I wonder if this is a popular film in Australia? - Quigley Down Under (1990) Discussion

[–] lozinja 16 years ago

I don't know how any other Aussie's take it, but speaking for myself, I can't name many films I dislike more, and that has nothing to do with the amount of Aussies that 'get their arses kicked.' It's only slightly historically accurate, the plot's both appalling and predictable and the accents are awful. I watched it because Alan Rickman was in it, and I really wish I hadn’t.

As for popularity, not really would be a good assumption.

reply

[–] Irishwench 16 years ago

Well I'm not Australian but I loved it and Alan was excellent as was Tom. Very sick with all the killing of the aborigines but Tom was there to 'save the day' and overall it was a good movie. Only complaint, not enough Alan or should I say Elliott.

Severus Snape my hero....

reply

[–] detroit442 16 years ago

At first I couldn't imagine Austrailians liking this film. I mean the sterotypical American tearing up stuff and saving the day. But then I remembered "Crocodile Dundee". Kind of similar man out of his element and using his own resources to overcome the opposition. I liked both movies a lot and found myself laughing at the way Americans were protrayed. The Austrailians in Quigley were not 'funny'. They were tough, brave and dangerous and only lost the fight at the docks because Quigley didn't fight very fair. I realize the irony of that statement.

reply

[–] vice69 16 years ago

3 against 1 isn't exactly fair either...
I've read "First Blood" is popular amongst the Aborigine...with the whole innocent oppressed by authority thing...

"ENGLISH, MUTHAFCKA!! DO-YOU-SPEAK-IT?!?!"

reply

[–] detroit442 16 years ago

Depending on how you count it could've been 3 to 2 or 4 to 1, Cora could either be counted for or against. She was not that much of a help to Quigley. :)

reply

[–] vice69 16 years ago

hahaha yah she hindered him a bit...

"ENGLISH, MUTHAFCKA!! DO-YOU-SPEAK-IT?!?!"

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] down_under_birdy 16 years ago

This movie was quite possibly the worst i've ever seen in my entire life. I'm an Australian. I was extremely offended by it. Very few aspects of the movie were even slighlty accurate.

reply

[–] JamesMalone 16 years ago

Why so grouchy? Did a dingo eat your baby or something?

reply

[–] down_under_birdy 16 years ago

"Did a dingo eat your baby or something?"

That comment represents the total ignorance of Americans when it comes to Australia and Australian culture that really gets under the skin of alot of Aussies.

'A dingo's got my baby' might seem like a funny thing to say to you, but next time you use it to poke fun at someone, think about what it really means. The woman (Lindy Chamberlain) who said that had just lost her baby on a family holiday. An actual child was killed. You are making a joke out of the death of a baby. Azaria would have been 28 now if she had survived. If you have ever been to Uluru, or even outback Australia for that matter, you would know that the place is swarming with dingo/camp dog hybrids who are desperate for food, and also that true wild dingoes are scavengers who will sneak into humam campsites at any opportunity. They target animals that are smaller than them because they are a solitary wolf -they know they don't have the support of their pack. Do your research and learn a little sensitivity.

The comment doesn't offend me personally as an Australian - i just don't think you realise what you are saying.

reply

[–] JamesMalone 16 years ago

Shrimp on the barbie!

reply

[–] Caveman_otr 14 years ago

And with that said.. Nobody in authority believed she was telling the truth..
Indicating how little of their own country Aussies understand..
How many years did the inncent woman spend in prison, before the authorities admitted she might probably be telling the truth??
the phrase 'Did the dingos eat your baby' is a sarcastic phrase reflecting how we see those very facts you want us to look at.. That was what the prosecutor kept asking Mrs Chamberlain...

reply

[–] SvenViking 14 years ago

"How many years did the inncent woman spend in prison, before the authorities admitted she might probably be telling the truth??"

About three and a half -- and the only reason they released her was that the baby's clothing was found half-buried in a dingo lair. And EVEN THEN they said it was because "she had suffered enough" (she was still officially 'guilty'). It took another two years for them to actually overturn the conviction.

I'm a New Zealander, and I liked this movie... so maybe it really is anti-Australian? ;-p

reply

[–] Wuchak (8103) 3 years ago

In 1992, twelve years after the tragic incident and ten years after Chamberlain's conviction, she received $1.3 million in compensation from the Australian government.

reply

[–] scotts863 11 years ago

Tom Selleck is a god in other countries.

reply

[–] detroit442 16 years ago

Now, now. You don't want to get "booted"

reply

[–] EvilBaldDude 16 years ago

Well the real villain of the piece, played by Alan Rickman, wasn't exactly an Aussie. I pegged him as some get-rich-quick pommy, coming down under to make his fortune, of which there are plenty and always have been. So fire at will.

