In a Valley of Violence

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.

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.

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.

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

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.