Probably Tom Selleck's most underrated film, and the critics didn't think much of him because he wasn't part of the snobbish Hollyweird scene. And another fantastic role for Alan Rickman, another criminally underrated actor.
@@marcrhodes3382 You misunderstand my meaning. Even after Die Hard, which really gave him the spotlight, he still was not looked at as a premier actor. He started film acting kind of late in life but took to it quite well. He had really good roles in Quigley Down Under and Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, but really became known after star turns in Truly, Madly, Deeply and Sense and Sensibility. Galaxy Quest gave him a really iconic role, and once he was cast in the Harry Potter movies, he became a hot commodity. Love, Actually was a tour de force for him. He went on to be successful in a number of well-received films, but never lost his taste for comedy. He was an excellent actor lost too soon.
At 1:10 look at marston’s ex butler’s chest and how it’s all marked up. He must have made quite a name for himself as a warrior in his younger years and have substantial influence among his people hence why he was able to round up so many warriors so quick to protect quigley.
Quigley being saved by the natives was just good timing for Quigley, not their actual goal. The Marston ranch and workers had been attacking and killing the natives for quite some time, and they knew they had to end the threat at some point. That many warriors/natives 'just happening to be nearby' isn't a credible situation. They were obviously planning to attack the Marston ranch in the near future with overwhelming numbers and kill every enemy that was there, in order to ensure the future survival of the rest of their people. This is why animals in places like Africa with human tribes roaming around give humans a wide berth. Even primitive humans with simplistic weapons like bows and spears are incredibly dangerous to animals around them. A lion or pride may kill a couple of humans during an encounter, but the resulting response from humans is they'll hunt down and kill every lion in the surrounding area in revenge. Animals learn very quickly that humans are incredibly dangerous predators, and not to be messed with.
@@rwalper good observation. They might have figured since marston has lost most of his men to quigley now is the perfect time to wipe his station off the face of the earth once and for all before he can regroup.
BTW, you do realize that the "ghost warriors" were a spell by the Bushman shaman Quigley rescued, don't you? The dust wind just before it marked the magic.
You can tell by the markings on his chest that marstons butler made quite a name for himself In his younger years and is of strong influence among his people. He knew the British were coming to capture quigley so he was probably able to summon thousands of warriors to back up quigley on name alone.
Tom Selleck didn't have a blockbuster movie career --- but this film alone proves why he's as good as Costner or Cruise when it comes to telling a great story about a cool character
This film demonstrates the striking similarities between the American West and the Australian Outback and it’s not just the sprawling desert landscapes. You’ve got a population of outlaws standing against the Red Coats of the British Empire, an indigenous population with a mystical intrigue, a Lawless Frontier, and the exaggerated machismo of rugged men making their own way in the world.
You know very little about the Big Horn. Custer was set up and murdered by his political enemies. Longer range rifles were “lost” near the enemy camp. Custer was not the idiot the Democrats and press conspired to make him appear.
@@GCNavigator Incorrect. Lieutenant Colonel Custer and his command were destroyed by his pride and ego. He could have scouted the native encampment and waited for reinforcements to arrive, but his ego wouldn't let him. Custer made the decision to attack. No one forced him to attack that day. He was supposed to do a reconnaissance in force, and only attack if he felt the conditions were right. Lieutenant Colonel Custer failed for four primary reasons: First, his insistence on not taking the offered Gatling gun battery with his command. Second, he didn't listen to his Native scouts that warned him of the great size of the encampment, and that it was the largest gathering of the tribes they had ever seen. Third, and probably THE most important reason is that he failed to do his primary mission, which was RECONNAISSANCE, scout the enemy force, locate their exact position and what the force was made up of. IF he had properly scouted the native encampment first, he might have had the sense not to attack and then waited for Gibbons and Terry's columns. The fourth reason for his failure was dividing the regiment into three separate forces which made the command easier to defeat in detail. There was nothing political about Custer's defeat: He could have scouted the Sioux encampment and reported what he found to Gibbons and Terry, then grouped up with them to attack the Sioux in force. For doing HIS PROPER MISSION he would have saved the lives of himself and his men. There would have been enough accolades to go around to award him the permanent promotion to general that he so desired. Custer's decisions and actions that day were his alone. The responsibility for the near utter destruction of his command rest solely on his shoulders.
