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.

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

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.

This film tells the story of a lone man who travels around with his dog in the cowboy country. The lone man stumbles upon a town where the son of the marshal picks a fight with him, leading to a series of bloody revenges.

"In a Valley of Violence" has a very simple and linear plot. The lone man is aggravated, there is revenge then more counter-revenge. The simplicity of the plot means that the pace is quite slow. I find the first half rather uneventful and lacks excitement. The second half picks up and is much better. I like Ethan Hawke's calm character, standing up to the son of the marshal, who is the local bully. The local bully evokes disgust as he is very unlikable.

I am not usually a fan of Western films, but "In a Valley of Violence" is alright to watch.

(The title of this review in honor of the 1995 Sam Raimi flick "The Quick and the Dead," yet another director who decided to take the Italian Western genre out for a spin, wind her up, and see what she can do.)

Now it is Ti West's turn at bat, a director known for "fringe" pictures but, to be fair, this type of film probably qualifies as fringe too.

Although a great many directors (including, believe it or not, the great Tarantino and even Eastwood himself) have taken on the challenge of this genre, the truth is that Sergio Leone -- the man who invented the category -- is the only director in history to have fully mastered it.

(Have seen the Man With No Name trilogy a half-dozen times so far, and I am not done yet.)

Which does not mean -- as the other reviewers have already noted -- that the attempt, even if it falls short a mite, cannot be fun.

And this movie definitely qualifies as fun.

Hawke is a great choice, at the same time skittish, taciturn, and yet also strangely dangerous.

Travolta will always be Travolta. He has been playing the same role since Kotter, and audiences never get bored.

The most fun is watching Taissa Farmiga chew up the furniture. Clearly the young lady wants to show the world that she has her sister's acting chops, so she does not merely enter a scene, she attacks it and wrestles it to the ground.

In different circumstances, this strange brew might have missed the mark. But it didn't. Clearly West's main goal was to entertain.

And that is exactly what he did.