South of Heaven, West of Hell (2000) User Reviews

odd

[wingedheartart · 4/10 · 31 January 2010]

Well.....This was/is an odd film. Makes you hate most men or a lot of men. Just some odd characters. I love Dwight and think Bridgett Fonda needs to be in more films, but what was UP with the kisses Dwight was giving her in that balloon????? Were they kisses or was he cleaning her face off with his mouth? Not his tongue, but here, let's kiss strangely and you better fall in love with me when I do it. Weird.

Still love Dwight though, just hope his next writing adventure is better. However, I like the idea of what happened to the character that got his manhood cut off when he was going to take what he wanted from Bridgett Fonda's character.

Oh well....worth a watch...but not the best film.

Flatliner

[vincent-100 · 3/10 · 8 March 2006]

This is a good example of why you should never act in a movie you direct as well as write the songs and screenplay for, unless your name is Woody Allen (And sometimes even if your name is Woody Allen). Dwight does not give his character Valentine the brooding depth that was intended. Valentine instead looks dozy most of the time and says the first thing he can think of. The only person who shines in this movie is Bud Cort. Vince Vaughn does OK too. But not even Billy Bob Thornton can add colour to this drab movie, mostly because he isn't given more than a few words to say. His character is also completely undeveloped, as are most of the other characters. It's just embarrassing how obvious it is that the camera was intended to be on the character of Valentine all the time, like this was going to be Dwight's big Oscar break. But the character is boring and uninspiring. The aimlessness of the movie as a whole is frustrating. It's also either too long, or it just felt that way.

Offbeat, Meandering Western

[hokeybutt · 4/10 · 27 August 2005]

SOUTH OF HEAVEN, WEST OF HELL (2 outta 5 stars) Considering the tremendous cast involved in this movie (Billy Bob Thornton, Vince Vaughn, Bridget Fonda, Bud Cort, Peter Fonda, Bo Hopkins, Luke Askew, Matt Clark, Scott Wilson etc.) I was expecting one hell of a movie. Sadly, the meandering nature of the script doesn't really give the movie much forward motion. There are a few individual scenes that are noteworthy but a lot of other scenes that seem to serve no purpose but to give a few quotable lines to a familiar film veteran. Director/writer/star Dwight Yoakam is the star of the film but unfortunately he doesn't quite have what it takes to hold the movie together. Vince Vaughn's bad-guy role steals his thunder in every scene they share. Many other scenes are marred by being a little *too* over-the-top (as when a prisoner slobbers all over the naked bosom of a prostitute pressed up against the window to his cell). Considering that the movie is basically a vanity project for Dwight Yoakam it's not as terrible as it might be... he's very generous in giving screen time to his co-stars... and he does come up with some nice dialogue. Yoakam also provides the memorably haunting musical theme runs throughout the movie. Not a total waste of time... but very bumpy going at times.

Well worth the wait.

[billybrown41 · 24 August 2001]

Having viewed this film three times now, I think I finally have enough together to write a decent review for it. First off, I waited a long time to see this (over two years) and it definitely did not dissapoint. Mainly because I knew the direction that Dwight Yoakam was moving in on this one. He wanted to create a western that was a bit different than the standard shoot 'em up and he wanted to create a story that mirrored a lot of events from his own life while ,at the same time, not spelling everything out for the audience and letting them think and decipher for themselves. While he certainly succeeded in doing this, he also manages to use the ensemble cast for all its worth by bringing in the biggest mix of oddball and eccentric characters I've seen since Jim Jarmusch's "Dead Man".

"South of Heaven, West of Hell" uses the pretty basic story (seemingly) of a man, Valentine Casey (Yoakem) who has been raised by an adoptive family known as the Henrys. The Henrys are led by none other than western vet Luke Askew who seems to have the most level head of the gang. His socio-path son Taylor (Vince Vaughn) does most of the running while his cronies (Paul Reubens and Michael Jeter) follow him around like whipped puppies. Natalie Canerday (Linda from Sling Blade) plays Sissy, the child like sister of the brood who is desperately in love with Valentine. At some point, before the story starts, Valentine dissowned the outlaw family who raised him and fought in the Spanish American war, later becoming a sherriff.

All is peaceful for Valentine, living the life of a sheriff in a town where nothing happens, until the Henrys come riding into town raising all manners of hell and pulling a "wild bunch" style attack. A few people are killed (the Henry's must not be much for target practice since they fired over a hundred rounds) and a couple more are shot. Valentine waits about a year, then retaliates. That's all I'm going to say in the way of the story, but there's a lot more than that.

Let's talk about the characters for a minute. Ol' Val is about the sanest one of the bunch. He's a mild-mannered, likeable guy who is tough only when he has to be. His side kick is an "odd bird" who has a thing for wearing dresses. Bo Hopkins plays Doc Angus Dunfries, a blacksmith. A barely recognizable Billy Bob Thornton comes into town as a traveller named Brigadier Smalls. With him is his travelling buddy, the nearly mute Babcock (Warren Zevon). They are escorting Adelyne (Bridget Fonda), Doc Angus's niece, and Val's soon-to-be love interest. Paul Reubens (looking very much like he did in "Buffy the Vampire Slayer) plays one sick puppy here, as one of the twisted members of the Henry tribe. One of my favorites was Bud Cort, playing a government agent with some papers that strongly suggest that Valentine was killed in the war. He gets off the train, whining about the heat and a toothache. It's pretty clear that this guy is here mainly for comic-relief. He appears to have the worst luck in history and the belt scene had me in stitches.

It's easy to see why this only got a limited theatrical release. "South of Heaven, West of Hell" isn't necessarily the kind of film that the masses will flock to. I think Yoakam made the film with that in mind, knowing that it would find it's intended audience on video. It's true that the majority just won't get it. To enjoy this film, you have to go into it with an open mind and sort of block out everything around and that's something that a lot of people just aren't capable of. It's hard to explain just what kind of movie this is but I think Vince Vaughn summed it up best, in an interview, by saying that it is the "punk rock of westerns".

I enjoyed this movie a lot and I'm sure it will probably go down as one of my year's favorites. There is a lot here to enjoy and one viewing is not enough. There is a lot of black comedy that I didn't pick up on the first time around and there is also a lot more going on with and between the characters than what is going on on-screen. It's not just "worth a viewing". It's worth several.

Some films just should never be made

[noam-reisner · 1/10 · 2 January 2006]

Picking up the jacket of this DVD in the video store I was intrigued. Having watched this sorry excuse for a western I think director Dwight should give a medal for the guy who designed the jacket and has lured to their doom other unsuspecting viewers. The script of the film is potentially interesting... and I bet that's what the impressive members of this film's cast thought when they signed up for this project. But, Dwight, buddy... stick to singing and acting. This must be the worst directed film I have ever had the displeasure of seeing. Badly paced, wooden performances, awkwardly shot, weird music, and even terrible costumes - my God, what is Billy Bob Thornton's wig all about??? I could go on for another ten lines, but this film just isn't worth the bother. Anyone who hates wasting money should stay well away from this stinker.

Beautifully photographed, that's about the only good thing...

[simba-18 · 2/10 · 16 February 2004]

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.

Hang up your guns Dwight

[microx96002 · 1/10 · 2 March 2002]

Ugly violent, incoherent western. Directed, scored and starring country singer Dwight Yoakum. The music score is also a disappointment. It was exec produced by Buck Owens. You would think all this would bring you a half way decent western, but I think the Bakersfield Ca sun got to them first!

Even veteran character actors such as Bo Hopklins and Matt Clark can't save this one. Vince Vaughn, Billy Bob Thornton, Paul (Pee-Wee Herman) Ruebens, Bud Cort, Peter and Bridget Fonda - an unusual cast for a western, is wasted in this beautifully photographed travesty. Hang up your guns Dwight, stick to singin'

Love Dwight, hated this movie

[sherri-15 · 1/10 · 3 September 2001]

I really like Dwight Yoakam...I love seeing him in interviews, I love his music, I love seeing him in concert. He is one of the most interesting and talented people in the music industry. Sorry to say, he should stay in the music industry. This was one of the worst movies I can remember seeing. I tried and tried to think of something I liked about it, just because I like Dwight so much...but I couldn't come up with a single good thing to say about this movie.

