उपयोगकर्ता समीक्षाएं

With The Quick and the Dead, Sam Raimi approaches the old west with a very new/contemporary style. With its brisk energy and competitive characters, the story often feels like a sports movie with lots of photography tricks. If you want a top western, this might not be your film, but if what you seek you is good old pistol-whippin' American fun, this might do the trick.

Thanks to James Cameron, since T2, there has been nothing sexier than a woman with a gun. Sharon Stone actually brings a fairly macho 'Sarah Conner' quality to her character. She plays Ellen, a young cowgirl who rides into a mysterious town for a very special event, a gunslinging competition. The mayor of the town is a dangerous fella and one of the most feared gunslingers around. It is this man who Ellen is after. The question is, why? In order to fight him, she must beat everyone else in the competition. There will be blood, for sure.

In order to make up for his superficial plot, Sam Raimi has a lot of tricks up his sleeve. One of his most recognizable through his career is going over the top in an amusing way, which he does here too, mostly at the climax. He doesn't make great movies, but he makes clever and entertaining ones, which this is.

This movie uses lot's of ingredients used in classic westerns. It does it in a fun way but it doesn't spoof the classic westerns in any way and it never becomes humorous or a parody that makes fun of the genre.

Who would have known, Sharon Stone is a believable cowgirl. I think it's fair for me to say that she's the best I have seen in a western. The movie also features both Russell Crow and Leonardo DiCaprio before their days of fame and big Dollars. It's always fun and great to have Gene Hackman in a villain role and he makes this movie an even more pleasant watch. The movie features lot's of other fun and stereotype western characters.

The settings and costumes are great and real western like and help to create the right atmosphere for the movie. The great western score is by Alan Silvestri and fits the movie well, even though the score goes a bit too much "Back to the Future" like at times.

The movie is filled with some unusual but great Sam Raimi like cinematography and tricks.

Just enjoy and don't pay attention to the story. It is just simple entertainment!

8/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

A great western by Sam Raimi starring some super power talent in Russell Crowe, Sharon Stone, Leo Di Caprio and Gene Hackman. The cinematography is really good and clearly a homage to The man with no man movies. Direction is crisp and Sam Raimi should be applauded for that. On the cinematography, the great Ebert wrote that it reeks of biblical vengeance. Just watch this for the setting.

Peculiar Western with spectacular gun battle between Sharon Stone and Gene Hackman . The title "The Quick and the Dead" comes from the King James translation of the Bible, I Peter 4:5, which admonishes the believer from behaving like pagans, "who shall give account to Christ that is ready to judge the quick and the dead" . This violent Western is set on a township called Redemption , the star is a mysterious female revenger , ¨a woman without name¨ (Sharon Stone as Clint Eastwood-alike interloper) who has a secret agenda of her own . It deals about a gunfighter arriving a little town , it has the usual shops and buildings, as General merchandise, Livery stable, boarding house , Hardware , Barber shop, Saloon , Hotel and Church . The western town owned by a ruthless gunslinger (Gene Hackman) hosting an elimination tournament to find the fastest gun in the West , as Lady avenger comes to the aid of embattled citizens as well as searching vendetta . The excitement starts at the duel when the hands point straight up .

This offbeat Western contains thrills , parody , black comedy , hilarious set-pieces , and breathtaking duels . This special Western picture concerns upon a deadly gun-battle pits two individualist characters and it results to be an enjoyable as well as hyperbolic homage to the style and vengeance fantasy of Sergio Leone Spaghettis ; as it takes parts from ¨Dollars trilogy¨ : ¨For a fistful of dollars¨, ¨For a fistful of dollars more¨ and ¨The good , the bad and the ugly¨, along with ¨Once upon a time in the West¨. But it has nothing to do with the Spaghetti maestro , the great Sergio Leone . There is also an impressive roaring climax with an amazing final showdown . All of the actors on the set in the gunfight scenes were instructed in the art of the quick draw by a stunt coordinator . The violent gun-play is heightened by a slick , often amazing use of F.X. , plenty of blood and gore . However , the film is pretty well but it doesn't work at all and packs endless close-ups, sluggish scenes , flaws , gaps and many scenes reveal nothing . So many good actors , such excellent actors as Kevin Conway , Keith David , Lance Henriksen , Pat Hingle ,Gary Sinise , Mark Boone Junior , Robert Blossom's last role in a theatrical feature and final film by Woody Strode who appears briefly as a coffin maker in the opening scene . And Russell Crowe's first American feature, he has a hot sex scene with Sharon , but director Sam Raimi decided that it wasn't a necessary part of the story , the scene was not included in the American release of the film, but international versions do include it. The lion's share of the acting meat deservedly goes to Gene Hackman as an unrepentantly nasty . And a very young Leonard DiCaprio is surprisingly effective as a rookie gunslinger .