The only guy I recall having an authentic Aussie accent was the one wearing the kilt (for some reason). I think there may have been a few others, who were basically just stooges. I don't know if that reflects a negative attitude to Aussies on the part of the film maker, or whether he just had a limited budget for actors, and most of it was taken up by the stooges. It might have been a bit of both.

Throughout the film, the only characters who are treated sympathetically were the Americans. The indigenous people are too, but they are more like cardboard cutouts than real characters. You could have substituted them for cgi stick figures with absolutely no loss of realism.

That's pretty well standard in American films. Whenever and where ever they are set overseas, the locals are basically just there to add colour. They're either comic relief (fall guys for American straight lines), shallow, colourful apparitions, or villains.

I can't help compare it the 1959 American film, set in Melbourne, called "On The Beach". In that, the entire Australian race exists only to sing Waltzing Matilda in perfect harmony so as to provide incidental music, and to play sports (which they invariably lose to Americans). So again, we're a race of cardboard cutouts.

So Quigley is pretty well a stock standard, shallow bit of fluff, as American films set overseas go.

reply

[–] down_under_birdy 16 years ago

Agreed.

reply

[–] markterrytexas 16 years ago

I can't disagree. I guess this film was made by americans for americans. I'm sure that there are films that are made by Aussies for Aussies. I thought it was a good flick. As an American,i just don't understand why my Aussie relatives get so upset about an Aussie story that gets Americanized.

That's funny, I don't remember eating anything purple!

reply

[–] down_under_birdy 16 years ago

Maybe one day when an American story gets bastardized by some other nation, then you'll understand.

reply

[–] mousalope 16 years ago

"Maybe one day when an American story gets bastardized by some other nation, then you'll understand."

I feel your pain. I was outraged when I learned Kurosawa hijacked the concept of the Magnificent Seven for some Japanese movie. He turned a great western into a samurai movie. It was sacrilege.

reply

[–] snikt_snakt 16 years ago

-----I feel your pain. I was outraged when I learned Kurosawa hijacked the concept of the Magnificent Seven for some Japanese movie. He turned a great western into a samurai movie. It was sacrilege.-----

Good one. Jackass.

"What the f-ck is the internet?" -Jay, Jay & Silent Bob Strike Back

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] occupsych 16 years ago

Sooner or later, every country is on the receiving end; take shows like 24 for example, how many international complaints have been discussed in the media because of lowest common denominator labelling from such TV?

I happened to really like this movie, and I'm English; the English did get dragged through it a little in this movie but I just laughed it off! However, I do see where you're coming from; I guess things affect people differently.

"You won't break me"

reply

[–] instructionset 16 years ago

I just have to say a few things before anyone (Australian or otherwise) calls this film offensive.

1.) This is a movie. It is a piece of art, not some sort of perjorative or insulting news article.

2.) Many films about America (American or otherwise) do not necessarily depict America in the brightest light or accuratly.

3.) Although possibly inacurrate (I have to take your word on that one), this film says nothing "bad" about Australia at all. And, it was not intended to do such. The characters in this film are just that, characters. If an Aussie character is a bad guy, guess what. The guy is bad. That doesn't mean the country is intended to be shown badly. Especially since there are good Australians as well (the gunsmith and his family, etc). In short, there is no ill intent, and if anything the film makes me like Australia more.

4.) I bet you are all the same people who think John Lennon's song "Imagine" is offensive too, and if not, maybe you should take a long hard look at what you are saying.

On a more personal note, I would say that Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine is offensive as well (I don't actually take offense, but the principle is the same). It was actually supposed to be a documentary, and virtually nothing in it depicts America even close to accurately. If you have seen it, maybe you know what I mean. On a side note, I have never locked my doors, and in 20 years I have never been robbed or killed either! In America of all places! Amazing!

More or less what I am saying is, this is a fictional movie. If you don't like it you, don't have to watch it. If you find it offensive, you should get your head out of you know where... cause it just isn't. People take offense of the strangest things in this day and age.
Maybe I should take offense because so much of the world hates America for some non-existent reason and thinks we are all one big giant evil person despite the fact that we are mostly good, just like the rest of the world. (this portion of my post is not directed at anyone in particular, merely an observation.)

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] sniperjack-2 14 years ago

Yes, this was a hollywood production. However, it did have some Australian money in it, and the director Simon Wincer is Australian. He obviously had no problems portraying Australia in a historically inaccurate fashion. And why should he have. This movie was fictitious entertainment. Not a true story about the history of Australia. Some people need to really lighten up.

reply

[–] joeparkson 14 years ago

Quilgey's much better about Aussies than HH is about Germans.

Absurdity: A Statement or belief inconsistent with my opinion.

reply

[–] indy_go_blue44 14 years ago

I saw Marston and his crew as English myself; if not, so what? How many American westerns portray the greedy rancher, how many show the Indians being slaughtered? Too many to count. Wolf attacks vs dingo attacks; same thing.

My point is that Marston was an archetype and could have been any nationality. The story could have easily been told in Canada or Argentina or any other undeveloped area relying on ranching with an indigenous population. And the blacksmith made the most poignant point, when after his wife was slain he looked up at Quigley and asked "why?" It's an eternal question Quigley couldn't answer, nor can anyone else who witnesses/experiences senseless brutality.

reply

[–] JReb865 11 years ago

I hate to use this expression, but I think I just experienced what may construed as a "face palm" moment.

First off, I don't think there are any actual Australians in the picture - character-wise, that is. Furthermore, there is no specific "Aussie" accent, just like there are 50 different states in the US each with different accents (and some with more than 1 per state).

Marston (Alan Rickman) was born there, "on the wrong continent," as he says, but his parents are clearly an English aristocracy whose deaths set off his hatred of aborigines. His accent would be more upper-class English, which it is in the film and reality. Most of his crew were, as the redcoats described them, Irish trash, which are either Irish prisoners sent to Australia (common practice in them days) or the sons of such, with accents more like Irish than what the 21st century would consider Australian. The family in town whose matriarch is murdered are German immigrants (do they have Australian accents in Germany?). To top it off, the time in which this is set was in the days when many of the unwanted of the British empire were sent to Australia, bringing accents from all over the Caucasian world.

Personally, I thought the aborigines had pretty authentic accents, but you probably disagree with that, too, OP, don't you?

reply

[–] AnotherSchmoe 14 years ago

I mean here is this American that comes down there and takes the guys gold, kicks all of their arse's and ends up killing the guy that sent for him......

True, but Crocodile Dundee is all about some crazy Australian guy who comes to America and kicks the asses of all sorts of Americans from every walk of life, and smiles and laughs at them while doing so! Yet as an American I really enjoyed it. xP

And yes, I realize that Mick Dundee is pretty much a walking stereotype, but that doesn't change the fact that he kicked ass and took names, and they did acknowledge that he was a stereotype by even having some of his Australian friends in the movie commenting on how bizarre, eccentric, and outdoorsy he was, and coming from people who also live in the middle of nowhere.

http://www.youtube.com/anotherschmoe

reply

[–] scotts863 12 years ago

Hugh Jackman said he loves this film.

reply

[–] shawn_381 11 years ago

I know for a fact that Australian's LOVE this movie. It plays all the time on the major TV stations down under,and gets higher ratings than Mad Max.

reply

[–] edwchase 11 years ago

For those who are offended: Have you ever seen an American Western set in the American west?

There are countless movies where a lone hero faces a rich evil man and his henchman. Just like in QDU the other people the townspeople or homesteaders are good honorable people who despise the bad guys and what they do.

These movies do not reflect that all Americans or all Westerners are bad guys anymore than QDU reflects that about Australians.

There were a couple of other comments about how historically inaccurate this movie is. I can't deny that. But then again very few westerns have one shred of historical accuracy. They are fantasy and myth, they make no more claims to accuracy than the English fantasies of King Author and Robin Hood.

Someone also commented "Maybe one day when an American story gets bastardized by some other nation, then you'll understand."

To this poster I would ask, have you been living under a rock? This happens constantly. There have been many, many movies (westerns even) about good, honorable foreigners coming to America and beating on a bunch of evil Americans.

I have never heard one American being offended by these movies.

To those who say it inaccurately portrays a Australian stereotype. So what? I am from Texas, I have dealt with inaccurate stereotype all my life. even in the US most people in other states believe Texas to be a state filled with ignorant red necks (even though Texas is by far the most prosperous state in the union). And when I travel to other countries (yes, even when I was in Australia) people would always ask me where is my cowboy hat.

I am rather proud to be Texan and have never been offended by other's ignorance.

It is absolutely your right to dislike this movie. Enjoyment of the story, the acting and the directing are are all a matter of taste, there is no right or wrong when it comes to taste. But to be offended by this (or most any other movie) is kind of silly. You should really work on that thin skin problem.

reply

[–] joeparkson 10 years ago

It is offensives that Australians were depicted as genocidal racists. Australians have never been like that. They've always treated Aboriginies as equals.

Absurdity: A Statement or belief inconsistent with my opinion.

reply

[–] harveythepooka 7 years ago

That's just not true at all. Aborigines weren't considered citizens or even human beings until 1967. They were considered part of the flora and fauna.

reply

[–] liscarkat (16515) 2 years ago

People who are offended by "Quigley Down Under" need to lighten up, get a sense of humor, and only worry about important stuff. It must be a tough life, to be always in a state of anger over little things like movies.

reply