Sergio Leone Web Board

Films of Sergio Leone => Other Films => Topic started by: Il Buono on February 23, 2003, 08:30:51 AM



Title: The Quick and the Dead (1995)
Post by: Il Buono on February 23, 2003, 08:30:51 AM
Did anyone see this film?  I thought it was a very fun one, I mean the Leone influence was dripping of it...  The film is some kind of a guilty pleasure.


Title: Re: The Quick and the Dead (1995)
Post by: Angel Eyes on March 24, 2003, 10:11:58 PM
probably the best western since the early 70's, but what else would you expect from Sam Raimi...


Title: Re: The Quick and the Dead (1995)
Post by: mono on March 25, 2003, 05:39:10 AM
Did anyone see this film?  I thought it was a very fun one, I mean the Leone influence was dripping of it...  The film is some kind of a guilty pleasure.
i saw it twice on tv and i like it very much.


Title: Re: The Quick and the Dead (1995)
Post by: Il Buono on March 25, 2003, 01:00:02 PM
It's a must for Leone lovers...  It is like the ultimate western-clichéd ... euh... western.  Angel Eyes, you could be right...


Title: Re: The Quick and the Dead (1995)
Post by: Angel Eyes on March 25, 2003, 06:44:05 PM
Raimi is a master of his art, a genre crossing maestro...

but I haven't seen Spiderman but I'm sure it's good...


Title: Re: The Quick and the Dead (1995)
Post by: visitor on March 25, 2003, 07:17:11 PM
Also a Raimi fan
Also a comic book fan

SPIDERMAN was a fun way to waste 2 hours

As a rough guess I've seen roughly 300 westerns

QUICK AND THE DEAD was one of the worst westerns I've ever seen in my over 40 years of film viewing.


Title: Re: The Quick and the Dead (1995)
Post by: Angel Eyes on March 25, 2003, 07:50:39 PM
A valued opinion from a veteran of over 300 westerns.

I just love a film that can have a rubbish story, be full of cliches and still has you glued to the screen trying to guess where Raimi strapped the camera for the next action shot.
It is very tongue in cheek and doesnt want to be taken as a serious western, in fact makes no attempt at being serious.
But I do know where your coming from Visitor.
But give me Quick and the Dead over Tombstone or Unforgiven any day.


Title: Re: The Quick and the Dead (1995)
Post by: Groggy on March 29, 2003, 05:38:01 AM
  I'm not a big fan of Raimi (Spider-Man's okay but overrated IMO), and I'm a huge Leone fan (what else would I be doing here?  ;) ). Anyway, I don't like this film at all - too much of Sharon Stone and Leonardo DiCaprio spoiled it for me.  It was good to see Gene Hackman and Woody Strode (his last role, I believe), and even Russel Crowe - just didn't really like the balance of the film.


Title: Re: The Quick and the Dead (1995)
Post by: Harmonica on March 29, 2003, 08:25:27 PM
I must admit back when this movie came out I had no idea about it and ended up watching it on my girlfriends couch at the time and really enjoyed it that night but everytime I've watched it since then I think of it as a cheap rip off of alot of great westerns... :-[


Title: Re: The Quick and the Dead (1995)
Post by: Il Buono on March 30, 2003, 07:57:04 AM
I think that was the big idea of the movie.  Ok, it's not a Leone film, but maybe we filmfreaks forget to just have fun when watching a movie.  Not everything has to be analyzed, and I think you got to see every film in its own perspective.  But I respect and understand your opinion.


Title: Re: The Quick and the Dead (1995)
Post by: Groggy on March 30, 2003, 11:58:16 AM
I think that was the big idea of the movie.  Ok, it's not a Leone film, but maybe we filmfreaks forget to just have fun when watching a movie.  Not everything has to be analyzed, and I think you got to see every film in its own perspective.  But I respect and understand your opinion.

I certainly know how the have fun watching movies.  There are numerous films that I like or even love that will have no major impact on the history of cinema - both "Mummy" films, "Star Wars: Episode I" (HATED "Episode II", BTW), "MST3K: The Movie", "GoldenEye" (but you could've guessed that, right?  ;)), and even Grade Z films like "Prince of Space" (that Krankor gets me every time - screw MST3K, I want the film itself!).  I just don't like TQATD, though I think I elaborated on that pretty well.  I did like certain scenes (like the fight between Russel Crowe and the Indian guy), but as a whole the film rather disappointed me.


Title: Re: The Quick and the Dead (1995)
Post by: Il Buono on March 31, 2003, 01:31:30 PM
You should be ashamed for liking 'the Mummy' though... ;) ;D


Title: Re: The Quick and the Dead (1995)
Post by: Groggy on April 01, 2003, 04:50:44 AM
You should be ashamed for liking 'the Mummy' though... ;) ;D

No way . . . LOL.  ;D


Title: Re: The Quick and the Dead (1995)
Post by: Christopher on April 24, 2003, 04:42:55 PM
Anybody seen this one?

I saw it several years ago, and last night I watched a few minutes of it on TV. It's worse than I remember it to be.

I couldn't help but think, "How did they get all those big stars to be in such a horrible movie?"

Is the movie supposed to be taken as a serious attempt as a (Spaghetti) western? Obviously, Leone's work was an influence.


Title: Re: The Quick and the Dead (1995)
Post by: Il Buono on April 27, 2003, 05:10:18 PM
For an extended discussion, see the 'Off-Topic Discussion' section... ;D


Title: Re: The Quick and the Dead (1995)
Post by: Christopher on April 27, 2003, 07:26:32 PM
Thanks. I should've figured they'd be a thread about the movie somewhere.


Title: Re: The Quick and the Dead (1995)
Post by: Christopher on April 27, 2003, 07:41:04 PM
Here was my original post about this movie from up in the "Other Films" forum of the board.
Quote
Anybody seen this one?

I saw it several years ago, and last night I watched a few minutes of it on TV. It's worse than I remember it to be.

I couldn't help but think, "How did they get all those big stars to be in such a horrible movie?"

Is the movie supposed to be taken as a serious attempt as a (Spaghetti) western? Obviously, Leone's work was an influence.
I'm actually a little surprised that some people like the movie. That's cool though, I respect people's opinions.

Of course, I'm much more surprised by this comment:
Quote
Quote from Angel Eyes: But give me Quick and the Dead over Tombstone or Unforgiven any day.

 :o
(I happen to think a great deal of Unforgiven. ;))

I thought the shootout scenes were absolutely ridiculous in Quick and the Dead. Sergio Leone must have rolled over in his grave (oh yeah, that bad) when this movie came out. Made in good fun or not, it's treacherous to sit through five minutes of it.

I like having fun while watching some movies as well. But obviously a movie that makes me mad isn't quite going to have that effect on me.


Title: Re: The Quick and the Dead (1995)
Post by: Angel Eyes on May 21, 2003, 09:03:37 AM


Of course, I'm much more surprised by this comment:  
 :o
(I happen to think a great deal of Unforgiven. ;))

I thought the shootout scenes were absolutely ridiculous in Quick and the Dead. Sergio Leone must have rolled over in his grave (oh yeah, that bad) when this movie came out. Made in good fun or not, it's treacherous to sit through five minutes of it.

I like having fun while watching some movies as well. But obviously a movie that makes me mad isn't quite going to have that effect on me.
Quote

loathe it or love, you have to admire Raimi's (ridiculous but superbly executed) direction,

I've only seen Unforgiven once, I remember it been long, boring and self-indulgent, i tried but  couldn't get any kind of enjoyment out of it. Maybe I should watch it again.


Title: Re: The Quick and the Dead (1995)
Post by: Rblondie on May 21, 2003, 12:28:56 PM
I hate to be a spoiler, but The Quick and the Dead along with Young Guns (1988) and Posse (1993) im my opinion are the worst westerns ever made. Any time when there is a point of view shot of the camera following the path of a projectile whether it be a bullet, arrow, missle, or a bomb, the director is begging the viewer to forget his terrible plot and be in total "awe" of his special effects.