Exciting and fitted to action musical score by Alan Silvestri . Colorful as well as evocative cinematography by Dante Spinotti .The motion picture was well produced by Sharon Stone . Sharon was given a lengthy list of directors that had been approved to direct this film, so that she could choose the directors she thought would work , Sharon sent back a list with a single name , Sam Raimi ; she said it was because she liked Evil Dead and Army of Darkness , among Raimi's other works.

Now I enjoy western movies and although this doesn't have that traditional western vibe going for it, it's still pretty darn entertaining. This movie is like watching a comic book western movie come to life and although the plot is a bit absurd it's creative and has substance to it. Despite the it going in a narrow direction but it goes in a narrow direction with at least some substance. The plot is about a woman named Ellen aka Lady(Sharon Stone) who is a badass cowgirl that comes to a western town with a motive and ends up in a quick draw tournament with bunch of contestants. Anyone can challenge anyone in this tournament. The reward for winning the tournament is 120,000 dollars and the last man standing takes it all. What I liked about this movie besides it being a movie about a quick draw tournament in the west is how fun, intriguing and creative the action scenes are. A bit wacky at times but still pretty cool to watch, even the dialogue is a bit comic book like. Sharon Stone is charismatic and very attractive in this, especially with the cowgirl attire. Leo is pretty good as the Kid even if he can be a little annoying at times. Gene Hackman stands out as the villain without overdoing it and actually backs up what he says for the most part unless when he is unsure. So it isn't a shock why he owns the whole western town but this isn't the first western Gene has been in. Russell Crowe is in this and although he plays decent part in the story his character ain't nothing special and sort of comes off mundane but he was in good shape. Despite his mysterious past. Overall I enjoyed this movie, not one of the best western I seen but it's a pretty cool one.

7.8/10

Not a bad movie at all, but it does take a bit to really settle into. For a while, Sharon Stone is really trying to sell the macho gunslinger with baggage, but she's doing it with her Hollywood looks and pearly whites; she's missing grit. And that does improve later on, but like I said, patience is needed.

That said, Sam Raimi is clearly having fun in a sandbox full of Western cliches. The draws, the face zooms, the shots. It looks fantastic. If that's not enough, then it's worth a look for Gene Hackman's performance. No trace of Unforgiven here; dude's a genuine scumbag.

Sharon Stone is another gun in the old West town… It seems that she is here to pay off an old score that has haunted her since she was a child… She becomes swept up in a deadly quick-draw contest where anybody can challenge anybody in the windy dusty streets… The fighters must not draw until the clock makes the first chime of the hour… Whoever is standing after the draw is the winner… The prize is $123,000…

The lawless town of Redemption is ruled by a despicable ironfisted gunman called John Herod who takes a lot to scare him… Hackman plays pretty well the kind people hate… He is, here, a fearless, sadistic, cold-blooded killer in charge of everything, who decides who lives or who dies…

Herod wants a preacher in the tournament – even if he has to beat, kick, and knock him to the ground to force him back into it… Cort— humiliated and chained out by the fountain—used to be pretty fast, faster than Herod… But now he wouldn't hurt a fly… He is a man of peace who has renounced violence… Years ago he was an outlaw… In fact, he was only a kid when he hitched up with Herod… He singled him out because he was a little smarter, a little faster than most… Now, he must revert to his former believes to survive…

As Cort, Russell Crowe is saintly when compared to the movie's real villain… Cort tries to redeem himself, but gets enticed into the killing by Herod who is trying to prove that he's a fraud...