That is one smart British Major who did a ultra quick risk assessment and determined that his small patrol of 38 men would not survive to day if he made the wrong decision. His Sgt and men are glad that he made the right one.
It is by FAR the best thing he ever did, and now he is in that awful television show about that armpit of the World, New York, cops and robbers on TV. I guess he must need the money. Shame....when he gets the right parts he can be outstandingly good. He could have chosen to be remembered like Clint Eastwood, but he has chosen to be remembered like Leonard Smallbone. (Tom Selleck net worth 45 million. Clint Eastwood net worth roughly $375 million.)
Yup feel the same way. Loved this movie, the actors, music and the plot. Someone told me the critics panned this movie, but these are some of the same people who picked Shakespeare in Love over Saving Private Ryan. All politics and nothing to do with what the public feels. Remember Selleck is a conservative and former NRA head so I am sure they held that against him!
@@geodes6722 I remember one Today show Critic, if she hated it, I went to watch it, if she loved it, I avoided it like the plague! (Several of the movies she panned are now famous and/or "cult classics"!)
I understand this movie's faults, but if you're an American ever been around someone from Europe who likes to critique your your ancestors for killing indengionous people and possibly owning slaves then they don't know their own history. Slavery was abolished in England in 1833 (about 30 yrs before the US Civil War), and they didn't fight a war with each other... they paid off the slave owner class in England, creating a whole new wealthy class of people whose families prosper to this day. I'm not saying America didn't do horrible things. Just saying that you can't criticize an entire country for what your ancestors were doing centuries before. Nobody's hands are completely clean.
Noone is responsible for what happened hundreds of years ago, if you dont own slaves today, you are not responsible. Which doesnt mean that you dont have a certain responsibility to speak out against slavery and do right, what your ancestors have done wrong. And it was a cruel, rasist and non -social world, every country has done terrible things, especially major countries in Europe
As an Indian, whose country was colonized by the Brits for approx 190 whole years, I agree. What the Brits back then did was wrong - they looted so much wealth from India that there was a stark difference before and after - but I don't blame the Brits today for the actions of their ancestors. I'd still like it if the Queen saw fit to return her crown jewels to India, though, but guess that's asking too much from a 100 year old lady in this time of her life.
Even though slavery is of yesteryear the present day white societies continue to perpetuate the poisonous policies and attitudes of their slave owning ancestors. Racism is in their DNA. That's what is behind the continuing injustice toward and ongoing slaughter of black and brown people in the US, for example.
In addition, the slaves in our country were sold by their native chiefs to British slavers. Brought to America while we were still their colony, we were unable to free them. In 1787 we declared that the Northwest Territory would forever ban slavery
@@Rottensparrow Yeah, and considering how far away most of the Aborigines were from the British patrol, they could have shot Quigley down and rode off before most of the Aborigines got close to them anyway. I would bet on the British too. I always thought the British commander probably thought he could have fought his way out of the situation, but probably just thought it wasn't worth the trouble and possibly risking causing an uprising.
Best idea that leader ever had in his life. Plus for Quigley, when you see that kind of support it somewhat puts a little hitch in your getty-up, as we say in kentucky
Sometimes the continuance of life hinges on a decision may in the moment. This would be one of those moments! Also, I absolutely love the music in this scene. Well done, Basil Poledouris. May your music continue to bring joy to the world. R.I.P.
When I first watched this and heard the didgeridoos and humming starting to get louder I thought "They got 2 strokes" xD. Still a great scene and a classic film.
Not at that time we didn't. We had pretty much healed the relationship by then. Being American didn't not matter to them if they were led to believe that he was a criminal or fugitive.
@@johnstenton6023 Thomas Jefferson hated slavery. He believed it was abhorent and immoral. But there were laws in his state, Virginia, at that time that prevented the freeing of slaves. It wasn't his fault. It was a sad reality of the time. The founding fathers largely wanted to be rid of slavery with the founding of the US and had far more anti-slavery wording in early drafts of the Constitution. In order to maintain the whole "United States" thing, some difficult choices had to be made. Some of the states refused to join the union if slavery was to be abolished. In order to create the country that would eventually free slaves and ban slavery within it's borders in the future, some concessions had to be made. And besides, what does being white have to do with anything? You ever heard of Anthony Johnson? An indentured servant captured by Muslim slavers who then became a tobacco plantation owner who owned slaves? He was a black man. It wasn't just "white" people doing that.
@@EnGammalAmazon No, we didn't really heal our relationship until WWII. We were neutral with England but we didn't really like them. Look up War Plan Red.
The Bushmen appear to be about 1000 yards out which makes the circle they are standing in about 19,000 feet in circumference. With each person about 3 feet apart, that means there are around 6300 natives ready to come down there and beat you with a stick. Laugh that off Brits, lol.
The true Aborigines who lived in the bush would do that. Even on flat, featureless ground with nothing around for miles, they would appear out of nowhere and disappear into nowhere.
@@johntucker23 really ... so it happening to me is just watching too much Crocodile Dundee? Try being in the middle of nowhere, changing a tyre and having one appear asking for tobacco. No where around they could have appeared from. Not a tree, not a bush they could hide behind, but there one of them was. And yes, he was gone just as quick.
Well, the Zulu war ended up a crushing defeat for the Zulu's. They won at Isandlwana ambushing the British sure, but it was the only victory they ever had. The Anglo-Zulu war lasted 5 months and ended with the annexation of the entire Zulu Kingdom to the British. The battle of Ulundi sealed the fate. Sadly, sometimes the little people just get trodden on.
@@duaneelliott5194 Yes they do. The Soviet Union, America going through their troubles now.....China rising! Each powerful nation will have its time at the top, before a fall. Vast military budgets in the 21st century going forward are unsustainable. And the more developed your country, the more costly it is.
@@bobpage6597 however if we can just get past the imperialist bullshit we could have a better world. Sadly it looks like another reset is coming, maybe this is the last one 🙁
It definitely sounds familiar to a Yank (me) but also not really a fair comparison. Custer attacked a superior force - and lost. Completely. These troops were threatening a single man - and lost. Completely. See the difference? Another difference - these troops were smart enough to turn and ride away before full engagement, thereby surviving their mistake.
In the American Army we call this "you scratch my back I scratch your's. Quigley earlier scratched the aborigines' backs and they returned the favor in kind. Great scene!
Certainly one of the best scenes in any movie for an Aussie. The British brought some great things to Australia but they were not perfect all the time. Sometimes they needed to be taught the difference between right and wrong.
Colour Sergeant Bourne: It’s a miracle. Lieutenant John Chard: If it is a miracle, Colour Sergeant, it’s a short chamber Boxer Henry .45 caliber miracle. Colour Sergeant Bourne: And a bayonet sir, with some guts behind it. Sorry. Wrong film!
@@denisdegamon8224 No,I don t watch much t.v. or tv shows,but I admire him greatly,and I have some if not all his movies,even on VHS. to me he is an american icon.
I have one of those pointy sticks. They're called "nullanulla". It's hard as iron. A blow with that could easily split your skull, and a thrust literally run through you.
Maybe the leader had heard of the battle of little big horn, this situation had the potential to be much worse. He wasn't as brave as custer, but maybe a little smarter.
Considering Custer's men were armed with repeating Winchesters and the British here were armed with single shot cap lock breechloaders (not to mention even more heavily outnumbered) that's an understatement.
@@kettch777 Custer's men were armed with Springfield 45/70 single shot with Colt peacemaker 45 Long Colt. Native Americans were arm with Winchester 44/40, Colts, cap/ball rifles, and bow/arrows. This time Custer was out an arm and outnumber plus no place to run. Back in wagons left behind was Gatling gun.
The U.S. military didn't adopt a repeating rifle until the 1890's. The powers that be thought that repeating rifles would encourage soldiers/Marines to waste costly ammunition.
They didn't need horses. There were so many, even at a gallop the natives would have closed in on the soldiers. With it being about 25/1, even if the soldiers hit everyone they shot at they would have run out of ammo before the slaughter.! Makes for a good movie !!
yeah, just proves that to beat superior opponents with more advanced weaponry and technology you need overwhelming numbers...doesn't make them strong or badass..anyone can win 25 vs 1 (btw judging by how large the cirlce was, there were probably several thousands aboriginals, against just 37 british soldiers... so it's closer to 100/1) even 100 middle school kids could murder francis ngannou..doesn't make them strong.