Title: Re: The Quick and the Dead (1995)
Post by: cigar joe on May 21, 2003, 08:55:21 PM
It builds very slowly to the big shootout in Greeley's Saloon,
To quote Clint "Who owns this shit hole!"


Title: Re: The Quick and the Dead (1995)
Post by: Angel Eyes on May 22, 2003, 08:02:17 AM
Any time when there is a point of view shot of the camera following the path of a projectile whether it be a bullet, arrow, missle, or a bomb, the director is begging the viewer to forget his terrible plot and be in total "awe" of his special effects.

That particular effect is that directors trademark, I'd even be so bold as to say he was the pioneer of it. But I'm sure someone will prove me wrong.


Title: Re: The Quick and the Dead (1995)
Post by: Il Buono on May 22, 2003, 02:39:40 PM
It's of course a personal opinion, and I wouldn't want to step on anyone's toes here.  Don't forget that the shootouts in TQATD are very influenced by the particular spaghetti style.  I must agree there are two really bad shootouts (the one where you can see through the hole in one's head and the other where Hackman is making a salto when shot).

It's always a problem discussing about this kind of commercial entertaining films.  When one is about to watch one, one should turn the switch in the head.  I believe every film has to be seen in its own context.  You shouldn't be too critical when watching a film that doesn't take itself seriously, like TQATD.  Again, this is relative and a matter of personal feeling.  I'm not saying that I find TQATD the best film ever, but it always enjoys me to see all the coolest comicbooky characteristics of the western combined in one film.
I hope you get my point, but I wouldn't want to surpress my opinion to anyone.  It's just the way I feel about movies.  But of course, one has to draw the limit (e.g.  Street Fighter is the stupidest thing there is and should be cast in the fire of Mount Doom to never harm anyone again ;) )  


Title: Re: The Quick and the Dead (1995)
Post by: Angel Eyes on May 28, 2003, 04:38:46 AM
But of course, one has to draw the limit (e.g.  Street Fighter is the stupidest thing there is and should be cast in the fire of Mount Doom to never harm anyone again ;) )  
Quote

Bravo Il Buono, well said.

Street Fighter great film (I worked as an extra in it, shame on me).


Title: Re: The Quick and the Dead (1995)
Post by: Il Buono on May 29, 2003, 03:25:45 AM
You're kiddin' me...


Title: Re: The Quick and the Dead (1995)
Post by: Angel Eyes on May 29, 2003, 07:56:10 AM
You're kiddin' me...

No kidding, utter tripe, apert from a very intimate moment with a K.Minogue.


Title: Re: The Quick and the Dead (1995)
Post by: JamesK on December 06, 2005, 10:44:53 AM
Did anyone see this film?  I thought it was a very fun one, I mean the Leone influence was dripping of it...  The film is some kind of a guilty pleasure.

Yeah, I love it.  While some (even in this thread) lament that it borrows shamelessly from a whole series of Italo-Westerns, the movie does so well, which is more than can be said of many rip-offs made during the Euro-boom years.

I only wish we'd get a special edition of the film, since there are some sequences that were cut that I'd like to see, like Bruce Campbell's wedding scene, and the excised Sharon Stone nudity/lovemaking footage.  These things shouldn't be added back in, because the film is just right as it is, but it would be nice to get a look at them.  And we need commentary!  Commentary, I say!


Title: Re: The Quick and the Dead (1995)
Post by: The Firecracker on April 26, 2006, 02:21:31 PM


 "How did they get all those big stars to be in such a horrible movie?"



whenever there is a big cast of mainly stars the movie tends to lean towards the crappy side.

case in point: Mars attacks(though intentionally crappy, its still crap).

But most of the "stars" of this movie had yet to become stars when this film was released. Russel Crowe was virtually unknown at the time of its release and Dicaprio wasnt well known either(except for b-movies like "Critters").

the two stars at the time were Stone and Hackman.


As for the film itself, I think it is very enjoyable. It is supposed to be a cheesy spaghetti western not really basing itself on  Leone's work. The placement of the camera was very ingenious in this film. If you took the movie seriously, you didnt get it.


it isnt "high art" nor does it pretend to be. Just sit back and enjoy 8)


Title: Re: The Quick and the Dead (1995)
Post by: indio on April 27, 2006, 01:31:57 AM
i enjoyed it but i wouldn't rush to see it again.


Title: Re: The Quick and the Dead (1995)
Post by: cigar joe on April 27, 2006, 05:41:35 AM
it was a little too dopey for me. 8)


Title: Re: The Quick and the Dead (1995)
Post by: Groggy on April 27, 2006, 05:42:36 PM
I haven't commented on this??

Okay:

"The Quick and the Dead" is a very, very silly movie.  It's mildly entertaining but nothing more than that.  I won't say it's an out-and-out bad film, and I appreciate what Raimi was trying to do, but the Leone parodies were way too over-the-top and obvious, and the shootout-after-shootout-after-shootout schematic didn't hold up well for me.  Gene Hackman's good in any thing, Sharon Stone and Leo DiCaprio, not so much. 


Title: Re: The Quick and the Dead (1995)
Post by: The Firecracker on April 27, 2006, 09:44:03 PM
I haven't commented on this??

Okay:

"The Quick and the Dead" is a very, very silly movie. 

Its supposed to be a silly spaghetti western. Its not even supposed to parody Leone. It is a homage to all the others out there.


Title: Re: The Quick and the Dead (1995)
Post by: Tim on April 27, 2006, 11:46:29 PM
  I like parts of this movie, but it seems like they tried to fit every western cliche in just a 2-hour movie.  Parts of it worked, others didn't.

  Hackman is good, he's always good as the villain, and I like Russell Crowe's part as the preacher who is also a gunfighter.

  Good cast though overall, even if most of them are wasted.  And you get to see Woody Strode in his last movie.


Title: Re: The Quick and the Dead (1995)
Post by: The Firecracker on April 28, 2006, 12:04:02 AM
And you get to see Woody Strode in his last movie.

why didnt they use him more? He was in the beginning for two seconds(seriously!!!)


Title: Re: The Quick and the Dead (1995)
Post by: Tim on April 28, 2006, 12:08:13 AM
  Yeah, if nothing else, it would have given this movie some more credibility.  I know if I saw a movie with a presence like Strode in it, I might be apt to pay a little bit more attention.

  Just think about all the westerns Strode was in.  OUATITW, The Professionals, Sgt. Rutledge, Liberty Valance, The Deserter, not to mention all his other roles, most notably Spartacus.  He's in the movie for maybe 20 minutes, but people always remember his performance, especially how he meets his end.


Title: Re: The Quick and the Dead (1995)
Post by: The Firecracker on April 28, 2006, 12:23:43 AM
  Yeah, if nothing else, it would have given this movie some more credibility.  I know if I saw a movie with a presence like Strode in it, I might be apt to pay a little bit more attention.

  Just think about all the westerns Strode was in.  OUATITW, The Professionals, Sgt. Rutledge, Liberty Valance, The Deserter, not to mention all his other roles, most notably Spartacus.  He's in the movie for maybe 20 minutes, but people always remember his performance, especially how he meets his end.


have you noticed in Gladiator movies all the black Gladiators get the same fishnet and spear? What the fuck is up with that?


Title: Re: The Quick and the Dead (1995)
Post by: Tim on April 28, 2006, 12:25:40 AM
  Now, I'm not sure about this so don't quote me.  I think that gladiators were given certain weapons depending on what race or culture they were.  So in this case, african gladiators would get the trident and a net.  A Thracian, like Spartacus, would usually get that small shield and the gladius.

  I think that's right.  Check wikipedia or another online encyclopedia just to make sure.


Title: Re: The Quick and the Dead (1995)
Post by: The Firecracker on April 28, 2006, 12:26:39 AM
  Now, I'm not sure about this so don't quote me.  I think that gladiators were given certain weapons depending on what race or culture they were.  So in this case, african gladiators would get the trident and a net.  A Thracian, like Spartacus, would usually get that small shield and the gladius.