Several other men were just running a little errand for Herod… But Herod made an example of them all: the buffoon card shark (Lance Henriksen); the hired gun moseying into town to kill (Keith David); the teenager gunslinger who thinks he is on a different level (Leonardo DiCaprio).

Raimi succeeds through his shots of each gunfighter to show the worried and scared faces of each gunfighter, the clock counting away the time, and Herod's magnified evil smile

Yes, I know the critics at the time panned it. But if that was the baseline for greatness, films like Wonderful Life and Citizen Kane would be lost to obscurity. Bottom line, this is a "high concept" film that is much more entertaining than you would guess. The timeline is fascinating. In the 1960s, after a half-century run, and massive exposure on the new medium called Television, the classic western started to disappear. But, as they say, nature abhors a vacuum; and at the same time the sun started to set on the traditional western, it started to rise on something called the "italian westerns" or re-imaginings of the genre from Europe. This is for example how Clint Eastwood went from forgotten TV actor (Rawhide) to #1 box office attraction. This new genre lasted barely 15 years or so and soon disappeared as well. Yet out of nowhere, 20 years later someone in Tinseltown gets the idea to re-imagine the ALREADY RE-IMAGINED western, this time starring a female. Sharon Stone was past the apex of her career by this point, making the project more of a challenge. The other talent was awesome. A pre-Oscar Russell Crowe, a pre-Titanic diCaprio, and all backstopped by Hackman, I mean, wow. The big question, did it actually work? Answer yes. It was uneven in parts and an argument could be made that Hackman overdid the "bad guy" role or, alternatively, the part was over-written. Stone was awesome, proving she had the chops to take on a bizarre role and make it hers. Actually gets better with each successive viewing. ((Designated "IMDb Top Reviewer." Please check out my list "167+ Nearly-Perfect Movies (with the occasional Anime or TV miniseries) you can/should see again and again (1932 to the present))

This movie has such a cool premise for a western. Basically, a town sets up a March Madness style bracket of dueling gunfights. It is such a dumb idea; I can't help but love it. This is then executed with a diverse cast of colorful characters that make each showdown memorable. This is helped by an all-time great cast. Hackman, DiCaprio, Crowe, Stone, Henriksen and Keith David are all actors that bring real life to every role they play. Combining the premise with the characters is Sam Rami's signature visual style. This leads to some crazy camera movements and kinetic energy that makes the movie never dull.

This could have been something but the terrible casting and acting of Sharon Stone, the cringey cliched script and some comic book camera work and editing really bring it down. Gene Hackman does his turn as Gene Hackman, chewing up every scene and enjoying himself with an attitude that really found form later in THE UNFORGIVEN. Russell Crowe's first Hollywood film and you can see the makings of a fine leading man. Leonard DiCaprio, 21yrs old in this and looking 15, gives great support. But between those trying to genuinely act and Stone and the direction and script this falls dreadfully flat. It's never sure whether it wants to go full cartoonish or try and be serious.

Like all of Sam Raimi's movies, this flick was a cartoon. That's not an insult- his works with the Coen brothers on movies like The Hudsucker Proxy are some of my favorites, with their insanely "zoomed-in" quality. This movie was a spaghetti western, it was ABOUT spaghetti westerns, and it was also a weird, wonderful nightmare where your options are limited, you're a superhero, and your enemy is all-powerful. That's adolescent, silly, and totally compelling.

Raimi has always done brilliant visuals; I don't know his history, but I suspect he read a lot of pulp comics as a kid. The early scene where Stone gets up (after playing dead) and you see her shadow putting her hat back on, with the obvious bullet hole in the brim, is sheer visual brilliance.

Gene Hackman is, of course, great (MST3K line: "He's good in everything!"). Sharon Stone has gotten a lot of static for doing what Clint Eastwood built a legend on: bad acting, done intensely. (And in Stone's case in this flick, I think, purposefully.) Leonardo D. is well-cast as a cocky, yet needy, "bad-a** in his own mind" type. Russell Crowe (who nobody knew at the time, especially me) is great in his role as a survivor of a 12-step program to help fight a dependence on violence, complete with backsliding moments.

