25
Another failed attempt to make Tom Selleck a movie star, this is a handsomely mounted but vapid western that lumbers across the screen for two hours, providing little entertainment.
What are people saying?
What are critics saying?
60
What's missing in Quigley Down Under is precisely what is missing in its star. Selleck is a skilled light comedian -- he's at his best delivering a wry put-down to a British officer -- and he handles John Hill's bantering dialogue deftly. But for all his burly authority, Selleck lacks dynamism on screen. There's no danger in him, nothing unresolved or mysterious. He's likable, but something of a lug.
60
The New York Times by Janet Maslin
The director, Simon Wincer, makes Quigley Down Under an unapologetic homage to the formula western at its most pokey, complete with Wagon Train-style score. All things considered, this could be a lot worse.
16
Entertainment Weekly by Owen Gleiberman
Vapid, cutesy, knockabout Western.
60
Los Angeles Times by Peter Rainer
A film with an intriguing premise and likable performances but not much excitement. [13 Oct 1990, p.F13]
63
Chicago Sun-Times by Roger Ebert
Quigley Down Under is a handsome film, well-acted, and it's a shame the filmmakers didn't spend a little more energy on making it smarter and more original.