Rating: 
Summary: Quite possibly the worst movie of all time.
Review: Did I miss something in this movie? Like maybe the plot. I like Bridget Fonda and I like westerns but this movie did not have much in it to like. It seemed like an entire movie that didn't ket anywhere. It never progressed. With the vast array of well known names and faces this movie should have had a better plot. I guess the big question for me is how did they get all these character actors in this movie? If you like westerns or not, you may want to think about passing on this movie.
Rating:
Summary: Did I Miss Something?
Review: Did I miss something in this movie? Like maybe the plot. I like Bridget Fonda and I like westerns but this movie did not have much in it to like. It seemed like an entire movie that didn't ket anywhere. It never progressed. With the vast array of well known names and faces this movie should have had a better plot. I guess the big question for me is how did they get all these character actors in this movie? If you like westerns or not, you may want to think about passing on this movie.
Rating:
Summary: Bad, bad, bad, bad
Review: Do not, I repeat, do not see this movie. I don't care if you've seen _Sling Blade_. I don't care if you like Billy Bob or Vince Vaughn, or Bud Cort. This movie is just horrible. I saw this the other night at a friend's house, and the only thing that helped me through the traumatic experience was the laughter that would erupt from my friends at various points from the bad dialogue and ridiculous violence. I began to think that part of the reason Dwight made the film was to show all of us his sexual fantasies (. . .) could find no story in this movie. Only blood, cruelty, and, yes, the inexplicable appearance of a hot air balloon. Want to see Bud Cort pulling his own tooth out and later yell for 5 minutes "I'm blind!" Yep, this movie has that and a few people blown up by dynamite besides. Other than that, I go with what one of my friends said at the end of this movie: "The lesson I learned in this film is that you have to have someone in your life to tell you NO." Oh, that someone had said that to Dwight.
Rating: 
Summary: The 3rd best western I've seen!
Review: Dwight Yoakam has to be my favorite country singer so when I heard about this movie I just had to see it.
One of the best westerns I've seen. Unforgiven still holds the top spot and after that The Good the Bad and the Ugly but this one replaces Outlaw Josey Wales for number three.I liked the desolate barren settings, I grew up in a small New Mexican town just 40 miles from the border and alot of the scenes reminded me of that little town.The score was for the most part excellent except for that modernstic jazz piece that ran during the credits.The performances were all good even though most of the characters don't get alot of screen time especially Billy Bob.The gun fights were some of the best I've seen, I can only guess that Dwight has witnessed a few gun battles and knows how it really is. None of this tucking and rolling into a marksmens position and hitting your target square in the chest.
For those who feel there was too much sex and violence if violence is going to depicted it should be depicted in a realistic way and not glamorized the way it is in most movies. The sex is far from gratuitous and is mostly repugnant.
This is a great flick overall and I wish more like it would be made but that aint gonna happen any time soon.
