How’s that for a title that the majority of people will read and immediately scoff at as they move to something else? You’re two sentences in, so thanks for bearing with me so far.
A Million Ways to Die in the West came out over a decade ago, and it didn’t leave much of an impression on most audiences upon release, and the impression that it did leave wasn’t overly positive. The movie was panned by critics, did abysmal work at the box office (because someone made the bright call to release it one week after X-Men: Days of Future Past), and hopefully made MacFarlane feel bad about making fun of Scott Pilgrim vs the World for flopping (Oh, how the turntables, Seth).
That all being said, to quote Simon Pegg in the record-throwing scene of Shaun of the Dead: “I like it.”
This isn’t a contrarian counterpoint to say that you’re wrong for not liking the movie—despite what the title would have you believe—but this movie has such a terrible reputation that most people will see the title and recoil because they know they heard somewhere that it’s bad. They won’t be able to pinpoint why or how they feel that way, but the collective consciousness of modern pop culture will tell them to skip over it, and they’ll listen.
A Million Ways to Die in the West is fun if you don’t take it seriously
It’s fine, we’ve all been there. That low bar almost works in the movie’s favor, because if you go in with expectations that are through the floor, you might be surprised by how funny it can get.
Humor being subjective makes discussing these things challenging, and no one would accuse this movie of being a secret comedic masterpiece. This probably isn’t even in MacFarlane’s top five films that he himself directed…which is saying something considering he’s only made three. But if I were asked if I laughed while watching it, well, I’d be confused as to the catalyst that started the conversation, but I’d also be a liar if I said I didn’t.
The film’s comedic batting average isn’t exactly a .400—he said, having Googled it first to be sure he used that expression correctly—but a lot of the dialogue and comedic moments do land surprisingly well. A significant part of that is due to MacFarlane’s performance.
MacFarlane is chiefly known for his voice acting, but like Trey Parker, he is also wildly underrated as a leading man in live-action. MacFarlane is great in the role of Albert Stark because he plays him totally sincerely as a cowardly and timid character who speaks like a modern person who happens to live in the Old West.
At the time of release, many people seemed not to gravitate towards MacFarlane as the lead, but his dry demeanor and occasional silliness quickly became one of the movie's charms. His monologue on how awful it is to live in the Old West is epic, and his introductory scene where he has to talk his way out of a duel acts as a canary in the mine as to whether you'll gel with the film's sense of humor.
Besides just being a funny leading man, when the movie requires him to give a dramatic moment—it doesn’t happen often—or have a romantic scene with Charlize Theron’s Anna, he elevates the material that’s otherwise pretty standard fare for this type of story. He and Theron also have surprisingly nice chemistry. Better chemistry than she has with her on-screen husband, played by Liam Neeson—hey, there’s a segue!
Neeson plays the film’s antagonist, Clinch Leatherwood—great name—and in proper fashion, he gives the material way more effort and gravitas than was necessary for this type of movie. It’s like Michael Caine’s performance as Scrooge in The Muppet Christmas Carol or Peter Greene as Dorian in The Mask in that you believe that they believe they’re in a way more serious movie than the one they’re actually in.
Neeson’s performance isn’t quite at the comedic level of his appearance in Life’s Too Short or his cameo in Ted 2, where he’s so deadpan dramatic that it makes his performance even funnier (which is why his playing the lead in the new Naked Gun movie should be pretty great). Still, the fact that he starred in such a stupid movie is just funny in and of itself.
If there are some critiques to be noted, just so this doesn’t sound like a total devil’s advocate-style argument, it's that not every joke lands. There are plenty of eye-roll inducing moments and lines of dialogue where there's a lot of swearing...and that's it. That's the joke. The humor is most in the pocket when the characters are sarcastic and have randomly naturalistic exchanges, so when those moments happen, they stick out more.
Additionally, it employs a couple of somewhat tired tropes. Apparently, a bunch of people complained that the plot is “incomprehensible,” which is bizarre, because if anything, it’s overly simplistic and is a retread of things you’ve seen before in other movies. But it doesn’t detract from the film overall. The story is just a framework to base wacky scenarios on, and it does it well enough. Honestly, if you’re going into a movie made by the guy who made Family Guy expecting deep thematic elements and strong character work, that’s on you for making outlandish decisions.
One last thing worth mentioning is that this movie is also surprisingly beautiful to look at. For such a goofy movie, they put a lot of effort into shooting on location and capturing gorgeous shots of the scenery, as evidenced by the numerous wide shots of the frontier, and it makes the film way more cinematic than it needed to be.
You see this in the opening credits sequence, where a classy orchestral score by Joel McNeely plays over the old-school western font while panning shots of the desert are shown. It’s similar to Blazing Saddles, where, if you watched the opening credits with zero context, you’d have no idea the film was a comedy.
A Million Ways to Die in the West isn’t some hidden gem of a comedy, but for something that has such a heinous reputation, it’s way funnier and well-made than you would expect. If you ever debated watching it, but the logical side of your brain told you to steer clear, give it a shot (it’s on Netflix), you might be surprised by how much you enjoy it.