thinkfilm | Release Date: May 5, 2006
6.4
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 29 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
13
Mixed:
10
Negative:
6
WATCH NOW
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
6
PaulK.Jun 6, 2006
This had it's moments, but the ending was a long, convoluted mess. Check it out on video, if you must.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
MichelleC.Jun 7, 2006
What to say about this movie... The first half is incredible, beautiful really. Then it goes awry. I am not sure what direction the script was trying to take, but it failed-miserably. The movie is visually stunning and very well acted, with What to say about this movie... The first half is incredible, beautiful really. Then it goes awry. I am not sure what direction the script was trying to take, but it failed-miserably. The movie is visually stunning and very well acted, with the exception of that Culkin kid, (Haven't we all seen a little too much of those brothers?) but in the end it is not enough to save the film. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
KevinC.May 11, 2006
As a neo-western, "Down in the Valley" teases us with some ecological ideas (the effects of landscape development in the San Fernando Valley, etc), but they go unexplored in what amounts to a typical doomed love affair. While a surprising As a neo-western, "Down in the Valley" teases us with some ecological ideas (the effects of landscape development in the San Fernando Valley, etc), but they go unexplored in what amounts to a typical doomed love affair. While a surprising change of pace from most of the drivel playing in the matinee, the TAXI DRIVER references are simply too heavy handed here to be considered an homage to Scorsese's masterpiece. If Harlan were to face Travis Bickle in a duel, I'd place my bets on Travis. But Edward Norton, trying to make best with an uneven script, proves once again why he's one of the finest U.S. American actors working today with a nuanced, touching performance. He deserves better scripts. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
JordanS.Aug 23, 2006
It really doesn't matter how visually interesting this film may or may not be. The fact is, the script is as dull and plodding as the script of this guy's last movie, DAHMER. If we had a nickel for every director who knew how to It really doesn't matter how visually interesting this film may or may not be. The fact is, the script is as dull and plodding as the script of this guy's last movie, DAHMER. If we had a nickel for every director who knew how to move a camera or create an arresting image, we'd all be able to retire. But how many of them can write? Not many. And how many can really get a great performance out of a willful, self-absorbed actor like Edward Norton? Again, not many. Certainly David Jacobsen doesn't manage to pull it off. The entire film has the feel of being hijacked by its leading actor, much to the detriment of the whole. The conceit of this neo-western is as hackneyed as some of the ideas behind the Hollywood blockbusters DOWN IN THE VALLEY so studiously attempts to avoid replicating. After a promising first half hour or so, it all goes downhill in a pile of bizarre cliches and self-conscious pontificating about the nature of contemporary American society. Another user comment suggests that audiences just aren't smart enough to "get" this movie. I suggest that some of us are too smart to fall for its rather obvious and literal attempts to be "artful." Take a look at BADLANDS again. That film is exactly what DOWN IN THE VALLEY would like to be, but falls way short of in its blatant mimicry. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful