THE QUICK AND THE DEAD
A film review by Rob Furr
Copyright 1995 Rob Furr
I sail against the wind quite often, it seems, when it comes to movies. I actually liked SUPER MARIO BROTHERS, for instance, which flopped, and I cannot stand the enormously successful EDWARD SCISSORHANDS, a movie that I consider to be such an utter waste of celluloid that I openly advocate using all existing copies to heat homeless shelters in the New York area.
I'm apparently sailing against a light breeze when it comes to Sam Raimi's new movie, THE QUICK AND THE DEAD. The overwhelming reaction looks to be "Well, it's all right, if you like that sort of thing," said in a disparaging tone of voice, while I stand off in the corner and say "It's all right, if you like that sort of thing" in an admiring tone.
From its opening frame, THE QUICK AND THE DEAD is clearly and obviously a spaghetti western. Like the movies that made Clint Eastwood a star and Sergio Leone a legend, this film is set in a region of the American west just south of Canaan and barely east of Hell. Biblical overtones abound; the town where the action is set is named Redemption, the primary antagonist is named Herod, and the only righteous man in sight is not only a preacher, but is offered all the kingdoms of the world during the course of the movie. Like Leone's movies, THE QUICK AND THE DEAD doles out its plot sparingly, and instead presents us with memorable scum and finely calculated pacing, and like Eastwood, the star of THE QUICK AND THE DEAD is left unnamed for most of the film's running time.
The plot of the film is as simply stated as that in THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY. There is an annual gunfighter's contest held in the town of Redemption, it's sponsored by Herod, the gunfighter who rules Redemption with an iron fist, and, along with the assorted scum, Swedish fast-draw champions, and elegant fops with pearl-handled guns who have been drawn by the promise of a prize of $123,000 to the winner, a woman has come to compete, for an unknown reason. Almost all else follows from that basic concept; only one plot element is left out: Herod has a pet project, an old associate of his who abandoned the outlaw's life for that of a missionary. Herod has a theory; once a killer, always a killer, and the preacher is asked--forcibly--to compete in the contest.
That's it; a contest, a set of assorted killers, a reluctant gunfighter, and a cipher, and once the pieces are in place, the movie ticks along like the town clock that plays such an important role in the film. The key element of Leone's plots was always theme and variations, and Raimi has taken that idea and distilled it down as far as it will go. To my knowledge, no movies have ever included this many classical face-off in the street gunfights, and none have ever taken such pains to make sure each one is distinct and memorable. The pains are, in part, fruitless, because the middle of the movie does drag a bit, somewhere around the seventh time the clock rings the hour and someone gets shot, but the effort does show, and, for me at least, is apprecated.
The movie's weaknesses and strengths are the same: the actors. Sharon Stone is wonderful for the first ten minutes and horrible for five somewhere towards the end. Gene Hackman is pretty good throughout, but becomes wearing about halfway through, and only recovers when he picks up his gun again. Lance Hendricksen has several fine scenes, but loses believability as he departs the movie. The acting is uneven, to put it mildly. The cinematography and pacing cover most of the real difficulties up, but the fact that they need covering up detracts from the film.
To return to my thesis; it is my belief that this movie "is all right if you like this sort of thing." If you like spaghetti westerns, their simple plots and their spare characterization, their elegant construction and their dusty world, you'll enjoy THE QUICK AND THE DEAD, which is as typical of the form as any other movie ever lensed. If you don't like the spaghetti western, you won't.
Personally, I rate it as being a three-star three star movie (a moderately ambitious movie that fulfills most of its ambitions adequately. The Furr Scale rates movies on ambition as well as quality. ROBOCOP is a four-star three star movie; a wonderful example of non-epic moviemaking, while HEAVEN'S GATE is a one-star four star movie; a film that tried to be majestic, sweeping, grand, and failed utterly. EVIL DEAD II is a four-star one star movie, and DAVE is a two-star three star film. I rate films this way because comparing the rampant but hilarious idiocy of DUCK SOUP to the boring grandeur of THE LAST EMPEROR.)
-- Rob Furr -- http://www.groucho.com/
The review above was posted to the
rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the
review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright
belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due
to ASCII to HTML conversion.
Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews