Rating: 
Summary: Sharon Stone is great!
Review: I hired this movie because i'm a big fan of Sharon Stone. Her performance is great and this movie is really good!! (illdc)
Rating: 
Summary: DiCaprio and Kid
Review: Leonardo DiCaprio's portrayal of Kid was well done. Kid was constantly trying to prove himself to his father portrayed by Hackman. Even though he failed at this, he was a true cocky sprit. Kid was full of himself and felt that he was invinsible, little did he know that he was not. Hackman was a very believable typical "bad guy." Leonardo was very good in this role, and any "true" Leo fan should definately watch this movie.
Rating:
Summary: Please pass the popcorn
Review: Frankly, I have certain reservations about the postmodern (name your "pasta") western and yet I enjoyed this film which has an outstanding cast, featuring Sharon Stone (Ellen), Gene Hackman (Herod), Russell Crowe (Reverend Cort), and Leonardo DiCaprio (the Kid). The supporting cast includes Gary Sinise (Marshall) and Pat Hingle (Horace the bartender). Herod is the corrupt mayor of Redemption (I'm not making this up) who has organized a quick-draw competition for gunfighters. Ego and greed motivate most of the contestants. Ellen is motivated by revenge. Once an associate of Herod's, Cort is a pacifist and refuses to participate. (Of course, he's also renowned as the quickest draw.) Through a process of deadly elimination, two "finalists" will soon face each other in the streets, probably without hope of redemption, and then....As directed by Sam Raimi, my only significant criticism of this film is that we learn almost nothing about the background of the major characters prior to their participation in the competition. (Perhaps I have been spoiled by Akira Kurosawa's The Seven Samurai, John Sturges' The Magnificent Seven, and more recently, Jeff Blitz's Spellbound.) The Kid is a case in point. Whose son is he? (Herod's?) Raimi raises even more questions about Cort. For example, is he really a clergyman or merely assuming the identity of one such as Robert Mitchum's character in The Night of the Hunter or Clint Eastwood's in Pale Rider? At this point, I ask "What difference does it make?" So I settle back with some refreshments and stop analyzing the film. (My wife would claim "over-analyzing" it.) It is what is so I enjoy it for that rather than rattle on about what it is not. Roll it!
Rating:
Summary: When "Evil Dead" Met "Gunsmoke"...
Review: Director Sam Raimi (Evil Dead, Spiderman) made an impressive departure from horror in this old fashioned spagetti western with an impressive (yet virtually unknown) cast including Leonardo DiCaprio, Russell Crowe, Sharon Stone (lead actor at the time, boy has time changed!) and the ever so western bad dude Gene Hackman.
There's not much difference between a horror film and a western really. Usually there is more killins in a western. Raimi skillfully uses his many techniques and quirky camera work to redifine the western. Not destined to become a classic, but can hold its own. Well acted and filmed, great score, and loads of action. If you are a western fan, then this one should not be missed. If yoy are a Sam Raimi fan, you need this one for your collection.
Rating: 
Summary: Watchable
Review: Sharon Stone is the star of this Western, in which she plays a vengeance minded gunslinger. In this movie, she is supported by a strong cast, including Gene Hackman and Leonardo DiCaprio. Look for Russell Crowe as the preacher.
Predictable, sometimes corny, other times just plain entertaining for all the wrong reasons, this is still a pretty watchable movie. I am generally picky about my Westerns, and while this movie will likely never be in any top ten lists of best Westerns ever made, it is the type of movie that when it came out on cable, I ended up watching every time I was channel flipping and it was on. It has its appeal.
Sharon Stone pulls off this role, and because she did, I respect her a lot more than I ever did before seeing this movie. Not because it was such a stellar acting job, or because the idea of a female Clint is so believable, but because after you get past the Stone bias that seems to exist among fans and critics, and once you get past the idea of a female in the Clint role (c'mon, folks, it's the 1800s!), it's a fun movie.
Sometimes, fun is what it's all about.
|
