In a Valley of Violence

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

If you are a fan of classic Westerns, you'll find yourself glued to the screen enjoying every minute of this film.

Disclosure: I am 62 years old as I write this, so I've seen 'em all. And watching this one, I couldn't help feel like it was 1967, or thereabouts, what with the steady camera-work, the superb cinematography capturing all the dusty glory of New Mexico, U.S.A.

And the soundtrack! Not some canned muzak, not some minimalist guitar scratchings, but a full-blown beauty of a musical composition that took me right back to the Spaghetti classics.

Now, this won't win an Oscar, but dang if it didn't make my Friday night popcorn and beer movie night.

"In A Valley of Violence" is a total winner. p.s....the dog is an unbelievably good actor.

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.

(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.