IMDb RATING
4.3/10
1.8K
YOUR RATING
A U.S. Marshal tracks a destructive clan of outlaws, while a government man claims that the Marshal is actually a ghost of his deceased self.A U.S. Marshal tracks a destructive clan of outlaws, while a government man claims that the Marshal is actually a ghost of his deceased self.A U.S. Marshal tracks a destructive clan of outlaws, while a government man claims that the Marshal is actually a ghost of his deceased self.
Featured reviews
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
South of Heaven, West of Hell is a dimension of David Lynch proportions. The story takes place in a purgatory of sorts between life and death. Amazingly, however, this Western setting is extremely accurate, capturing the complete mood of that time. The film is very fresh on several other levels as well. The black humor and ghost like characters are very new to such a well done Western scene. South of Heaven is definitely genre bending and creative.
The acting throughout the film is superb from beginning to end. Every actor gives a world class performance. Vince Vaughn and Bud Cort had to have been in mind during the writing. Dwight does a great job himself, especially considering he wrote, directed, stared, and did the music for the movie.
The movie works on so many different levels that if you have a chance, see it. Do yourself a favor and stick around till the end. This movie is by no means conventional. It wanders through a story with seemingly no structure. It can be hard to watch when you can not figure out why the leading man is MIA for 30 minutes. There is quite a bit to think about. Watch it with an open mind and an open ear for Dwight's jazzy score, and notice the Gray production value. Superb.
The acting throughout the film is superb from beginning to end. Every actor gives a world class performance. Vince Vaughn and Bud Cort had to have been in mind during the writing. Dwight does a great job himself, especially considering he wrote, directed, stared, and did the music for the movie.
The movie works on so many different levels that if you have a chance, see it. Do yourself a favor and stick around till the end. This movie is by no means conventional. It wanders through a story with seemingly no structure. It can be hard to watch when you can not figure out why the leading man is MIA for 30 minutes. There is quite a bit to think about. Watch it with an open mind and an open ear for Dwight's jazzy score, and notice the Gray production value. Superb.
Did you know
- TriviaVincent Gallo was at one point attached to star in the film.
- GoofsIn one shot up at the balloon, a jet contrail can be seen.
- Quotes
Valentine Casey: I don't know if I'm certain of my existence, Taylor. Only my intentions.
- ConnectionsFeatures Le vol du grand rapide (1903)
- How long is South of Heaven, West of Hell?Powered by Alexa
Details
Box office
- Budget
- $4,000,000 (estimated)
- Gross US & Canada
- $28,149
- Opening weekend US & Canada
- $16,666
- Jun 17, 2001
- Gross worldwide
- $28,149
- Runtime2 hours 11 minutes
- Color
- Sound mix
- Aspect ratio
- 2.35 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content
Top Gap
By what name was South of Heaven, West of Hell (2000) officially released in India in English?
Answer