out their last battles before going to heaven, but what does it mean that some characters get shot and "die" and others continue on with similar injuries? Is this one characters' purgatory and the rest are actors? Or is this a shared purgatory - and if so, what does it mean to die? When "dead" are they dispatched to Hell? Do the ones that survive get to go to San Francisco with Bridget Fonda (sounds like heaven to me <g>)? And what did the government agent do to be included in this anyway (the funniest performance in the film by Bud Cort - though Jeter comes in second as the emasculated rapist)? That said, it was engaging to think of justice and the afterlife in the American West circa 1900, especially with a little humor.

This piece has intelligence and a sense of fun and experimentation which is pleasing to see once in a while - I just wish the writers had gone the extra mile to tie it all together a little more. I'm not saying they had to be obvious, but the lack of consistency held it back from being a great effort to merely an interesting one.

Anyway, I enjoyed it - it was a breath of fresh air in an art form which is too often predictable and simplistic. Don't let the ratings fool you; some people get mad when they don't get their regular meat and potatoes served, even when they get a delightful piece of sushi.

While some viewers may have difficulty in unraveling this sardonic allegory, Dwight Yoakam's diehard fans will be able to recognize their star at his zenith. South of Heaven, West of Hell is filled with irony, parody, and quiet innuendo. It is a gem of a movie which is sure to attract even those not acquainted with Yoakam's intellectuality. Pervasive black humor weaves its way in and out of nearly every scene. Some may be put off by what appears to be gratuitous violence, but a further look sets up Yoakam's metaphorical statement regarding the internal conflict humans experience in their transformation from victims ambling through the ravages of hell toward survival in the most unexpected heavens, thus rescuing themselves from the morbidity of life. The film seems to be disjointed and vague in spots, and leaves the viewer seeking answers to subtle understated plot twists. Like Yoakam, himself, the mysterious, baffling, and somewhat enigmatic writing accomplishes just what he has set out to do: engage the audience just uncomfortably enough to evoke deeper thinking. South of Heaven, West of Hell embraces both the past and the future, much like Yoakam's latest song collection, Tomorrow's Sounds Today. The film tells a story of redemption and vindication, a shedding of old nightmares in search of new dreams. It is about tying up loose ends while scaling new heights. It is at once ancient ritual and oddly nouveau. Dwight Yoakam is always pushing the parameters while remaining true to who he is. He has never forsaken that identity, or given in to mediocrity. While South of Heaven, West of Hell may be Yoakam's first attempt in breaking through the barriers into film production, one can only hope this will not be his last endeavor in this genre. He is a quintessential artist who deserves more recognition than he seems to get. If Hollywood is smart, they will sit up and take notice of the rare gem quietly walking among them. True talent is true talent, no matter how different the package. Dwight Yoakam may be just becoming the brightest diamond around.

Is this film a masterpiece or a bomb? Unwatchable or something to rewind over & over? Plotless or full of twists & turns? I don't know and based on all the comments here, I don't think anyone else does either. What I do know is this: The director and his producer managed to get an entire cast of actors who are pretty selective about what they appear in (unlike many of those on the so-called A-List) to act in this movie. The director himself relegated his character to more of a narrator than anything else. Many people were engrossed enough to watch it all the way through (which cannot be said for the truly awful), and even those who couldn't were compelled enough to comment on this website. Whether you liked it or hated it, it's safe to say that "South of Heaven, West of Hell" is unforgettable. What more could a first-time director ask for? I for one will be greatly anticipating Dwight Yoakam's sophomoric effort.