Do not look to this movie expecting anything like realism, believability, or moderation. This is pulp fiction, eye candy, nightmare surrealism, wanton entertainment. It's trash culture saluting trash culture, and if you can appreciate that, it's a hell of a great ride.

Take a typical western motif and mix it with a huge cast of recognizable faces and you have this genre throwback. Including Sharon Stone doing her take on 'the lady with no name'. With a dark past, she comes into a town gone straight to hell that's run by a nasty outlaw played by Hackman who usurps his power over the townsfolk that equally hate and fear him. It's here where these characters meet for the town's last man standing duel. Where the prize is to die for and of course many will before it's all over.

I really gotta talk about the cast compliment. It's the meal ticket. Sharon Stone and Gene Hackman I've already mentioned, but also Russell Crowe and Leonard Dicaprio (both before stardom), Lance Henriksen, Pat Hingle, Gary Sinise, Keith David and a bunch of other bit players you'll probably recognize too. Stone's got her role down pat. Gene Hackman does justice to his mean embittered role almost relishing it. Russell Crowe shows a glimmer of what's to come from him although his character isn't that deep. Lance Henriksen as the slick gunfighter Ace Hanlon is a treat while Dicaprio is given a pretty straight laced role while not restricting doesn't allow him much place to go.

I don't think its unfair to say the story is rather predictable, but it's still worth tuning in for. For no other reason - let's be honest - the gun battles. The showdowns. Yes characters and a story go along way, but you want to see people get kablamed too. On that angle this movie performs nicely with fine camera work and direction by Sam Raimi of all people. Using a large town clock with a big 'ol wooden pair of hands that creak when they move was a masterful touch.

It's first and foremost action that wins out, but contains enough goings on in the thinking department to be satisfactory. With subplots ranging from hidden agendas, broken pasts and character morality. Some are there to win the trunk load of money, others are there cause they've got nothing to lose. Some are there to prove themselves. May it be to others or to themselves. Gritty, yet slick, satisfying to a classic western fan, 'The Quick and the Dead' is a modern slice of spaghetti bravado.

Now after a title like that why would I give it even an average rating? The plot was pretty horrible and everything but original. The dialog was pretty corny at times and even the set looked a bit stupid. Still the performances were interesting to watch.

Anytime u get see Gene Hackman act like a real mother****** its fun to watch. Hes famous for that and is always enjoyable to watch. Seeing Dicaprio and Crowe in one of their earliest films was the most fun to watch. These are arguably the actors of the decade and seeing them perform at such a young age is very absorbing. Who I found annoying was Sharon Stone. The idea of her role was stupid, the way it was performed was ridiculous and its just not a role to be taken seriously.

As I was watching the movie I wasn't quite sure what kind of movie this was or even attempting to be. At times it seemed like a drama or an action flick. At other times it seemed like a parody and sometimes it even looked like it was heading towards the direction of a romance. The bottom line is that this film is confused within itself. In film different either means great or downright horrible and this was lucky enough to not reach the state of being considered horrible.

"The Quick and the Dead" is a "splatter Western," directed by horror vet Sam Raimi (whose latest, as of this writing, is "Spider-Man," but who cut his teeth on the "Evil Dead" trilogy). It's set in the oh-so-ironically named lawless town of Redemption, a haven of grotesques that gives us an idea what the wild West would've looked like if had been painted, not by Frederic Remington, but by Heironymus Bosch.

In a surfeit of Biblical nomenclature, the town's mayor/owner/capo is named Herod (Gene Hackman at his oiliest, complete with bad hair). Into town there rides a mysterious stranger, not Clint Eastwood this time but Sharon Stone. I'm not the world's biggest Stone fan, but this movie and "Total Recall" indicate that she has her uses in kick-butt action roles that make no demands on her limited thespianic skills. As gunslinger Ellen, she's doubly armed--with a six-shooter, and with an axe to grind; even her "inner child" packs a gun. She enters Herod's to-the-death fast-draw tournament, a no-win, no-exit, potentially no-survivors affair, with an agenda on her mind other than just winning the prize money.