  I think that's right.  Check wikipedia or another online encyclopedia just to make sure.

you probably hit it right on the money. thanks. its been bugging me for years.


Title: Re: The Quick and the Dead (1995)
Post by: Banjo on April 28, 2006, 07:18:39 AM
it was a little too dopey for me. 8)
Yeah i gave up with is one after about 10 minutes!If i were Leone i'd be insulted by the likes of Stone and DeCrapio being used as a homage! ???


Title: Re: The Quick and the Dead (1995)
Post by: The Firecracker on April 28, 2006, 11:22:23 AM
Yeah i gave up with is one after about 10 minutes!If i were Leone i'd be insulted by the likes of Stone and DeCrapio being used as a homage! ???



IT WASNT A LEONE HOMAGE!!!!!!!!!


AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH


 ;D


Title: Re: The Quick and the Dead (1995)
Post by: Groggy on April 28, 2006, 05:25:12 PM
Its supposed to be a silly spaghetti western. Its not even supposed to parody Leone. It is a homage to all the others out there.

And all of the Leone references were just coincidences then eh?


Title: Re: The Quick and the Dead (1995)
Post by: Juan Miranda on April 28, 2006, 06:09:27 PM
This film both sucks and blows. I think I have seen it all, but never in the same sitting.

I've flushed stuff that's smells better down my toilet than this pile of horse muck.


Title: Re: The Quick and the Dead (1995)
Post by: franksgrandson on April 28, 2006, 06:26:27 PM
Yes this film is an insult, but I still find it fun to watch its not to be taken seriously just what it is an effort to copy a style.
What is lacking at the moment and may never be found again is a director such as Leone


Title: Re: The Quick and the Dead (1995)
Post by: The Firecracker on April 28, 2006, 06:47:39 PM
And all of the Leone references were just coincidences then eh?


Groggy if you had read my previous two posts I have mentioned this was a homage to the "other" Spaghetti westerns. NOT Leone. It is filled with references to "others".


Title: Re: The Quick and the Dead (1995)
Post by: Juan Miranda on April 28, 2006, 07:04:06 PM
Not being especially familiar with "the others", I must admit that on the occasions I've seen this film, I thought it was constantly referencing Leone.

However, to actually qualify that statement, I'd have to go back and watch it again.

That is just never going to happen.(http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a190/Tarkyhitch/untitled.jpg)


Title: Re: The Quick and the Dead (1995)
Post by: The Firecracker on April 28, 2006, 07:10:04 PM
Not being especially familiar with "the others", I must admit that on the occasions I've seen this film, I thought it was constantly referencing Leone.

However, to actually qualify that statement, I'd have to go back and watch it again.

That is just never going to happen.(http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a190/Tarkyhitch/untitled.jpg)


well the only Leone homage I recall was the flash back sequence whic is similar to "Once upon a time in the west" but other than that the film...


 
... is mostly a homage to Gianfranco Parolini and  Giuliano Carmineo films.

*notice* the hand held acrobactics and weird camera positions that bombard the film.


Just recently I saw a spaghetti western called "Bandidos" and this film borrows a bit from that as well. Raimi did his homework. 


Title: Re: The Quick and the Dead (1995)
Post by: The Firecracker on April 28, 2006, 07:15:19 PM
Not being especially familiar with "the others",

what spaghetti westerns(other than Leone of course) have you seen Juan?


Title: Re: The Quick and the Dead (1995)
Post by: Juan Miranda on April 28, 2006, 07:21:59 PM
I saw quite a few of the "Bud Spencer" and "Terrence Hill" movies at the cinema when I was a kid in 1970's, and have seen quite a few others on TV. Hate to admit it, but none of them have grabbed me enough to remember their names*, or to go and seek them out. Hence I'm on a Leone board, and not an Eastwood or Eurowestern one.

*Except EL TOPO, which is a different kettle of fish altogether.


Title: Re: The Quick and the Dead (1995)
Post by: The Firecracker on April 28, 2006, 07:59:05 PM


*Except EL TOPO, which is a different kettle of fish altogether.


Not really at all a spaghetti western though. Mexcian director and mexican cash make this a "mexican some-what western".


If you would like I could send you a spag or two(that would be worth your time) through the mail. I like allowing people to see things they may have missed.


Title: Re: The Quick and the Dead (1995)
Post by: Juan Miranda on April 28, 2006, 08:10:39 PM
Mexcian director

Crazy Alejandro Jodorowsky was actually born in Chile, grew up in Europe and lives in Paris. His best film was though, shot in Mexico (as well as EL TOPO), the magnificent SANTA SANGRE.

If you would like I could send you a spag or two(that would be worth your time) through the mail. I like allowing people to see things they may have missed.

That is a very kind offer, I'll PM you soon about that, as I have to convert my DVD player to multi region, as well as sort out a few others things.


Title: Re: The Quick and the Dead (1995)
Post by: The Firecracker on April 28, 2006, 08:24:11 PM
Crazy Alejandro Jodorowsky was actually born in Chile, grew up in Europe and lives in Paris. His best film was though, shot in Mexico (as well as EL TOPO), the magnificent SANTA SANGRE.

That is a very kind offer, I'll PM you soon about that, as I have to convert my DVD player to multi region, as well as sort out a few others things.

Sorry didnt know he was from Chile. I just assumed he was mexican.

Well PM me when ya get the chance.


Title: Re: The Quick and the Dead (1995)
Post by: Tim on April 29, 2006, 12:39:05 AM
  All this talk of the movie reminded me of something that is a good spaghettish-touch.  SPOILER ALERT IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN IT:   In that final shootout, I like how Gene Hackman's character gets shot, but you're not sure if he did.
 
  The scene is good, but the best part is the sunlight poking through the wound and his entire body where Sharon Stone's bullet went through him.  I don't know why, but I always thought that was pretty cool.  And I like that exaggerated flip he does after being shot one more time. 


Title: Re: The Quick and the Dead (1995)
Post by: The Firecracker on April 29, 2006, 12:42:36 AM
And I like that exaggerated flip he does after being shot one more time. 



spoilers!!!!!!!!!!!


I didnt like the exagerrated flip. It was far to much. i think that was Raimi going back to his "Evil Dead" days. If I recall correctly in the final installment to his "Evil Dead" series, at the end Ash shoots a witch with his shot gun and she flips in a similar way Gene Hackman does in this film.


Title: Re: The Quick and the Dead (1995)
Post by: Groggy on April 29, 2006, 08:32:13 AM

Groggy if you had read my previous two posts I have mentioned this was a homage to the "other" Spaghetti westerns. NOT Leone. It is filled with references to "others".

Tell me the dynamite scene was not a DYS reference. 

Even if it were, I could care less.  It's an over-the-top homage of non-Leone Spaghettis then.  That makes it so much better.  ::)


Title: Re: The Quick and the Dead (1995)
Post by: The Firecracker on April 29, 2006, 11:13:11 AM
Tell me the dynamite scene was not a DYS reference. 


Um...is that a serious question? That could have been a reference to any film that contains dynamite. And the scene doesnt even have to be a reference it could just be a scene where the town blows up. I'll give ya that.


although the climax of "a fistful of dollars" comes to mind
when I see that scene.


Title: Re: The Quick and the Dead (1995)
Post by: The Firecracker on May 02, 2006, 02:16:45 PM
  It's an over-the-top homage of non-Leone Spaghettis then.  That makes it so much better.  ::)


Whether it makes it "any better" or not is NOT the case here. You said the film was a homage to Leone westerns, you were wrong and I corrected you. That was the arguement, not whether the film was a piece of crap or not. ::)


