Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Im a real Western buff, and i recently watched this movie again after a long time. It was considered a Box Office Bomb with the movie costing some $35 million to make and only taking in $18 million in the U.S.A. Sharon Stones performance was very well done I thought as was Gene Hackmans role . And it seemed like it was going to be quite realistic ...UNTIL such foolish scenes as a person getting shot and seeing the sun shining thru the hole in a nice neat totally clean opening made by the bullet that was fired ! I mean...Cmon...why ruin a decent Western with this sort of imaginery non realistic crap (?) This scene is repeated about 3 or 4 times in the Movie with the absurdity of Gene Hackman doing a lay-out backflip as he is gunned down by Sharon Stone at the very end of the movie ; the silly theatrics by the Writer/Director completely ruined the fascination with each character .
Its no wonder it was a loser at the box office for its ludicrous stunts , bordering on being science fiction . Nevertheless, it was fairly good on its portrayal of the wild and wooley West where as little as looking the wrong way at someone got you gunned down .
Did the Movie do anything for you when you saw it ? How would you rate it ?
For some reason I thought I had seen it before, same plot, but different genre. I've never been able to think of the other movie, if it even exists or if I ever saw such a movie.
And it seemed like it was going to be quite realistic ...UNTIL such foolish scenes as a person getting shot and seeing the sun shining thru the hole in a nice neat totally clean opening made by the bullet that was fired ! I mean...Cmon...why ruin a decent Western with this sort of imaginery non realistic crap (?) This scene is repeated about 3 or 4 times in the Movie with the absurdity of Gene Hackman doing a lay-out backflip as he is gunned down by Sharon Stone at the very end of the movie ; the silly theatrics by the Writer/Director completely ruined the fascination with each character .
The reason why the movie was "ruined" with such scenes, as you say, is because the director was Sam Raimi. That is a shot that is typical of SR. If you were unfamiliar with his work before seeing this film, I can understand why you were disappointed.
Personally, I liked it. I am a big fan of SR's work and like just about everything he does.
The classic Hollywood-esque gunfight--where two dudes went out in the street and stood fifty paces apart and waited to see who could draw the quickest--were very rare in the days of the Old West, which basically took place between the end of the Civil War in 1865 and the turn of the century.
In reality, back then it was not much different than today: gun killings were usually acts of spontaneous anger or passion or too much alcohol. Getting shot in the back was common, as was getting "thrown-down on" suddenly and without warning. (see Wild BIll Hickock; or even Jesse James.)
Sooo..back to your OP: TQATD had a great cast but it was simply too cheesy to be considered a serious or worthwhile western. It also never correctly found a target audience: old-time western fans were turned-off by the notion of a pretty girl as a badass gunslinger, as they were by the fresh-faced Leo DiCaprio. Also, the kids and women who might've liked those two actors (I use the term loosely with Stone) aren't much for the Western genre.
Thus, the whole movie just sort of fell through the cracks.
I really like this movie. I had no idea it was a bomb -- I never saw it until just a few years ago. The story was very good; the characters were very compelling and it was well acted, my favorite character being that of Gene Hackman, who probably has not had a bad theatrical performance to date. Crowe and Stone were quite good as well.
I give this film a
Not the best film I've ever seen, but certainly better than most (just saw Spartan last night....blaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah
The reason why the movie was "ruined" with such scenes, as you say, is because the director was Sam Raimi. That is a shot that is typical of SR. If you were unfamiliar with his work before seeing this film, I can understand why you were disappointed.
Personally, I liked it. I am a big fan of SR's work and like just about everything he does.
I guess i was looking for a little more realistic movie in the details. It struck me as being corny how you see 3 seconds of daylight from the back of a guys head thats just been blown off.
The classic Hollywood-esque gunfight--where two dudes went out in the street and stood fifty paces apart and waited to see who could draw the quickest--were very rare in the days of the Old West, which basically took place between the end of the Civil War in 1865 and the turn of the century.
In reality, back then it was not much different than today: gun killings were usually acts of spontaneous anger or passion or too much alcohol. Getting shot in the back was common, as was getting "thrown-down on" suddenly and without warning. (see Wild BIll Hickock; or even Jesse James.)
Sooo..back to your OP: TQATD had a great cast but it was simply too cheesy to be considered a serious or worthwhile western. It also never correctly found a target audience: old-time western fans were turned-off by the notion of a pretty girl as a badass gunslinger, as they were by the fresh-faced Leo DiCaprio. Also, the kids and women who might've liked those two actors (I use the term loosely with Stone) aren't much for the Western genre.
Thus, the whole movie just sort of fell through the cracks.
Good info. Thanks. You seem to know a bit about The Wild West culture and im wondering why Cowboys removed the spurs from their boots each night before going to sleep ? I got this info from a friend whos really taken up with the Wild West so im assuming this info is factual. Any explanation ?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