This is an overripe, over-wrought movie, but it mostly works. Raimi all but erases the slim wall between the horror and Western genres: Redemption is another Transylvanian village of simple peasants lorded over by by an evil baron, and the atmosphere--palpably oppressive and claustrophobic--could be cut with a knife. Leonardo di Caprio and veteran character actors Lance Henriksen and Roberts Blossom effectively round out the cast, and the action scenes--exaggerated, mythic, often darkly humorous--deliver. If you're more of a horror fan than a Western fan, this may be the Western for you.

The post-modern Western, as a kind of parasitic sub-genre of the Western, began as self-conscious parody of the Western. The precursors were films like The Marx Brothers Go West and Bob Hope's Paleface - films set in the 19th century but including references to events of the 194os. But the post-modern really began to come out on its own as afterthought to the Spaghetti Western, the formula for which included larger-than-life caricatures of the traditional Hollywood Western. The best known of these early Post-Mod Westerns were the Trinity films, but there was actually a more successful American variant from about the same time (early 1970s), Support Your Local Sheriff.

Notice that all the films mentioned so far have been comedies. For some reason, the makers of Post-Mod Westerns soon began taking themselves seriously, as heavily ironic commentary on the politics of the day - think El Topo, Dirty Little Billy, Doc. Most of these were failures - El Topo once considered a cult film, is virtually unwatchable now.

But the serious Post-Mods did leave a legacy. Since the mid-1980s, a number of films have deployed the same heavy irony, although politics is no longer a major concern. Among the first noticeable of these revised Post-Mods was the 'Brat Pack'version of the Billy the Kid story, Young Guns. This film sold very well, but largely due to the all-star cast involved; most critics did recognize a deeper problem with it, that it was difficult to determine what of it was serious, what comedic, and what just pure self-indulgence, as in the infamous peyote sequence (which, already bad, nonetheless left such an impression it got redone in Tony Scott's abysmal Domino).

This problem now really defines the Post-Mod Western. Watching these films, are we indulging in a fantasy, the plot and themes to be taken seriously despite the irony? Or is the irony simply a cheap and easy form of over-intellectualized comedy? The lack of any clear answer is the real lasting impression any of these films leave with us.

Sam Raimi is one of the more interesting of our truly independent directors, all the more so because he has remained largely with the B-movie genres and knows them all pretty well. So, especially given such a remarkable cast to work with, has he given us a Post Mod Western that avoids the unsatisfying lack of resolution we find in most of these? Although there are interesting moments in The Quick and the Dead, I'm afraid the answer is a solid negative.

It is notable - even annoyingly so - that the best moments of this film are precisely those that easily fit the traditional Western, or even Spaghetti Western, grooves, without pandering to anything Post-Mod - the real pain Stone's character evidences, the beautiful exterior photography of a desolated cemetery, the dramatic confrontations between Hackman and Crowe and between Hackman and Stone.

Why didn't Raime realize what he had with these actors? But he doesn't; he is so intent on turning in a stylistic tour-de-force that the great cast here is largely wasted. Ultimately he asks less of them than they have to offer. The drama is drowned out by visual excess, and the absurdities of the plot are pushed to the envelope rather than carefully restrained.

It's an okay action film, worth a view. But this has proved not to be the next big thing people touted it as 13 years ago, and for a very real reason - it is pure Post-Mod Western, and frankly, I think we've all grown tired of it.

I don't know that the Western genre can ever get resurrected; but it's now clear that it never passed the torch to the Post-Mod western genre as its 'logical inheritor.' Frankly I think we will see Western themes continue to appear in gangster films - The Road to Perdition, Four Brothers, American Gangsters - these have been the real cowboy movies of the past decade or so.

The Quick and the Dead doesn't cut it, sorry.

(Thanks to johnno for salvaging these mutterings from the wastebasket at work. And I agree about Brothers in Arms, same problem.)

