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.

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.

Quigley Down Under has one of the most descriptive, poetic opening scenes under the credits since Hitchcock's Rear Window. Without saying a word, we are told who this fellow is, and where he's going. The oddly metered music by Basil Pouledouris gives the story an other-worldly feel. We soon see the hallmarks of colonial Australia, convicts in chains, soldiers, a rag tag assortment of British frontier characters and whores. A fight soon breaks out, as though a natural extension of macho Australian manhood. I have asked several Australians what they thought of this film, and not a single one had heard of it. It has an Australian director, Simon Wincer, but the stars are American and British, and Selleck, the American cowboy, is clearly the hero. Could it be that the Aussies are a might touchy about the portrayal?Having seen some wildly distorted, negative portrayals of America by foreign directors and writers that foreigners seem to take as gospel truth, (examples: The Patriot, starring Aussie Mel Gibson and directed by German Roland Emmerich; Cold Mountain, directed by Anthony Minghella and starring Jude Law, both Brits) it is interesting to see the shoe on the other foot. I can assure you that I do not assume that all Australians are like Alan Rickman's sadistic, racist character, or were, historically. As a reasonably intelligent adult, I view Quigley as entertainment, not a documentary, and I do not assume it is an accurate portrayal, then or now, beyond what I know, otherwise, of history. What Quigley is, is entertaining. I read Hal Hinson's scathing review in the Washington Post with some bemusement. These reviewers have to write at the moment of release. With the hindsight of two decades and several viewings, I can attest that Quigley is a well-crafted, entertaining movie. The acting by Selleck, Rickman and Laura San Giacomo is outstanding. Rickman plays one of the most deliciously snide villains since James Mason in North By Northwest or Frank Langella in Dave. San Giacomo proves her chops in an emotionally intense, complex role. We see a real chemistry between her and Selleck develop. The impression of Australia I come away with from this movie is how beautiful the enormous outback is. It is a positive impression. I don't judge a country by a fictional movie, and even if some of it is true, it is ancient history, and not relevant to judging the Australians today. What is true, is the Sharps buffalo rifle really existed.Sure, Quigley is a variation of the American Western set in Australia, one of the few places you can transplant the genre to, believably. The essence of the Western is the lone individual pitted against the bad guys and a hostile countryside. It is a test of character. As such, Quigley is an excellent, creative addition to the opus of Westerns. And it shows that Australia and America have something in common, historically. Ultimately, the movie is uplifting, espousing justice and appreciation for the aborigines. There is goodness in the world, including among the white Australians. While there are good guys and bad guys, you do not feel manipulated by simplistic stereotypes. At the time, some were skeptical of Tom Selleck as an actor. I think he has since proved himself to be a first-rate actor, not just a pretty face, and Quigley is proof of that. But his 2003 performance in Monte Walsh, also directed by Wincer, shows greater depth and maturity as an actor. Roger Ebert says the story is weak, which I find odd. There are plenty of novel, interesting twists. Try comparing this to Avatar, which has some similar elements, particularly the appreciation for protecting an indigenous culture. Take away the special effects of Avatar, and what is left is relatively weak, forgettable story and dialogue, though it is still good enough. Quigley, by comparison, has nothing to apologize for.The bottom line: Quigley Down Under is a fun, beautiful, entertaining movie you can watch many times over the years.

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.