Mostly Unwatchable

[aimless-46 · 1/10 · 25 January 2006]

Rebecca: This is so bad it's almost good.

Enid: This is so bad it's gone past good and back to bad again.

We rented this DVD shortly after Noble Willingham's death, thinking that we would watch it as a tribute. There were two problems with this idea. Noble's character gets killed off very early and the DVD was defective. It was missing the scene that explains what's going on. I have to assume that the handful of positive comments were from people who watched an obscure director's cut that had this explanatory scene.

But seriously, the writers of the screenplay were totally inexperienced (at screenplays) and the director was totally inexperienced (at writing screenplays and at directing screenplays), so the roadkill that resulted should be no surprise. Let this comment serve as a warning to potential viewers, just because a lot of actors who have performed in excellent films are part of this ensemble does not make it worth viewing. There are some decent performances but the whole is a lot less than the sum of its parts, which in fact adds up to less than zero.

Bizarre (in an uninteresting way), sadistic (in a vaguely boring way), foul-mouthed (in a grammar school way), half-baked (in a bad raw egg way), and disorganized (in a director should burn in hell way). It is mostly unwatchable, as even the isolated parts that could be entertaining are burdened with Yoakam and Bertheaud's comically false dialogue. Although this at least gives the production its only hint of unity and should dispel the temptation to blame the result on excessive improv.

Imagine inserting clips of "El Topo" in no logical order into "Tombstone" and you can approximate the product Yoakam inflicts on us unsuspecting Noble Willingham fans. He gave himself the lead role as Valentine Casey, a U.S. Marshall in 1907 Arizona. Casey's old gang and surrogate family keeps popping up and a lot of people are killed and Casey goes after them and eventually everything gets sorted out, although even after just watching the whole thing I couldn't have told you how. Don't understand why the gang keeps turning up or why the Marshall left them to become a lawman or why Pee Wee has put on so much weight. Don't really care either, I think we will just stick to "The Corndog Man" and the real "El Topo".

Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.

Weird and Fun, a Nice little Picture

[pluto-11 · 6/10 · 31 July 2003]

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.

This movie makes me want to die.

[johnnyx-2 · 1/10 · 18 June 2006]

Dwight Yoakam can't even be bothered to get a proper comb-over for his bald spot.

It's Vince Vaughn, Peter Fonda and...uh... Peewee Herman. In a Western. How can it go wrong? How!? But it does, and tragically. This is incomprehensible, poorly shot, vanity-project poo. Dwight adds nothing to the direction but muddle an already blasphemous script with lots of slow-motion and fuzzy camera angles. And there's lots and lots of yelling. For no reason.

In the name of all that's holy, do not pick up this movie. Implore your local video stores to remove it from the shelves.

worth seeing

[16mm-3 · 10/10 · 8 February 2005]

Westerns are out of fashion but this one is done with feeling and authenticity organically inspired by the casting of actors who themselves have genuine associations with the west, instead of just sticking a cowboy hat on george clooney for eg.

Where another critic has mentioned awkwardness, I think instead that this is a masterful portrayal of the kind of characters who inhabited the real west. They were not articulate or hip.

The pace and the photography are both somewhat indulgent, making this film evocative rather than brisk, though there is plenty of honest and brutal action.

I see two or three movies every day, and this is one of the rare ones which, though no masterpiece, I respect and would even see again.

a great movie for fans of the genre

[philkundu · 7/10 · 1 April 2005]

I found this movie in a bin at a grocery store for under 5 bucks. I only bought it because of the cast (i've never seen Dwight Yoakam film's before.) I was surprised that it was only rated 3.7 in IMDb. After watching it i was pleasantly surprised. If you're a western fan (particularly the old Sergio Leone movies) check this out. There are definitely a few "weird" elements but they don't really detract from the movie. The scenery is great, the acting is quite good, and the plot gives you pretty much everything you'd expect from a western. If you're looking for an old-style western i would recommend South of Heaven West of Hell.

