SoftInloveRox Horrible, fascist and poorly acted

GarnettTeenage The film was still a fun one that will make you laugh and have you leaving the theater feeling like you just stole something valuable and got away with it.

FuzzyTagz If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

FirstWitch A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

Hollywood_Yoda It's the late 1800s, and Matthew Quigley is looking for excitement and finds it in a job down under, in Australia. Starring Tom Selleck as Quigley, he brings the American West to the outback.Along the way, he meets Crazy Cora, played by Laura San Giacomo (later famous for Just Shoot Me with David Spade), a woman who mistakes him for her husband. Also, Alan Rickman stars as the unethical Aussie rancher, Elliot Marston, who hires, then quickly fires Quigley.The story was great, as well as the acting from Selleck and Rickman. Also, great direction from Simon Wincer (of Lonesome Dove fame). Truly a wonderful film for fans of Selleck or westerns.

SnoopyStyle Sharpshooter Matt Quigley (Tom Selleck) travels from Wyoming to Western Australia hired by ranch baron Elliot Marston (Alan Rickman). He rescues Crazy Cora (Laura San Giacomo) from a bunch of rough men. She keeps calling him Roy. It turns out that the men work for Marston. Marston reveals that he needs Quigley to hunt down Aborigines which Quigley takes offense to. Quigley and Crazy Cora are left to die in the desert.This is an old fashion western out in the Australian outback. It's a bit too old fashion. Quigley is impossibly good especially for a gunslinger. What did he think he was going to do in Australia? For a man who shoots for a living, he objects to the job too quickly. He should at least shoot somebody first. Maybe Marston's men try to kill him for the gold in the Outback. Maybe he refuses to kill the children. These are the nuances this movie needs. Selleck is playing too much of a hero and too simple. He lacks the complex characteristics to filled the big screen.

Frederick Smith Granted this is not the old west, although it is set in Western Australia. Tom Selleck, in my opinion, was born a couple of decades late. It's too bad the romance with westerns has passed on, since Selleck could have easily been a contemporary of The Duke. His easy-going, "down home" style and charm work well in the western genre, and with the exception of Robert Duvall and Sam Elliot, I can't think of another star who fits the "cowboy" persona better. Well, maybe Eastwood.Laura San Giacomo works beautifully as the films female love interest and comedy relief, since neither Rickman or Selleck offer us much in that way. She gives us her story in brief episodes, the returns to the "Crazy Cora" persona long enough to convince us it isn't all an act. Or is it? Alan Rickman plays what he plays best, an arrogant ass with money and power who enjoys pulling the wings off butterflies when he isn't shooting down people for the fun of it. He uses money as his weapon, and indulges himself whenever possible. Since most of his men are conscripts from the local prison, Marston is of the belief he is untouchable.The aborigines have no lines in English, and are pretty much the window dressing of the film, although there are some interesting scenes where Selleck and the aborigines interact.Overall, the film has plenty of flaws and lapses, but they are easy to look past when you watch the action scenes. And neither Selleck for the ladies or San Giacomo for the gentlemen are that hard to look at. Rated PG-13 for violence and sexual innuendo, the teens in the house will have no problem with the plot and the adults will enjoy the various quibbles between the principles. Not sure if this is all that collectible, but I have a copy. Like I said, I like westerns, and I like Selleck.

chucknorrisfacts I thought "Quigley Down Under" was a pretty decent western. I certainly wouldn't say it's the best western I've ever seen, far from it, but it's a pretty entertaining movie for the most part.I appreciated the attempt to go a different way than most westerns do, and set the film somewhere other than the American Southwest. I thought having the film take place in Australia was a nice change of pace, and certainly something you don't see in most movies of this type.I thought the actors all did a pretty good job in this movie. Tom Selleck actually plays a decent cowboy! Although, he sometimes looks a little strange sitting on the back of the horse because of how tall he is. It makes me wonder just how big of horse they had to find to be able to accommodate his height.The main problem I had with the movie was the character of Quigley himself. He's just a little too perfect, in my opinion. He's far from the regular rugged cowboy we see in most films, which I guess could be a reason to like him, but he's almost "too good". He may have a somewhat gruff exterior, but he's probably one of the more selfless movie cowboys you could ever hope to find. Also, he's just a little too good at what he does. He's never beaten in a physical confrontation, unless he's severely outnumbered. No one can shoot farther or draw their guns quicker than he can, either.I feel that it was inevitable that Tom Selleck's character would be able to defeat Alan Rickman's. They portrayed Quigley in such a light where I had no doubt what was going to happen in the end. I feel they should've built Rickman's character up more so that he seemed like a more worthy opponent for Quigley. I don't think it was Rickman's fault, either. I think it was the script because Rickman certainly seemed a worthy adversary for Bruce Willis' John McClane in "Die Hard".Take the movie "Unforgiven" for example...here you've got a character played by Clint Eastwood, one of the greatest movie cowboys of all-time, and his character as badass as he was, still had limitations. He wasn't the Superman that Quigley always seemed to be, but despite his limitations, I hold no reservations in saying I prefer Eastwood's Bill Munny a million times more than Selleck's Quigley. I know these were two completely different types of western. "Unforgiven" was dark and gritty while "Quigley Down Under" was just sort of a more light-hearted western, but I still feel the comparison is relevant, in that, even in lighter-hearted films, it's still OK for a character to make mistakes, and not always act in other's best interests before his own.Overall, I'd say it's worth giving "Quigley Down Under" a watch. It's still a pretty decent show, but just keep in mind that it's no "Unforgiven" or "Tombstone". If you go into the movie with that kind of expectation, you'll be disappointed. However, if you can see the movie for what it is, I think you'll enjoy it.