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.

Sam Raimi one my favorites directors,he dared making a movie using a Leone style which step toward in a lot of bad reviews and critics,while for me a good movie this mix post modern and Leone spaguetti don't reach the high standard of Raimi's reputation,maybe for Sharon Stone's character in lead role for so linked in another famous movies,Hackman is a sort of another Unforgiven's character,in fact have several points that dragging down to this level,all star casting gave a hight status to the production,including Crowe and DiCaprio in early days,the final blast scene explain this failure,even so l like it!!!Resume:First watch: 1998 / How many: 3 / Source: TV/DVD / Rating: 7.5

Sharon Stone, Gene Hackman, Russell Crowe, Leonardo DiCaprio and Gary Sinise star in Sam Raimi's 1995 western. This takes place in small town, Redemption and Stone (Basic Instinct) plays Ellen, a female gunslinger who is seeking revenge for her father's murder when she was a child. Hackman (Superman) plays Herod, the town's former outlaw turned mayor who was responsible. She enters in a gunfighting contest held by him and tries to face him. Crowe (Gladiator) plays Cort, a preacher who was once part of Herod's gang who helps Ellen, DiCaprio (Titanic) plays Kid, a young man who was raised by Herod who also befriends her and Sinise (Forrest Gump) plays Ellen's father who was a marshal. This is a good western with a good cast, Hackman is a great bad guy as usual and Alan Silvestri's score is also great. I recommend this.

Yes, I know the critics at the time panned it. But if that was the baseline for greatness, films like Wonderful Life and Citizen Kane would be lost to obscurity. Bottom line, this is a "high concept" film that is much more entertaining than you would guess. The timeline is fascinating. In the 1960s, after a half-century run, and massive exposure on the new medium called Television, the classic western started to disappear. But, as they say, nature abhors a vacuum; and at the same time the sun started to set on the traditional western, it started to rise on something called the "italian westerns" or re-imaginings of the genre from Europe. This is for example how Clint Eastwood went from forgotten TV actor (Rawhide) to #1 box office attraction. This new genre lasted barely 15 years or so and soon disappeared as well. Yet out of nowhere, 20 years later someone in Tinseltown gets the idea to re-imagine the ALREADY RE-IMAGINED western, this time starring a female. Sharon Stone was past the apex of her career by this point, making the project more of a challenge. The other talent was awesome. A pre-Oscar Russell Crowe, a pre-Titanic diCaprio, and all backstopped by Hackman, I mean, wow. The big question, did it actually work? Answer yes. It was uneven in parts and an argument could be made that Hackman overdid the "bad guy" role or, alternatively, the part was over-written. Stone was awesome, proving she had the chops to take on a bizarre role and make it hers. Actually gets better with each successive viewing.