In a Valley of Violence

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.

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.

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

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.

In a Valley of Violence follows a travelling cowboy who, after stopping by a small town, unintentionally starts conflict among the more powerful members there.

Let's start with the obvious part: Ethan Hawke. He's fantastic, as per usual. I don't think I've ever not been impressed by this guy, and that trend continues here. John Travolta pulls off a solid performance as well, playing one of the most interesting characters in the movie. And James Ransone does the same, pulling off a good ol' western hothead. Personally I don't think that Taissa Farmiga was very fit for this role, but she did her best and thankfully fails to take anything of significance away from the movie.

The writing is good as well. The movie builds the characters and conflict for a while before anything of real significance happens, and it makes it all the more effective. It excels at building tension, making the last 40 minutes of this movie just that much better.

Speaking of the last 40 minutes, they're awesome. After an hour of solid build up, we are treated with some great western action. It's tense and exciting, yet not over-the-top. It's just right.

Overall I really enjoyed In a Valley of Violence. The acting, writing, and action are all great, and in the end I would definitely recommend it.