There is so much to this movie to almost love. Raining has his own style and it's almost here in full creating a western film that is entirely it's own thing. Weirdly, I think the problem is it just doesn't go far enough. Give me crazy! Explain some of the stuff happening and the little touches that are added to certain characters. I want to see these more fleshed out, I want pulp and insanity, I want it stretched into a series where each week we're given another wild gunslinger to show up and do battle with. There's such potential here for crazy fun and it just doesn't fully get there. It's still fun though, it's crazy and fun for a western. Stone, Crowe, Hackman and DiCaprio are all doing some fun stuff it just doesn't reach the heights I'd like.

This is still a solid experience, a great TV movie to enjoy whenever you feel like a little bit of odd western fun. It can easily be tuned out for stretches without really missing a ton but the fun is definitely there.

The Quick And The Dead is a 1995 revisionist Western that follows a gunfighter who rides into the town of Redemption and joins a dueling competition in an attempt to exact revenge for her father's murder.

I'm not the biggest fan of westerns, but I thought that Sami Raimi did a fantastic job with this movie. It's an interesting, tough as nails story with Revenge as its main dish. The wild west dueling tournament was a nice touch giving the already intriguing characters a little bit more depth, while keeping things flowing along with plenty of good action moments. The Cast does a great job with some stand out performances from Gene Hackman and Russell Crowe, and the whole movie overall is really quite entertaining.

If you're a fan of westerns and haven't seen this movie before, I would definitely recommend giving it a watch.

A surprising amount of great actors in this flick. Leonardo

DiCaprio, Russel Crowe, Keith David, Sharon Stone but the main

man is – without a doubt – Gene Hackman.

When the film was first released, all the critics complained that he

was doing the same thing as in Unforgiven. Well, a main

difference is with Unforgiven and Quick and the Dead is that where

Unforgiven strives for realism and social drama, Quick is waaay

over the top.

And the brilliance of Hackman's performance is that in this world

that couldn't possibly be, with characters that have as much depth

as a pizza, he makes it all real and shine.

Add to that Sam Raimi's dazzling visuals, his best since Evil Dead

II, and you got a GREAT flick, even if it does go on too long.

Recommended.

We all loved a good spaghetti western. Raimi had updated it and crushed it. Well done sir.

The Quick and the Dead is director Sam Raimi having a good time in his first non-horror/action movie up to that time in his relatively young career (he was 34 or 35 when he directed this film). He looks at the Western and thinks, 'OK, let's throw in some Sergio Leone Spaghetti fun in here, from the opening ala Fistful of Dollars, and the main crux of the vengeance plot can have something to do with Once Upon a Time in the West- flashback included, of course.' While he thinks this, he's also still making the film his own in a lot of ways, notably in the gunfights. It's mostly a serious film though, not a dark comedy like Evil Dead or silly like Army of Darkness, even if there is a sense of subtle self-parody among some of the actors cast.

Oh, a note about the cast: this is one of the strangest but, on the whole, most effective ensembles of the 1990's. You've got everyone here you'd want to see in a "guy" movie from the time, with a few surprises: Keith David, Lance Henrikson, Woody Strode (also from 'Once Upon a Time'), Russell Crowe, Leonardo DiCaprio (yes, back when he was, to the girls, 'Leo', here aka "The Kid"), Tobin Bell (yes, again, Jigsaw from Saw). But to top it off are two stars at the top of the bill (shared with Crowe and DiCaprio) that is a truly mixed bag. Both of the stars contribute, and take away, from the merits of the story, about a gunslinger competition that is more akin, to anything, of a Gladiatorial competition as it's to the death and run by a ruthless quasi-emperor (you can even see Crowe in a pre-Maximus role here as the Preacher).