Horribly disappointing

[rodkneej · 2/10 · 13 January 2002]

As a great fan of Dwight Yoakam's music as well as his acting performance in "Sling Blade", I was extremley disappointed with "South of Heaven, West of Hell". What a stinker! Terrible writing with very uninspired and flat performances by several otherwise talented actors. I swear Billy Bob Thornton must have been reading straight from cue cards throughout his minor five minute robotic appearance. It's almost as if he and several of the others must have owed Dwight a favor and that's why they agreed to take part in this project. Otherwise I can't understand why they would want to have anything to do with such a boring and pointless film.

Why Does Everyone Hate This Movie?

[TSHunter · 5 November 2003]

It was surprising to me to see that 1/3 of the people who had voted for this movie gave it a 1! I thought this was one of the best Westerns to come out of Hollywood for a LONG time. The story and acting is superb, and so is the cinematography. These three things are what make a great movie. You could argue the forth being controversy/making you think, but it is not absolutely necessary. This is a great film. So don't listen to the others because they have no sense of taste. If you like Westerns and Independent films, check this one out. It is obviously an overlooked gem.

Just film the desert for goodness sakes!

[guyb · 1/10 · 23 August 2001]

I rented this DVD with the risk that it might be "too wierd." Forget that! It wasn't wierd at all? It was just bad! What were all the reviews about ghosts about? I didn't see that at all? The big name talent all just had "ghost roles." Dont' be fooled by that.

Waste of time

BORING AND BAD

[flimbuff · 1/10 · 1 April 2002]

The screenwriter should be forced to watch this daily as penance and the producers should be put to sleep or hung. A terrible waste of good actors on a meaningless story with a plot that isn't fit for a "teenage ninja" movie.

Holy cow!!!!

[jeff-kimball · 1/10 · 25 April 2005]

This is possibly the worst movie I have ever seen in my life. I once had Battlefield Earth as the worst, but now this movie has leaped far ahead. How this is ranked even close to a 5, I don't know. There were a couple instances in the movie (I saw it in a theater) where a good 2 minutes went by with no dialog during a seen where you just watched the characters. It was painful. Usually I hate it when someone talks during a movie. However, in this one, someone said "Did they forget their lines?" and everyone in the theater laughed. When you watch the movie you'll see this a couple times. This movie is only good to watch if you actually want to tell your friends that you saw the worst movie of all times.

One of the most boring westerns ever.

[suzy q123 · 1/10 · 28 December 2000]

I hate to break this to all the Dwight fans out there, but when it comes to film making, the emporer has no clothes. This is less a western as it is an exercise in vanity. There are many long lingering closeups of Dwight, even one of his rear end, and all of them should have been cut. The plot is not worth repeating, you've seen it a million times, you know, a sheriff in a moral crisis- what sets this film apart is that it's over two hours long, and apparently no one had the wherewithal cut it to a watchable length. The acting is all over the boards, some people are amazingly hammy (Peter Fonda, Billy Bob Thornton) some people are amazingly boring (Dwight, Briget Fonda) and all of them appear to be lacking any real direction. There is no cohesiveness, no drive, no shape to this film. Buy the soundtrack and enjoy it in the privacy of your home, no need to waste your time with the film.

Gritty, Mind-Aletering and Spiritous

[LeonLouisRicci · 7/10 · 3 March 2013]

A mess of things here to both love and, well not love. It is a wild experiment that is nothing if not different and it is something to behold. A long and sometimes tedious Movie with a great deal of quirkiness and a meandering mystical story.

A daunting task, undertaken by the Star/Director/Writer, this is an impressive first time effort. Not without some self-indulgent flaws and failings, it nevertheless is an Artistic array of elements that dosen't quite mesh with moments of confusion.

For a Western that is quite violent, it is the gunfights that seem flat and uninspired. Especially the more elaborate confrontations containing multiple participants with dynamite and a machine gun. These come off as less than exciting when they are surely meant to be.