@@bigbeck9651 and ? a cool show of defiance is one man standing up to many..many standing up to one doesn't really convey any badassery..they're just winning in numbers.
I don't think Quigley would have done that. He would have grabbed what he was owed and left the rest for the natives who had worked there and had pay coming. It was part of the "riding for the brand" ethics of the time.
@@julieenslow5915 The natives would have had little use for the gold - especially those who were strictly bush dwelling. Those that lived around the stations and white settlements could have used it. But may have drawn a suspicious eye from the white settlers.
@@anthonylegore1517 Good point. Well perhaps he took enough for Cora and himself to travel on. And if he were fast thinking, he could have taken the rest, sold it - and given the cash to the Natives. You are right they would have had little use for it. But the cash could have been socked away against future need. Hard to know - wish they had included that in the movie then we'd know!
All the movie critics. Remember John Wayne & clint Eastwood are just actors and their macho act is just part of a movie. Overall an enjoyable movie with just enough violence & bad guy getting but kicked to be a movie for guys. Me i am a sam Elliot fan..We were soldiers playing one of the real life tough guys, SGT.MAJOR PLUMLEY A MANS MAN!
Now, I was watching this scene earlier on my TV....there are 35 British soldiers, counting the Major and the Sergeant. What are the rifles the soldiers are carrying? Smith-Enfield carbines? That's the closest I can come up with, as subsequent rifles did not have the side-mounted hammer.
@@ianjsdad And yet I would have thought that these were not British Army troops, certainly not cavalry but rather what is more likely to be patrolling in the Aussie Outback which is locally recruited Mounted Police and certainly not in such a large force, there was no need and the logistics are terrible over the vast distances of barren country. A police detachment (with an Aboriginal tracker/guide ) of 4 to 6 men with a supply train of pack horses led by a sargeant is more probable, not wandering on patrol but sent on a specific mission. A British officer would not be out in the field like this hundreds of miles out in desert country but preferring more properly to be managing the onerous policing needs of the State or Territory from their central base, gaol and courthouse conveniently sited in a city on the coast and the niceties of civilised life. "Much too busy in the city dear chap to go off wandering the Outback in the dirt, dust, flies, obscene heat and no water! Dear God man, are you mad, the desert is no place for a gentleman of class! My job is here, protecting the ladies, taking instructions from the Governor and seeing to proper law and order!" The script writers were obviously influenced by the movies of the American West, US Army cavalry and pesky Injuns. Great movie though but this scene would not have happened
I don't think they had repeating rifles, probably the single-shot Martini-Henry and most likely they had less than 30 rounds each. The only ones with repeaters would be the officers who had six shooters (revolvers).
Some might say, well the aborigines only had clubs and spears, the queen's army( the joke) with their piddley numbers, did not carry enough ammo to put a dent in the number of aborigines. They would have got clubbed to death or run through with spears. Actually was a good call of the queen's army's leader. Maybe he heard the story of general george custer and the battle of little big horn. A good run beats a bad stand everyday.
I have not seen or even heard of this movie. However! The very suggestion that the Australian Aboriginals could have mustered such a force in these circumstances is ludicrous. And even if they had, European weaponry and discipline would probably have still carried the day.
The problem would not be on the farm, but on their return back to camp, which could have easily been over 100 miles away. The Aboriginals were way outside of rifle range so while they could have easily killed Quigley and held them at bay, what would happen when the sun set, no night vision so they would not see them coming. When outnumbered like that, in an unsecured location, you are in real trouble especially when there will be no help arriving, and making a run would not be optimal as they can hide behind rocks and bushes. Outside of the two officers, the troops have single-shot rifles and the officers have revolvers, probably six-shooters with limited range.
The days sure do pass quickly down under. This scene starts early evening with long shadows, then jumps to midday, changes from clear blue skies to overcast & ends as the sun is setting. Strange place Oz. 🤠
Never underestimate the Power of Darum Ulung! Its presence is always unseen until just before It charges down upon the scene. Then all will seem as an unbearable Dream.
Why do you think they were able to get there so quickly in the first place? They were already planning to do that, Quigley just beat them to the punch and they showed up just in time to save him.