It's stars Gene Hackman and Sharon Stone that makes this compelling and curiously uninteresting at the same time. Hackman is one thing: he's taking on a role that is far more actually evil (if not quite as scary in his humane way in Unforgiven), as the head of the town who strikes fear into everyone so much that you can feel the chill in the room in blazing hot weather. Hackman's delivery of the dialog is better than any other conceivable actor in the role, and he also is there in one of the movie's best scenes- maybe the one truly genius one all-around- where we see the first time that someone is shot rather gruesomely, and there's a slight pause from the onlookers, and then the most forced-polite applause ever seen. Watching Hackman alone is perhaps reason enough, even if you're not a Sam Raimi fan, to see Quick and the Dead.

Sharon Stone, on the other hand, is another story. For all of her glaring looks and her quiet would-be Clint Eastwood vocals, I just never bought her as a gunslinger-bad-ass like she is here. It's not that the part is poorly written (some of the lines of dialog could have been reworked, but such as a Western happens sometimes), but that she can't really carry the role well enough - not compared to everyone else around her, who fill in their roles (even DiCaprio) like it's nothing at all. It's forced work that soon becomes kind of boring, with the only slight saving grace being the final showdown gun battle between the hero and villain. The film might not have been truly great without her anyway, but she's really the one thing, for me, keeping it from being a true must-see rather than just a very fine curiosity.

By a 'very fine curiosity' I mean that if you're hanging out on a Sunday night with your Dad (and you know the one, who loves Westerns so much he'll even forgive the crappy ones by John Wayne), possibly with a few brews, and Quick & Dead comes on TV, you should watch it. It's that kind of movie, and a interesting, if flawed, genre departure for Raimi.

I'm sorry, but when Sharon Stone's character knocks her antagonist 20 feet with a slow right cross, the movie lost me. Further, the western town seemed more like a scene from Harry Potter, than an actual believable locale. Why can't Hollywood accept that women are women, not small men, and celebrate this? Further, the weapons used, and the way the characters use them, seem more in line with 21st century laser assisted Gloks than actual firearms from the period. The reports from each reminded me of the impact of LAWS rocket on armored targets. The plot was about as believable as most of these films where women overpower men in their own arenas, ridiculously overstaged and hopelessly unbelievable.

Although The Quick and the Dead is primarily remembered among film fans starring Sharon Stone as a revenge seeking frontier woman, for me the film stands out because of Gene Hackman. As John Herod, outlaw kingpin and ruler of the outlaw town of Redemption, Hackman is one of the most evil people ever created in any film genre.

Sharon Stone has excellent reasons for wanting this man dead, although the truth is the key to the whole film and I won't say. Suffice to say, she's learned the gunman's trade and more than holds her own with any of the male competitors.

In westerns about outlaw towns the usual is for the outlaws to respect each other as they are all men on the dodge. That's not what you get in The Quick and the Dead. Hackman for his sadistic amusement decides to conduct a fast draw contest, a kind of fast draw Superbowl. He's even kidnapped a former member of his band, Russell Crowe, who has renounced violence and become a preacher. And his unacknowledged offspring Leonardo DiCaprio is in the contest as well.

There is of course a big similarity to the Kirk Douglas/Johnny Cash western, A Gunfight. But in that it was just the two of them staging a contest for both pride and money. That's expanded on quite a bit in The Quick and the Dead.

I thought Gene Hackman was brilliant in the Clint Eastwood classic, The Unforgiven. Brilliant and evil also. But Hackman's character of a town marshal in The Unforgiven is a boy scout next to the outlaw kingpin of The Quick and the Dead.

The Quick and the Dead (C+): A Western greenlit in the wake of Dances with Wolves and Unforgiven and a chance to give Sharon Stone her own action vehicle. The central issue with the film is that Stone is the least convincing character and actor in the entire story - yet the film is supposed to revolve around her. The movie works better as a Bloodsport of the West featuring all the quirky stock characters, especially from spaghetti Westerns, we've come to know and love. Hackman's big baddie, played in a way that would make Gary Oldman proud, is the standout but DiCaprio's "The Kid" and Crowe's reformed gunslinger all make their mark as well. In the end, it's a decent flick that's more style over substance and is weighed down by a lackluster main character.

It was a pretty dumb movie about a pretty far fetched idea. I was talked into this movie by a girl that said it was focused on a "strong" female character. I found this to be a joke about what women think of the old west.