The more close-up, gritty altercations work much better and overall it is the bizarre characters and the pithy, dark writing along with some excellent Cinematography and staging that make this quite an off-kilter combination of a standard Western template with unexpected genre concepts.

Dull, drawn out, and incoherent

[flash-130 · 2/10 · 19 May 2006]

This is basically a Dwight Yokum w**kfest. The writing is dire, various characters launch into long, boring, long, cringe-worthy, long, and pointless, and long soliloquies from time to time. And the movie just grinds on and on and on and on. I was fortunate in that the DVD I have has been gut to 1:43mins, but still had to reach for the fast forward button after 1:30mins. And believe me I really, really tried to see it through. In fact I go a shock when I check the clock and found that I had only been subjected to it for 1:30mins... it felt much longer. In fact it felt as though I had been up all night.

Now for the ***SPOILERS*** I WOULD STRONGLY RECOMMEND YOU READ THIS BEFORE WATCHING THIS MOVIE AS IT MIGHT slightly ENHANCE THE EXPERIENCE:

Everyone in the film is dead. The film is set in purgatory. This is not obvious. In fact there is no explanation regarding this. Perhaps DY decided to make a Western, then after finishing the script watch Sixth Sense and thought "WOW! That's a neat twist. I'll make everyone in my movie dead too!"

I do not recommend watching this movie if you are female. Women get something of a raw deal in it, and also DY seems to think that everyone fancies him as much as he fancies himself.

Although the film was only 1:43mins long, watching it was like being on acid as it seems to take much, much longer. I fear I may have lost somewhere in the region of 3 years of my life through watching this DVD. My recommendation: rent Open Range instead!

You Need to Watch this Movie Twice

[RupertsFriend · 9/10 · 15 March 2010]

I was intrigued (and unsettled) enough about it on my first viewing to give it a second viewing and I'm glad I did.

To begin with, this movie contains some of the best acting Vince Vaughn has done in his career. Vince is a mercurial, talented actor who is wasted in most of his formula films (Wedding Crashers, Couples Retreat). His other great acting was under Sean Penn's direction in Into the Wild. I think the fact that Dwight got such a performance out of Vince speaks volumes about Dwight's abilities as a director.

With that said, the poor editing on this movie diluted the power of some of the scenes. And because of that, I think the movie suffered.

But if you want to see a movie that visually beautiful, radical and slow in places -- but eventually quite interesting-- then this is a movie for you. Forget the formulas. This is an homage to Spaghetti Westerns, Film Noir and Classic Horror films.

Also, I can't say enough about the soundtrack. It was perfect and the soundtrack album is even better.

Not a Jim Thompson based story

[otherwisely · 6/10 · 12 February 2015]

A movie you want to catch, if only to watch the expressions on their faces change (the ones in the film and the ones on the couch). As with Reservoir Dogs, it's compelling enough to make you stop typing on your laptop and watch, at least as it ends. Thornton's performance reminds me of an interview Jon Stewart conducted with a journalist who had traveled with the Stones - when Stewart alluded to one particular member of the group and muttered something about drugs, the guy on the other side of the desk said "I don't think they give him enough." Watch this one especially if you don't like Westerns. As with The Woman Chaser (original title was The Car Salesman and then the publisher asked the author if he wanted to sell some books) once you get on its wavelength, and accept a few quirks, it's worth a once.

What happens when actor friends repay a favor...

[steedjas · 1/10 · 25 January 2009]

This movie has a cast of some of the best or most popular actors in the last 20 years. But even with all that talent they cannot make the impossible possible. Or to put it another way you can't polish a turd.

The cinematography, lighting, editing, directing, plot, timing, writing & any conscious thought are lacking or nonexistent.

And when you have a bad director, you have bad actors. Some of the biggest names (Fonda, Thorton) have no more than a handful of lines. Which was probably a blessing for them.

Do yourself a favor and watch Unforgiven or The Fastest Gun in the West or just read some Louis L'Amour.

Dwight stick to singing.