Disturbing yet enthralling

Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.

what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

The movie's not perfect, but it sticks the landing of its message. It was engaging - thrilling at times - and I personally thought it was a great time.

I wanted very badly to love this movie and it was mostly good. But the main character portrayed by Sharon Stone was simply not believable. And not for any type of sexist reason. I could totally get behind the character itself, it was the acting that continuously broke the immersion for me. While the rest of the actors did a fine job of portraying their characters to the point that I forgot they were actors, multiple times I found myself thinking "this really isn't Sharon Stone's best performance". It just felt like she was trying too hard.

The Man With No Name is credited with reviving the Western with the glorious Unforgiven, which starred, among others, Gene Hackman. ''Duck, I says,'' being my favorite line, though ''I don't deserve this. I was building a house,'' is more often quoted because it's followed by ''deserve's got nothing to do with it,'' which has pretty much become an an aphorism. But Hollywood being Hollywood and Gene Hackman desperately needing a backyard swimming pool (I assume) along comes The Quick and the Dead only a few years later. Whereas Director Eastwood made us face the myths of the West, Director Raimi turns them into a cartoon. The whole movie plays like a bunch of pretty-boy Hollywood actors dressing up to play guns. There was more gritty reality in The Three Amigos. Hackman is so embarrassing that his shtick here retrospectively takes some shine off his brilliant turn in Unforgiven. I'd go as far as to say this is the worst big-budget Western of the past 50 years and that includes Silverado, Dancing with Wolves, anything else involving Kevin Costner, anything involving the Gunfight at the OK Corral, and Cowboys and Aliens (or whatever that mess was called).

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.

Every review I read about this film dissed it and every review I read was written by men! This was a film about a woman protagonist and hero. Of course men don't like it! I just read another review on IMDb by a GUY who said the plot wasn't original. I've never seen or heard anything similar to a story about a little girl who was given a chance to save her Marshall father, who was about to be lynched by Hackman and his crew, by shooting the rope to free him and instead killed him because she didn't know how to handle a gun!! Could any person imagine the guilt a person would carry around if that happened to them? Leonardo DiCaprio had just finished filming Titanic and Russell Crowe was hardly new to feature films. One of my favorite westerns of his was 3:10 to Yuma, but that's another story.Basically, I'm sorry you guys hate it when testosterone isn't what wins the day in a good western, but real history tells the story of many women gunfighters who were as good or better than any man: Cattle Annie, Calamity Jane and many more.I admire Sharon Stone for a good story told with realism of the period. I happen to be a hobby historian about the old west and in real life, the good guys weren't always men and even when they were, they didn't always win, and those popular history paints as heroes weren't as good as people think they were, such as the Earp's and Doc Holiday.Yes, there are thousands of western movies with plots that are similar but The Quick and the Dead has a plot unlike any other I've ever seen and while I haven't seen all of them, I have seen most.