Review of The Quick and the Dead (1995) by Harry W — 07 May 2013

There is spoilers in this review at random times, so be wary.

The Quick and The Dead suffers because of its uneven balance between styles, since the story closely resembles that of a Sergio Leone spaghetti western as a whole but is consistently a modern western with moments not so believable and so the contextual setting is not absolute in being convincing and leans more over into a style witnessed in Evil Dead II, which although was entertaining just doesn't seem like it was what Sam Raimi reached for when he directed The Quick and The Dead. But as a fan of the Evil Dead trilogy, I found myself eventually warming up to the style, although never certain that it was appropriate for a western.

Also, it seems that based on the not so fun or creative plot that this is Sam Raimi's homage to classic westerns such as not only Sergio Leone's Dollars Trilogy, but also the 1952 western classic High Noon, and since it has no structural balance and reaches out to be too much more than it actually is, certain elements of The Quick and The Dead are a dubious misfire. The plot even is much like one you'd find in any regular sports movie.

And some of the symbolic themes integrated into certain cinematography shots seemed forced, namely a one where Ellen "The Lady" references John Herod while the cinematography shows him in the background while she is phrasing the line, and it becomes a little too much like a shot that works better as an advertising image than a movie frame.

But I was still pleased with The Quick and The Dead.

One of the things I noticed was how The Quick and The Dead breaks the tradition of having its characters that supposedly die not actually being witnessed as dying, because in this case The Lady is shot and does in front of us, but she returns because she tricks all of us with her visual stunt and so there's actual surprise in it for us if we couldn't predict if as being likely to happen due to the vengeance nature of Sharon Stone's characterisation and her leading role.

And Sharon Stone gave a fine performance, one taught with a vengeance feel that's a mix of The Man with No Name (The Dollars Trilogy) and Beatrix Kiddo / The Bride (Kill Bill), and she hides her sex appeal underneath her costume to ensure that the audience sees her as a warrior first, and doesn't unveil her sex appeal until her passionate scene with Russell Crowe. Her chemistry with him was also great, so she made a good lead in all.

And a young Russell Crowe had a good role in The Quick and The Dead, but primarily because he has a supporting role from early on before he gained the legacy of being he became a leading man who commonly played a tough guy role, but this time he has a certain bigger sense of mortality to his character and his chemistry with the actual badass of the story, Sharon Stone, is good. So Russell Crowe is good.

Leonardo DiCaprio was also very good in his early career, and I thank Sharon Stone for paying his salary to ensure his involvement in the film. I almost teared up at a Leonardo DiCaprio's death scene due to his line delivery of a few simple words which are "I don't wanna die" and bring his last lines in the film, they put into perspective the realistic pain and fear that comes with being forced to come to terms with that tragedy directly first hand. It's simple, yet powerful, and it shows so much promise to his career.

The only thing is that Gene Hackman doesn't get much screen time which gives him a chance to solidify his role as an intimidating villain, and after his work in Unforgiven his roles for westerns would have a new standard, but he fails to live up to them of provide much at all in The Quick and The Dead. I frankly was not at all intimidated by him.

So The Quick and The Dead is an odd mix of styles, but it's still a good western in the end.