The Quick and the Dead

'The Quirky Dead'

I love bargains. I tend to be suckered into them usually. Case in point, I was in a Shop Rite recently when I came across an old childhood favorite in the 2 for 10$ bin. I had trouble choosing a companion piece to this film, so I perused the few other films in the bin and eventually ran across a movie that looked like a decent Western, which I haven't seen in a while. Upon further investigation, I found out that the film was a remake that starred Sharon Stone, Gene Hackman, and a young Leonardo Di Caprio and early career work of Russell Crowe. It became even stranger when browsing the back of the case I found out the movie had been directed by the esteemed Sam Raimi of Evil Dead and Spider Man fame. So, having found this weird rare movie, possibly a gem, I settled and walked out buying The Quick and the Dead and The Adventures of Milo and Otis...don't you dare laugh...stop it...stop! *draws gun and fires two rounds*

There, now anyway, The Quick and the Dead is one of the bigger early works of Raimi and is based on a script by John Sayles. Apparently it was more of an indie flick which makes sense that was co-produced by Sharon Stone who personally paid for Leonardo Di Caprio and who insisted and got Russell Crowe his first main role in an American film. The movie is based on another movie by the same name made in 1963 and itself looks pretty promising, which was based on a famous Western novel by the great Western genre creator Louis L'Amour. I have no idea is actually based on or pays homage to previous versions of the film, but I hope it is the story because it is a damn good one.

The premise of the movie is a familiar one of revenge, except the person seeking it is a female. Add to it that she comes into town right when the town is beginning to host a shootout tournament. What makes this film great is that every character has a definite personality and calling card, giving each duel a sense of fun, as if watching a great wrestling match between two pros, except they both have guns and gold teeth. Unfortunately, the duels become fairly hum drum too quickly as it is incredibly easy to see who will win and who will lose on the way to the climax. There is a good twist, but it can be predicted as well. The other problem with the story is either the actors cast of the ridiculous dialogue. Sometimes, the actors shine as in Hackman and Crowe's character, at other times you want to groan from the stereotypical lines and old styled delivery. Also, the whole thing is so sad because it shows such great potential, especially in creativity, but then it collapses for a more generic plot. Also, and this could be partially due to the commercialized aspects of Sharon Stone producing or Sam Raimi's uneven directing, but the beginning and end of the movie are clunky and don't hold up as much as they should. Seriously, the town explodes and no one gets upset or questions the hero's about this? Yay dictator dead and who cares about where we live? Whatever. If only they remade this movie to be a giant tournament showdown with a more ensemble approach so anyone could die at any moment, really adding a sense of What if? before and after each fight. Ah well, sie la vie.

As for the acting, as mentioned before it is very uneven. Russell Crowe as the former criminal turned reverend/being forced to fight for his life, does a really good job. Not as good as his other future Academy award roles, but a great turn nonetheless. If anyone wants to know his secret, its his eyes. His eyes can be more penetrating, soft, or whatever is necessary than anyone else's I've ever seen. That and he also does a really good job of preparing himself for roles. Hackman, the workaholic actor that he is also puts in a brilliant turn as the sadistic villain governor oppressor. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for Sharon Stone. For some reason the film feels like a giant look at a pissy Sharon Stone in hot stylish western clothes. It is sad because there are moments where she becomes believable as her character, but those quickly vanish like dust in the noon day sun. The other smaller roles are interesting usually and sometimes painful, but there is a couple of good turns such as the one by Keith David or the one by Gary Sinise. Overall, I would say the acting is decent for most of the movie, its just a shame that most of it should fall on the shoulders of Sharon Stone who quickly becomes the weakest link in the movie.

As for directing, well, Sam Raimi is a venerated director who has openly discussed his obsession and love of Hitchcock. In this film he does several great things and several really silly things that seem to balance each other out. For one thing, he takes a page from the chapter of High Noon and does an excellent job of making the town clock a character in the film in its own right. It is never left out of any fight. It oppresses the characters and reminds them of the game they are forced into playing, so it is only fitting it be destroyed later. Another thing that Raimi does quite well is he manages to make each duel fresh and interesting despite knowing the outcome. He rarely repeats shots from the duel sequences and uses reveals in such a way that would easily make the audience question the outcome if only the script wasn't as predictable. Lastly, he does a great job of capturing the poor, down and dirty feel of the movie. This is completely necessary since the film is really a symbol of the depravity of man and the possibility of forgiveness and restoration to grace. The problem of Raimi directing this film is I think he enjoys the cheese. Several really cheesy one-liners and lots of cheesy scenes put together in an awkwardly edited way detract from the intensity and caring of the characters. This seems to be a general thing among his films and it always annoys me except in Army of Darkness in which the entire script is based around this sense of humor. His other problem is that he likes to film everything too bright and he enjoys using some really cheap special effects when possible. I admire that, a man on a small budget using his trade effectively, but he does it in every film usually. The film is too bright which is a mistake on his part because it makes it harder to take the depravity of man seriously. I would have to say, that even though I like him, his best films to date are A Simple Plan and Army of Darkness because they get the mood and dialogue just right in combination with the cinematography and actors.

Conclusion:
The film is interesting if approached from a Brechtian angle and its well worth seeing some first timers going up on screen against some seasoned pros. The movie is also very entertaining and Raimi always has a great sense of excitement and fun in his camera work. Unfortunately Sharon Stone is a real drawback and the story comes across with Raimi's direction at times being too hokey and ridiculous. If you like Westerns or just want to see an interesting film, then definately check it out. If you are only interested in seeing the great films in the world, then feel free to pass it by and pick up, say, The Adventures of Milo and Otis? That's it! *Draws gun, fires through reader into glasses at the bar behind him and slowly walks out the corral. His boots clinking with each step as his stirrups hit the floor. He stops and stares back at the slowly sinking reader, grasping at his chest and rocking back and forth in a mock attempt at breath* I told you not to laugh. *With that, he's gone and disappeared into the hazy bright background from which he came, leaving a small playing card behind on which is scribbled*

3.4 out of 5

Wannabe