Rating:
Summary: Not Your Standard Western Fare
Review: Dwight Yoakam's "South of Heaven, West of Hell" is not a standard western. Honestly, it's only a western at all due to the time and place in which it's set, or at least, the time and place in which it appears to be set. Anyone who goes into this movie with pre-conceived notions has to stop and throw them out right now. You also have to be prepared to really, really think. Dwight Yoakam may be best-known for being a hillbilly singer, but there's a rather shockingly deep brain hiding beneath that low-brimmed cowboy hat, and lurking inside that brain is a strange, esoteric, and truly bizarre story about death and what may, or may not, happen afterward. As the story opens, we find Valentine Casey, the sheriff of the small western town of Los Tragos. The town is terrorized by a bloodthirsty mob of thieves who turn out to be Val's adopted family, the murderous Henrys. Sound like a standard western? Perhaps. But then we jump ahead a few years to find that the government is searching anxiously for Val, or Val's family, to deliver something important. Val is still seeking the Henrys, but appears to now be working as a horse trainer with his bizarre little deputy, U.S. Christmas, while he searches. Eventually, he will find the Henrys, and his search for justice will end. That Val is haunted by the ghosts of his past is evident; what else haunts him, the landscape, and all the people who surround him, is not so immediately apparent. That Val himself may be a ghost is, perhaps, the most important facet of the story. Is Val a ghost who cannot stop going until he has completed his task? Or are they all ghosts, searching in vain for a way to finish their lives, accomplish a necessary goal, or are they merely trapped, forced to inhabit this bleak landscape for all eternity without finding redemption at all? If redemption does indeed exist for Val, perhaps he can find it by defeating the Henrys; or does his redemption exist in the beautiful Adelyne, who herself is struggling to accomplish HER post-life goal? For me, one of the most intriguing pieces of this film was trying to make the decision whether Valentine Casey died in the Spanish-American war, as a hero in Cuba, or did he die in the disastrous, bloody massacre in Los Tragos? Has he convinced himself that the heroic death was his, to salve his pain over his failure in Los Tragos? Val is haunted by scents -- the smell of gunpowder, notably, but he also always tries to smell burning chili peppers -- as, we are told, the sense of smell leaves you in death, and all you retain are the scents that surrounded you when you died. So does Val really smell the burning chilis, meaning he died a hero in Cuba? Or is he simply trying to add that scent to the gunpowder that marked his death and subsequent failure in Los Tragos? It's a very intriguing film. It is also beautifully shot, marking some very, very fine cinematography. I was pleasantly surprised by Dwight Yoakam as a director. The mood is set early, and scenes flow remarkably well together. It is a very long movie, which unfortunately audiences were not ready for, so it is an absolute MUST to see the DVD edition to understand the film -- the VHS edition is cut down by almost 40 minutes of necessary footage. It's also a very dark film, and darkly humorous. The bits of black comedy are all the more startling for the way they scattershot through the story--surprise, there's a laugh hidden there! It's also vitally important to actually watch this film. I'm very sorry that it never played theatres in this area so I never got the opportunity to see it on the big screen. One of my favorite scenes contains Billy Bob Thornton as Brigadeer Smalls -- a very small, but extremely pivotal role, whose words must be listened to -- Smalls is the key, all Val has to do is listen to unlock his own mystery. And no one but a great character player like Billy Bob could deliver those lines. By all means, if you're looking for a little light action, don't choose this film. But if you like a movie that makes you think, and question, and ponder, then you may like this as much as I did.
Rating: 
Summary: South of Coherence, West of Logic
Review: Dwight Yoakam, accomplished country/western singer, loves movies. He has appeared, as an actor, in over a dozen films. On this film, Yoakam functioned as writer, co-producer [with Buck Owens], director, star, and of course, he worked on the musical score as well. This would be quite a feat for the most accomplished of movie stars, which Mr. Yoakam is not. He can be very effective as an actor, when directed properly, as in "Sling Blade" and "Panic Room". He is a better actor than Johnny Cash was, or Merle Haggard; certainly as good as the icon known as Willie Nelson. This film is so bad, it is almost good. It is so different, so off-center, so oblique, that it challenges the audience. The cinematography, by James Glennon, is lush; images bathed in dust and golden light, drenced in blood-red sunsets and shimmering mirage riders, ghost-like apparitions. I think it is admirable that Yoakam had enought influence, enough money, enough good friends, and enough ego to launch this dark confused tale. But, alas, it does not emerge as eclectic as Jim Jarmusch's mini-classic,"Dead Man". We all love a western, and Yoakam can be applauded for purposefully breaking down many of the cliches of the genre. Next time though, sir, please procure blanks for your handguns that do not sound like cap pistols. The movie has been called self-indulgent, and it is; tedious, even egregious. Actually, what it is remains closer to a labor of love falling leagues short of coherence. It was poorly written. Without strongly defined characters, clear conflicts, and fully-realized conclusions, we struggle as viewers. At times, the film becomes too esoteric; like Dennis Hopper's "The Last Movie", one suspects the cast had fun doing it, but where's the fun in watching it ? No one wants a film to fail. We search for those tiny nanoseconds that elevate, entertain, and enlighten us. The movie is populated by bizarre characters portrayed by a bevy of terrific actors. Yoakam, as U.S.Marshall, Val Casey, is at ease in front of the camera; but Val comes off as shallow posturing. Where is the anger, inner strength, and passion ?
Several times in the semblence of a plot it is mentioned that an official government letter exists, and in it is the information that Valentine Casey was deceased; that he had died in Cuba in the Spanish-American war. When confronted with this conundrum, Val just stares wistfully toward the horizon. So, as an undercurrent, we wonder if Val is really an avenging spirit, or if the whole movie represents a nightmarish dream ? Joe Unger, as the outlaw Nogales, makes a strong impression, finding a real person within the absurdity of the script. Billy Bob Thornton, Peter Fonda, Matt Clark, and Bo Hopkins, sleepwalk through their brief scenes, lending their visage and names to the project. Bridget Fonda, as Adelyne, is credible, considering her character is written incoherently. The Henry Clan are the heavies. They are led by Luke Askew, astride a primitive wheel chair, spouted biblical platitudes, manning a machine gun mounted on his wagon, and finding time to bugger his daughter. Vince Vaughn cuts a wide swath as Taylor Henry, the most lethel of the bunch; killing without remorse, ice-blooded and stone-faced. Comic relief is provided with the bawdy flavor of Shakespeare; down, dirty, and bloody. Bud Cort is dipped in [foul stuff], stripped, humiliated, beaten, and shot. Paul Reubens, as Arvid Henry, seethes like a [unique] gunslinger, bouncing about like a Marx brother; murdering, [abusing], stealing,... Michael Jeter, as the uncle, gets to whine, beg, howl, cajole, and [be abused],... Terry McIlvain, as Val's sidekick, U.S.Christmas, is costumed in a colorful skirt, like a South American gaucho, and he makes the most out of his screen time. ...this one could become a cult classic.
Rating:
Summary: The Best Western Since Pale Rider
Review: Easily the best western since Pale Rider. As a 26 year old non-country boy, the only other westerns I considered worthwhile were those of Sergio Leone and anything shoot-em-up with Clint Eastwood, pre-Unforgiven days... Dwight Yoakam serves up a fine dish of honky-tonk, gunfighting, and even raunch in a western that plays more like a documentary than fiction. Not in the boring ... documentary fashion, but in a way of life, be it low or otherwise. This movie is original, intelligent, and puts any later western to shame, including Young Guns, its sequel, Unforgiven, or Posse. Those who claim there is no plot are obviously not paying attention to a film they decided to critique.
Rating:
Summary: The Best Western Since Pale Rider
Review: Easily the best western since Pale Rider. As a 26 year old non-country boy, the only other westerns I considered worthwhile were those of Sergio Leone and anything shoot-em-up with Clint Eastwood, pre-Unforgiven days... Dwight Yoakam serves up a fine dish of honky-tonk, gunfighting, and even raunch in a western that plays more like a documentary than fiction. Not in the boring ... documentary fashion, but in a way of life, be it low or otherwise. This movie is original, intelligent, and puts any later western to shame, including Young Guns, its sequel, Unforgiven, or Posse. Those who claim there is no plot are obviously not paying attention to a film they decided to critique.
Rating:
Summary: Oh Dwight....
Review: Groan...this was such a bad movie I turned if off after 30min. I have seen Dwight act in better films than this. Perhaps he should stick to singing as a first career. Mildly amusing in spots but I can't recommend it.
Rating:
Summary: One of the Worst Western Movies ever seen!
Review: Horrible. Totally ridiculously made. The screenplay was written by a moron then directed by a moron! Could never imagine how would have anybody invested and put it into production. Lousy actors, sleep-walking paces, trying very hard but totally inappropriate with clueless sexual scenes. Disgusting even with Fast Forward. No Star! Even 1 Star is too much.
|
