The Quick and the Dead

1995 "Think you're quick enough?"
6.5| 1h47m| R| en| More Info
Released: 09 February 1995 Released
Producted By: TriStar Pictures
Country: United States of America
Budget: 0
Revenue: 0
Official Website:
Synopsis

A mysterious woman comes to compete in a quick-draw elimination tournament, in a town taken over by a notorious gunman.

... View More
Stream Online

Stream with Hollywood Suite

Director

Producted By

TriStar Pictures

Trailers & Images

Reviews

grahamcarter-1 'The Quick and the Dead' was directed by Sam Raimi ('The Evil Dead'), and tells the tale of Ellen (The Lady), who in 1878 rides into the town of 'Redemption,' controlled by the 'ruthless' John Herod. Ellen joins a dueling competition in an attempt to exact revenge for her father's death. The names of the lead villain 'Ellen,''Herod' and the town 'Redemption,' were intentional allusions to the Bible. Herod Antipas (20BC – AD40), Tetrarch of Galilee and Peraea, ordered the death of John The Baptist, and the mocking of Jesus. 'Ellen' in Hebrew literally means 'God has answered me.''Redemption' of the first-born son, is a mitzvah in Judaism whereby a Jewish firstborn son is redeemed from God by use of silver coins.The 'Quick and the Dead' is an English phrase originating in the Christian Bible and popularized by the Apostles' Creed, one of the earliest statements of faith in the Christian Religion. Modern writers use the phrase in the secular context, because of the modern English meaning of the word 'quick,' as in fast or smart rather than 'alive.''Once Upon A Time In The West' was co-storied by Dario Argento, who is a stylistic influence on Raimi, and is referred to in 'The Quick and the Dead' with John Herod facing Ellen in the final gunfight. Her identity is a mystery until the end, when we see a flashback… As with 'Frank' in 'Once Upon A Time…' Herod yells, "Who are you?" with the only response being the Sheriffs badge that Ellen throws at him. A trivial link that connects the films is Woody Strode, who appears in both films.Stylistically it could be argued that the film has the look of a western had Argento had the chance to make one; thematically the film has more in common with such classic westerns as 'Django' (1966) or 'High Plains Drifter' (1973).
Anssi Vartiainen A passion project for the lead actress and producer Sharon Stone, The Quick and the Dead is something of an oddity. A film of the 90s, where everything was all about masculinity, explosions and cigar-chomping heroes, it nevertheless features a female gunslinger as its main character and is honestly speaking more of a parody of westerns than an actual real deal. Certainly having Sam Raimi as director helped the latter point come into being.Still, it is a very fun movie to watch. Imagine Army of Darkness, only in western setting. Every single character is massively over the top, as is all the violence, making it into a source of comedy. The plot is rather simplistic, featuring the main character riding into town revenge in mind just as a gun duel contest is about to begin, but it is just deep enough to carry from start to finish. And really, the main points of this film are the characters and the parodying of older westerns, so the plot is just complex enough.What really saddens me and keeps this movie from being any better, is that they didn't go far enough, in my opinion. For example, Stone's character is certainly given a proper buildup to be a strong character in her own right, but then she simply fades into the background near the end of the movie and it comes down to two males dueling. Likewise most of the characters are introduced very interestingly, but few of their initial story lines ever go anywhere. I won't say that this ruins the film, because it's still entertaining enough, but it could have been better if the film makers had only taken proper advantage of what they had.Still, the film is definitely worth a watch if you've liked Raimi's other films and/or if you like strong female action heroes. Not the best example of either of those, but definitely above average in its own right.
carbuff I like odd, kinda weird movies, and this is an odd, kinda weird movie, but it was only decent, not exceptional. The characters were unusual and definitely ahistorical, but it wasn't supposed to be anything other than an offbeat fantasy western, so that was just fine; unfortunately the characters were not only eccentric, but also pretty much flat as a board in terms of character development. It was nearly impossible to really care about anybody in this movie, and it just highlighted the fact that Sharon Stone, while beautiful, is nothing special as an actress. The plot is also, on the whole, very predictable. I really, really do wish though that after DiCaprio went down in this movie it had been just a touch more real and he had never gotten up again--then I wouldn't still be suffering with the rest of his career both on and off the screen. Overall, you might want to watch it because it's different, done well enough, and not too long, but you're not really missing much either if you don't bother with it.
A_Different_Drummer 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.