South of Heaven, West of Hell

While some viewers may have difficulty in unraveling this sardonic allegory, Dwight Yoakam's diehard fans will be able to recognize their star at his zenith. South of Heaven, West of Hell is filled with irony, parody, and quiet innuendo. It is a gem of a movie which is sure to attract even those not acquainted with Yoakam's intellectuality. Pervasive black humor weaves its way in and out of nearly every scene. Some may be put off by what appears to be gratuitous violence, but a further look sets up Yoakam's metaphorical statement regarding the internal conflict humans experience in their transformation from victims ambling through the ravages of hell toward survival in the most unexpected heavens, thus rescuing themselves from the morbidity of life. The film seems to be disjointed and vague in spots, and leaves the viewer seeking answers to subtle understated plot twists. Like Yoakam, himself, the mysterious, baffling, and somewhat enigmatic writing accomplishes just what he has set out to do: engage the audience just uncomfortably enough to evoke deeper thinking. South of Heaven, West of Hell embraces both the past and the future, much like Yoakam's latest song collection, Tomorrow's Sounds Today. The film tells a story of redemption and vindication, a shedding of old nightmares in search of new dreams. It is about tying up loose ends while scaling new heights. It is at once ancient ritual and oddly nouveau. Dwight Yoakam is always pushing the parameters while remaining true to who he is. He has never forsaken that identity, or given in to mediocrity. While South of Heaven, West of Hell may be Yoakam's first attempt in breaking through the barriers into film production, one can only hope this will not be his last endeavor in this genre. He is a quintessential artist who deserves more recognition than he seems to get. If Hollywood is smart, they will sit up and take notice of the rare gem quietly walking among them. True talent is true talent, no matter how different the package. Dwight Yoakam may be just becoming the brightest diamond around.

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.

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?

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.

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.