Quigley Down Under is an interesting little western. It’s not bad, but it’s not my bag, either. The movie showcases the standard western motifs of the lone warrior traveling to a new locale, getting into trouble, and fighting a localized tyrant or bully. It’s a very standard picture, with some fun moments; but that’s not enough for me to fully embrace it.

I enjoy some westerns, but it takes something unique or interesting to really get me vested in them, and I didn’t feel Quigley had it. Yes, it has a unique spin, for it’s technically not a “Western”, in that it doesn’t take place in “the west”. Rather, it takes place in the outback of Australia, an environment ripe for this kind of story (and a place where several Westerns have taken place, apparently); a story which follows the misadventures of Matthew Quigley, a talented marksman offered a job in Australia—as a local land baron’s aid in the genocide of Australia’s indigenous people. I won’t go into anything else plotwise, because there are some surprises. I will, however, say that Quigley’s misadventures span a variety of episodic instances and events, some of which work and some of which don’t. Those that don’t, like the element of a crazy woman, will either charm a viewer or ostracize him/her. It did the latter to me, but someone else might love it.

One aspect that I think everyone will be entertained by, however, are the two leads, Quigley, played by Tom Selleck, and his Nemesis, played by the always-wonderful Alan Rickman. Something about Selleck is charming, and Rickman is always good at bringing a character to life. These two carry the picture, but they fail to lift it out of mediocrity.

I’m giving Quigley Down Under a 3. This is outing into the western genre that is fine, but it didn’t do that much for me personally.