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'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.

Last night I rented SOUTH OF HEAVEN WEST OF HELL on dvd. I was expecting the typical western. It wasn't. It seems as if Dwight used the early 1900's and the traditional western theme as a structure for telling an interesting tale. While he pays tribute to a few classic western films, he didn't make yet another western.

Overall, I think Dwight and company did a fine job. I have read many reviews here at IMDb of people who hated the film, and, from the voting, it looks like there are many others who share that feeling. I am not sure what people find so bad. Granted, the movie was not perfect, but it was good enough that I think Dwight has a potential in writing and directing.

The story is interesting...if you get it. The filming was good, and it had plenty of beautiful Arizona scenery. Vince Vaughn and Luke Askew make a darn good bad guy, so good, I was cheering for them instead of Dwight. And, if nothing else, the comical parts of Agent Otts and U.S. Christmas make the movie worth watching.

I thought the movie was very entertaining. It had a David Lynch like feel which I enjoy: It was very aware of the absurd. Unfortunately there were a couple of scenes that were annoying to the point of nearly spoiling the entire film. Dwight excessively smooches with not one, but two pretty girls. (Are you beginning to get the feeling that I don't like him as a lead actor?) Each of the Dunfries brothers has an emotional breakdown and ruins otherwise splendid scene.

One of these tantrums is during what could have been one of my all time favorite movie scenes. Billy Bob Thorton, Briget Fonda, and Dwight Yoakam are having what Dwight called a dada conversation. Billy Bob is presenting a key piece of information in riddle like form, and Burl Dunfries is carrying on like a lunatic on PCP. The overbearing acting does not lend to the chaos, but instead, overwhelms it.

For what it's worth. I gave it 8 out of 10. I do not see how anyone could give it less than five stars. Not a perfect movie, but there are many quality pieces in it.

I saw the movie a few days ago and, to be honest, when the final credits rolled I thought I had just watched a near miss film. I had a lot of hopes for Mr. Yoakam's writing, directorial, star debut because of the "outside the box" psyche his career and approach to music express. I wasn't disappointed, exactly, perhaps stymied is a better word. Now, however, a few days after viewing the movie, I realize what a wonderfully different, engagingly off centered film it was. I keep thinking of the word "raw" in its many connotations. The movie has no hero but it has heroism. There are no great people but there is greatness. It's a film of details, visual and story and the only actor in the film who didn't make me buy his character was Vince Vaughn although he redeemed himself in the last reels where it seemed he had finally connected with his bad guy alter ego. Dwight was straight on all the way through, drifting in out of left field like he always does and standing right next to you before you realize he's there. This ain't John Wayne or Clint Eastwood but you'll surprize yourself how much you expect it, how much you should have seen it coming and how relieved you are Dwight isn't the fastest gun in the west and good and evil laces itself through all the characters and story lines. Life doesn't run on a script and neither does this movie, it's life's accidents and miscalculated tosses of a stick of dynamite that propels our lives and this film. We stumble our way to our destiny, to our conclusion. It was also great to see all those familiar faces and I'm still utterly and intensely bamboozeled about who and what and why Billy Bob Thorton was about in this movie. Talk about a curio. For me, the movie's finest moment came a couple of days after I had seen it, when I began to realize the appeal of this breed of "different". I imagine I'll buy this video and watch it again every couple of years or so. I know there's a lot I missed but I'm going to enjoy, at my leisure and in repeat viewings, deciphering what Dwight Yoakam was doing here. It's a very difficult film to recommend because even an open mind can fail to find substance to grab a hold. But once you watch it, you can't put it down. I really believe this will give Dwight Yoakam the foot in the door to take Yoakam films forward and I'm just as convinced he'll do something very interesting and of lasting significance in cinema sometime in the future. But South of Heaven, West of Hell, will be a stand alone piece forever. Watch the movie if you're into different, it's dreary real, hilarious, grimy, disgusting, moments of real brilliance and, though I've heard no one mention it, has moments of dead on minor level special effects. But I have a question for viewers; has anyone noticed that Dwight Yoakam in a hat and sans a hat are two completely different characters?

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.