I can sympathize with Ethan Hawke in Valley Of Violence. As far as I'm concerned what he did was perfectly justified when someone tries to kill a pet. The key scenes in this film are Hawke just talking to his dog. It's clear that the animal is more to him than a stray he's taken in. It looks like Hawke's been devoid of human contact for some time while he's on the trail. And it could be he's not in the ordinary sense of the word, a good guy.

Neither however is Marshal John Travolta whose town Hawke has stopped in. He considers himself ruler of the place where he brought law and order emphasis on the latter. He's also got a son in James Ransone who is the Qusay Hussen to his Saddam.

Hawke who is just there to stop for an overnight rest before moving on is someone that Ransone decides to pick a fight with. After Ransone and his friends kill the dog and leave Hawke for dead, Hawke's taking names and numbers.

Elements of a lot of good westerns are present in Valley Of Violence. Two Clint Eastwood classics High Plains Drifter and The Unforgiven, the Burt Lancaster western Valdez Is Coming. You might also include the two John Wayne westerns Hondo and Big Jake since both involve the Duke and a dog. But the Duke was never as attached to his dog as Hawke is here.

Western fans should like Valley Of Violence. It sure is something different for John Travolta.

Paul (Ethan Hawke) is riding to Mexico with his dog Abbie. He's a former soldier who has had enough of violence after killing Indian civilians. In the town of Denton, he is challenged to a fight by braggard Deputy Gilly Martin (James Ransone). Only after Abbie is threatened, Paul decides to knock out Gilly with one punch. Ellen (Karen Gillan) is Gilly's equally annoying girlfriend. The only friendly face is Mary-Anne (Taissa Farmiga). Gilly's father Marshal Clyde Martin (John Travolta) pushes him to leave the town and he's happy to do so. Gilly and his friends catch up to Paul and kill his dog.

From the opening credits, this is trying to be a spaghetti western. The outlines of the genre is absolutely there. The problem is that everybody seems to be a bit off. Ethan Hawke is being too modern in his performance. He should really be the man with no name. As an actor, he's not great at being quiet. He's too fidgety. Compare this to Keanu Reeves in John Wick and that's what this needs. Ransone is too weak and doesn't pose a real threat. Karen Gillan is too silly. Taissa Farmiga is at least trying to do good work. Travolta is completely wrong. As I'm watching this, I keep thinking of how it could have been done right. The movie in my head is vastly better than the one on the screen.

The film opening titles reminds you of the Sergio Leone westerns which means Ethan Hawke's stoic, smelly, mystery drifter accompanied by his loyal dog is basically Clint Eastwood's the man with no name and a past that haunts him.

In the saloon Hawke is taunted by a loud mouth who is also the Marshall's son and he gets beaten up by Hawkes and then goes out for revenge which includes killing Hawke's dog and leaving Hawke for dead. Bad mistake because just like John Wick, killing his dog means he is now out for vengeance.

John Travolta has a supporting role as the Marshall trying to find a compromise but he overindulged his idiot son too much as the town is a hovel and its inhabitants afraid.

This should had been a lean mean western but suddenly becomes flabby and verbose when Hawke's needed to be bad-ass. It is too clichéd which some of its western tropes and underlying humour cannot compensate for.