tannerwebb I for one am disgusted that this movie doesn't have a higher rating. I would only be happy with 9 stars or more personally. This movie has everything. A pure classic. And the main character Matthew Quigley is a true honorable figure that we should all aspire to be more like. I'd recommend it to anybody

chucknorrisfacts 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.

winner55 The low scoring of this movie at IMDb only reminds us: It wasn't the traditional Western that exhausted itself in the later 1960s/ early 1970s, it was the audience.This is an old-school traditional Western that happens to be set in Australia. The story, cinematography, music, pacing, characterizations, dialog, all are reminiscent of those we came to expect from Hawks, Hathaway, Sturgis. Yet there is no attempt to slavishly imitate the work of such past masters of the genre, but to add to the genre using a cinema vocabulary they would easily have recognized and appreciated.It's quite alright to say, 'traditional Westerns are not my cup or tea,' but it is not appropriate to slam a genre film for being true to its genre. And this sweeping adventure story is so true to its genre, if one didn't know when this was made or who these actors were, one could easily think it a product of the late 1950s or early 1960s, the last golden age of the traditional Western, the era of Rio Bravo, the Magnificent Seven, The Sons of Katie Elder, The River of No Return. While not strictly realistic, it presents a world that is three dimensionally realized - The heat is real, the wind is real, the old houses look like they've been standing for years, the people inhabiting this world are flesh and blood.One can easily imagine John Wayne speaking Tom Selleck's lines, but Selleck does an admirable job speaking them, and finds his own voice doing so. The rest of the cast is excellent as well. Since this is a traditional Western, some of the actors are stuck playing stereotypes, but as did their '50s-'60s counterparts, they work hard to bring these alive, to add the quirks that give them individuality, enough so to move the story along in fine dramatic fashion.And I think it a fine genre story, filled with wonder, suspense, thrills, drama, romance, humor. Pretty much the 'complete package' we came to expect Westerns to deliver back in their last golden age.We often say, "they don't make them like they used to." Well, here! They did it! They made one like they used to! Instead of complaining we should celebrate.

bkoganbing The sad thing about Quigley Down Under is that had this been done thirty years earlier the film would have warranted a major release the way a John Wayne or a James Stewart western would have had. Personally when I look at Tom Selleck and the way he plays the title character, I think James Garner. Selleck plays Matthew Quigley in the same dry, laconic manner that Garner patented.This western is about as southwest as you can get without dealing with penguins and icebergs. Selleck has come to western Australia in answer to an advertisement by a local rancher requiring a skilled marksman with a rifle. He takes the three month voyage from San Francisco and arrives at Alan Rickman's local Ponderosa. Remember this is Australia, a place settled by convict labor. On Rickman's spread it's mostly Scotch and Irish. But Rickman's problem isn't with them, it's with the aborigines.Which brings us to why he wants Selleck's services with a long rifle. Essentially he wants Selleck to hunt them down and kill them at a distance, a bit of ethnic cleansing. Fighting Indians was up close and personal at times. But just shooting people down like game, rubs Selleck the wrong way. He tells Rickman no with vigor. And that vigorous no gets Selleck and Laura San Giacomo a woman not playing with a full deck beaten up and thrown out in the outback with no means of survival. Of course they survive and we learn a lot about San Giacomo. The reason for her insanity, it's more of a defense mechanism to keep out the world, because she's done something terrible that her conscience won't leave alone. It's a beautiful performance, probably the acting highlight of Quigley Down Under.Of course there's plenty of action to satisfy any western fan on any continent. Alan Rickman is an especially loathsome villain, he makes his Sheriff of Nottingham in Kevin Costner's Robin Hood film look like a Girl Scout.And the aborigines do learn to appreciate Selleck and the payback he exacts. They come through for him at critical times in the film.Tom Selleck is a perfectly cast western hero, the kind I used to spend Saturday afternoon's watching.