Title: Re: The Quick and the Dead (1995)
Post by: Dust Devil on August 29, 2010, 04:07:50 AM
Watched this for the second time last night, I remembered it being somewhat better, not drastically, but now I fully understand all the laments posted here. It is entertaining 100% crap in my book, though, that still seems the best definition for it. Over-the-top, transparent and cheesy in absolutely every chance it gets - and that's quite a lot, actually. I didn't understand what was Raimi trying to do with some scenes - it was supposed to be some sort of homage, but so simple and bad it looked almost as he was parodying himself at the very same time. I think someone already mentioned the ridiculous scene when Herod shoots Cantrell in the head - they show a whole in his head so big you could put a fist in it, lol (to say at least). There's also that scene when someone does a salto mortale after being shot (honestly can't remember who it was). I guess they were trying to spice things up having so many shootouts, that's the best explanation I have, but I still can't believe Raimi didn't see how bad it looks...

Anyway, I wasn't bored, hence I give it a 6/10, but again - I can understand if someone has a strong disliking.


Title: Re: The Quick and the Dead (1995)
Post by: Dust Devil on August 29, 2010, 04:16:13 AM
But it made me laugh how Gene Hackman was a good heavy in this, yet a few years earlier he almost didn't do Unforgiven because he was tired of all the violence in movies? (according to Eastwood)


Title: Re: The Quick and the Dead (1995)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on March 13, 2011, 08:31:00 AM
"The Quick and The Dead" is the worst Western I have ever seen. I can't think of a single redeeming feature, other than perhaps the performance by Hackman. 0/10


Title: Re: The Quick and the Dead (1995)
Post by: dave jenkins on March 13, 2011, 10:46:25 AM
At last, something we can agree on. O0


Title: Re: The Quick and the Dead (1995)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on March 13, 2011, 10:56:23 AM
It was also the first Western I ever saw, and I vowed it would be my last! (I never watched another Western until GBU several years later; I only decided to watch it cuz I heard it was a famous movie --  I had no idea it was a Western! Well, that got me hooked...  ;)


Title: Re: The Quick and the Dead (1995)
Post by: Groggy on March 13, 2011, 10:59:56 AM
But it made me laugh how Gene Hackman was a good heavy in this, yet a few years earlier he almost didn't do Unforgiven because he was tired of all the violence in movies? (according to Eastwood)

Obviously he wanted to work with a genius like Sam Raimi.


Title: Re: The Quick and the Dead (1995)
Post by: Dust Devil on March 13, 2011, 12:20:05 PM
It is certainly not the worst W around. I can tell you that.


Title: Re: The Quick and the Dead (1995)
Post by: stanton on March 13, 2011, 02:20:43 PM
Yes, not a very good one, but far from being worse. 5 or maybe 6/10 for this one


Title: Re: The Quick and the Dead (1995)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on March 13, 2011, 02:30:45 PM
Maybe I haven't seen enough (bad) Westerns. Or maybe I just had a tough time handling the violence, considering it was the first Western I ever saw. (I actually had a real tough time handling the violence in FOD the first time I saw it; specifically, the massacre of the Baxters. I could understand one killing or two, but I couldn't understand how anyone could enjoy a film in which the whole town seems miserable and everyone ends up dead. I did a complete 360 by the second viewing  ;) )


Title: Re: The Quick and the Dead (1995)
Post by: titoli on December 31, 2011, 11:03:38 PM
I did a complete 360 by the second viewing  ;) )

A 180?


Title: Re: The Quick and the Dead (1995)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on December 31, 2011, 11:16:17 PM
A 180?

haha yeah. I was channeling my inner George Costanza when I said 360. But why'd it take you nine and a half months to figure that out?  ;)



Title: Re: The Quick and the Dead (1995)
Post by: titoli on January 01, 2012, 01:42:38 AM
haha yeah. I was channeling my inner George Costanza when I said 360. But why'd it take you nine and a half months to figure that out?  ;)



Because I read this was the only western you had seen before Leone and didn't remember which movie it was as the italian title is much different (and I never saw the complete film). So opened up the thread and read it. And got the kick of making that observation before somebody else might make a novel out of it.


Title: Re: The Quick and the Dead (1995)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on January 01, 2012, 07:30:23 AM
and I never saw the complete film

do yourself a favor and DON'T  O0