I was hoping for a good western movie. I didn’t get it. I was looking for some quality actors to shine in roles I hadn’t seen them in before. I did not find that, either. The talented Sam Raimi’s (Spider-Man, For Love of the Game) The Quick and the Dead failed in many aspects. This movie had never been on my “must-see list” but had been on my “hope-to-see list” for the last 15 years. I was hopeful but not optimistic that I would find the movie rewarding. For a western, I have not much happened in this one. The film was very predictable. It was one of those movies with too many stupid coincidences to take seriously.

Before I discuss the plot, let’s look at some of the actors who made the unwise choice of agreeing to be in this movie. Leonardo DiCaprio (Titanic, Revolutionary Road) looks like he was pulled directly off the set of Growing Pains. His teenage runaway character of Luke on the sitcom was draped with a cowboy hat and cowboy boots. DiCaprio’s character in The Quick and The Dead was nicknamed “Kid,” but he looked and acted like a 12-year-old. I’m a huge fan of DiCaprio. If he’s not my favorite actor, he’s definitely in the top 3 or 4. But he was so incredibly annoying in this movie that I hoped he would be a causality.

Cort (Russell Crowe – Gladiator, A Beautiful Mind) is a pacifist preacher who has disassociated himself with a life of violence since becoming a member of the cloth. Once a part of Herod’s (Gene Hackman – Unforgiven, The French Connection) henchmen, Cort was known for his fast trigger hand. He is the one man Herod shows even the slightest fear for, is dragged back to town, and is forced to participate in a contest that I’ll discuss in a moment. Cork is shackled and locked to a centerpiece in the middle of the city for all but about five minutes each day. Like DiCaprio, this was one of Russell’s first starring roles. They both looked out of place, but it was more the characters they were asked to play than it was them acting poorly. It’s a testament to their acting ability that this movie was just a bump in each of their roads rather than something that could have permanently derailed them.

Still riding the success of Basic Instinct, Sharon Stone continued to capitalize on her success by accepting role after role (Silver, The Specialist) until audiences realized she was not the leading lady Hollywood was trying to portray her to be. I don’t blame her. She struck gold and capitalized. I would have done the same thing. Unfortunately, in hindsight, we have seen some poor performances since Basic Instinct. This included her performance in this movie. She was out of place, and her character showed no consistency. We were forced to both like and fear her, but there wasn’t much reason for us to care about her. This role was wrong for her. She was by no means why the movie failed, but she wasn’t exactly that one shining star either. The character was too complicated for somebody of her limited range.

That honor belonged to Herod (Hackman). If I recall correctly, the first 100 times I saw Hackman in a movie was the first 100 times I watched the film Hoosiers. While his coach Norman Dale’s character in the Hickory Husker basketball drama was flawed, he was a good man who tried to do the right thing. I couldn’t imagine him as a villain. As I have grown older, I’ve come to see that Hackman can play a bad guy as well as anyone in Hollywood. We’ve seen this in Crimson Tide (a mainstay in my top 25 movies of the all-time list), Enemy of the State, The Chamber, Superman I, Superman II, Absolute Power, Class Action…the list goes on and on. In The Quick and the Dead, Hackman is at the top of his game as Herod, a corrupt mayor who murdered the town’s sheriff many years earlier. He’s a dictator whom the townsfolk fear. He believes the two to be his. He has his leather-coat henchmen watching out for his safety and rewards them for their loyalty. He levies a 50% tax on everything the two bring in. The town members hate him but know nothing to do to stop him. Hackman is a jerk who shows no mercy or sympathy for the people in the town. He plays the part well. He displays no enduring qualities, and he gives the audience no reason whatsoever to like him—Bravo to Hackman for giving us a small reason to see this movie.

So, back to the plot. Each year, Herod organizes a 16-person shootout tournament. The premise is simple. The contests are paired off for a good old-fashioned showdown. As the town clock strikes 12, each contestant draws their weapon and fires until one contestant is left standing. Herod participates each year. It’s the one chance the townspeople get to kill this man they hate with no consequences. So, each contestant who enters has a 1 in 16 chance of winning the cash price, but, more importantly, just one of 16 contestants has a chance of surviving. That’s it. That’s the movie. The lame back-story makes this movie a 105-minute film rather than a 20-minute see which contestant can kill the three other contestants and win the ultimate prize.

Visually, the movie is spectacular. The entire film takes place in a tiny, isolated town. The shots shown off into the distance show how far away from civilization the city is. It further exemplifies that those living in this small town are held hostage by Herod with little to no chance of having a better life. The setting feels perfect for a western. If only the story were somewhat decent, there was a little more action, and the acting (outside Hackman) was halfway decent.

Plot 5/10
Character Development 5/10
Character Chemistry 6/10
Acting 5/10
Screenplay 5/10
Directing  6/10
Cinematography 10/10
Sound 9/10 (great pauses of silence)
Hook and Reel 5/10
Universal Relevance 6/10 (I’m sure lawless this like this was rampant in certain towns back in this time)
62%