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 in fact 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 in fact 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 in fact a ghost of his deceased self.
Featured reviews
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.
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.
Strange, different and very entertaining! A breath of fresh air, compared to the mindless marketed films of today. Be open and don't expect too much then you'll be VERY entertained! The cast has good chemistry and I believe it was well directed. The only fault I found was it left me wanting more and with some questions. I hoped the DVD would have more deleted scenes that would fill in some gaps. However the commentary with Dwight Yokam is great. You could say this movie is odd, however in an entertaining way. There was also a great deal of obscure comedy that I greatly enjoyed.
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?
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.
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