Quigley Down Under (1990) **1/2

 

An Australian Rancher named Marston (Alan Rickman) advertises worldwide for a long-range sharpshooter and receives, in reply, his ad filled with closely-spaced bullet holes, marked “Matthew Quigley – 900 yards.” That's impressive shooting for any era, especially in the days before rifle scopes. Thus, Quigley finds himself in Australia for a lucrative job. No sooner does he arrive than he gets into a dust-up with some local toughs, defending a young woman who turns out to be mentally ill. Crazy Cora (Laura San Giacomo), as they call her, latches onto Quigley, whom she repeatedly mistakes for her ex-husband, Roy.

Elliott Marston turns out to be obsessed with the American West. He carries a six-shooter, and he is very taken with the laconic Quigley, especially after a demonstration of Quigley's shooting prowess. The job, however, is not what Quigley was expecting, and the two have a falling out that leaves Quigley and Cora fighting for their lives against Marston and his men.

With its technical discussions of firearms, shooting, and even reloading, “Quigley Down Under” should be a cinematic touchstone for target shooters. The problem is that for anyone who has done much shooting, most of the action looks ridiculous. Quigley takes these amazing shots at several hundred yards from a standing, off-hand position, which is the least stable of the shooting positions. Any real rifleman would shoot prone, or find himself a rest like a fence rail to steady his aim.

I know I'm picking nits, here, but if you take away the appeal to firearms geeks, what you are left with in “Quigley Down Under” is a fairly bland, hokey, by-the-books western that wastes the considerable talents of its cast. With his rugged face and easy drawl, Tom Selleck was born to do westerns. Alan Rickman, known for playing the villain in “Die Hard,” is a genius at spreading a thin layer of charm over an evil core. He does a pretty good job here, but the film should have given him more to work with. Laura San Giacomo has the most thankless role in the film. She probably isn't the greatest actress ever, but she was capable enough in “Sex, Lies, and Videotape, she's cute as a button, and she has the best eyebrows in Hollywood. Even those charms can't sell her poorly-written character.

I'm probably being harder on the movie than necessary because I feel it does such a disservice to its cast. The film actually has some entertainment value, and the Australian setting is an interesting twist on the Western. Unfortunately, the hackneyed writing takes what could be a classic Western and gives us a forgettable action flick.

2.5 stars out of 5