Wyatt Earp

in some people's criticisms of the flick I usually see "he was dull" or "he didn't give the character life," and I have to disagree. In actuality he gave the best rendition of the real Wyatt Earp and his life. The movie is a biopic, and for historians like myself it served its purpose, in showing the life and true personality of a figure Hollywood overglamourized. Wyatt Earp was not the type to dance in the snow and was indeed a cold hearted SOB. I prefer this to Tombstone and no doubt Costner was better than Russell. And actually Quaid was the better Doc. I wouldn't say it was a classic movie and spaghetti western versions of the story might be more "entertaining," however the darkness of Costner's movie is chilling and is the version that gets more replay value from me.

Wyatt grows up a young man who loves the law. When his wife dies early in their marriage he goes off the rails and becomes a drunk and a thief. When he is offered a chance at redemption he takes it and becomes a deputy. His legend spreads and he is offered the chance to be the deputy for Dodge City. He has great success but is removed from the job for being too brutal. When his replacement is killed as the law falls away in Dodge, Wyatt returns before moving on to Tombstone but finds his initial run-in with the Clantonhas left harbouring resentments.

When I saw this in the cinema, it was hassled by the fact that another, more multiplex-friendly version of the story had just been released shortly before. Viewed separately years later it fares better without the comparison to Tombstone, which is, in fairness, more of a fun bang-bang affair, although now it struggles because Costner's reputation is not even at the level it was when this film was released. The plot is good and is supposedly a true telling of the legend, although the film is careful to pepper the running time with hints that stories get changed with the telling.

The very honest and respectful telling of the story means that it gets told in a very deliberate and careful manner. This means on one hand that we get a good picture over Wyatt's life as opposed to the events in Tombstone, however it also means that the film itself is a little dull and overlong. It is overly deliberate and doesn't flow as well as it should - flowing more like syrup than water at times. Where some three-hour running times fly by, here it does feel like at least three hours - not always a good thing! The filling out of the characters doesn't always work either - I knew more about Wyatt but I didn't understand his character much more, also I was surprised that I was none the wiser about why he and Doc became friends considering how long was spent with them. A big failing of the film is that it assumes the status of an epic rather than earning the status. What I mean by this is that it tries too hard to be an epic - with constant sweeping music where it didn't need it. I still thing the film has an epic sweep to it, but it didn't need the cinematic tricks to achieve it; in fact, it could have down played it and let the sweep of the film do it for itself.

The cast is pretty good and also pretty deep. Costner may not be seen as a star anymore but that doesn't mean he can't act and can't hold the attention. He is a reasonable Wyatt but he suffers from being too deliberate and too shut off at times. I understand he needed to do it for the character but it contributes to the film feeling slow. The other brothers are played well by Madsen, Ashby and Andrews. Maybe it is because of Costner's drab Wyatt, but Quaid really lightens things up as Doc Holliday. His colourful character stands out easily against the old west types. The support cast is deep and includes faces such as Hackman, Fahey, Harmon, Pullman, Sizemore, Rossellini, Williams and O'Hara.

Overall this is a film that requires patience - if you prefer your films to contain action more than story then Tombstone may be more for you - but, for all it's failings, this is still a solid western and a good telling of the legend with more emphasis on background than action and fluidity.

As epics go, this film ranks high on my list. I attribute this mainly to the screenplay, which is compelling, visual, and rich. The film follows the life of Wyatt Earp, from his boyhood, through the fight at the O.K. Corrall, and beyond.

Unlike other adaptations of the same subject (namely, Kurt Russell's Earp in 'Tombstone'), this film deals with the famous gunfight as merely a step in Earp's life. Rather, the film focuses on the man behind the legend. To do this, it looks at Earp's life in two stages: his life before, and after, a major transition.

Contrary to what some may think, Kevin Costner does a very good job portraying the lawman. His character experiences a wealth of emotion, but the script is so well written that Costner does not need to stretch himself to portray Earp effectively.

The film comes together so well because of an excellent musical score, visually stunning cinematography, and strong acting by the supporting characters. It draws the viewer in, so much so that you do not feel you are watching a film, but are experiencing a moment in history. The direction by Kasdan is quite low-key, allowing the viewer to be drawn into the story, rather than simply showing it to us.

I recommend this film to anyone who enjoys epic stories, wonderful acting (particularly Dennis Quaid, although Tom Sizemore and Michael Madsen are excellent as well), and visually compelling shots. Do not let the length dissuade you: Kasdan's film is well worth the three hours.

The timing of this version of the venerable saga was highly disadvantageous, its release being so very close to "the other Wyatt Earp," Tombstone. That said, it's a completely different movie. While "Tombstone" relied on more dramatic license and cinematic bombast, this one was far more historically accurate, right down to the decidedly period dialog. However, it was far too long for most viewers, with a pace that left much to be desired, suffering more from its extended length than any other issue with the film itself. The acting was good, with Costner his typically unemotional self. However, his supporting cast was especially good, particularly in the case of the Earp Women. Dennis Quaid was excellent, in a stunning transformation over his usual roles. Once again, his version will be certainly be compared to the superb Val Kilmer, but once again, in terms of history, one would have to describe it as more accurate. Again, a drastic editing would have made this a far better overall film experience.

Both of these movies are about the same time, came out the same time, are about the same guys. And I enjoyed both of them. But Wyatt Erp can be tough to sit through. It's an Epic length film and it's paced that way. Both Costner and Russell play Wyatt as the Pistol Whippin' Sonovabitch that he was. But it's hard to accept Kurt mustache even though its real. And as good as Quade's Doc is Kilmer's is that much better. So it kind of balances out. So if you need epic length, my advice it take the beginning of Wyatt Earp, up until they head out West, and tack it on the front of Tombstone. Best of both worlds! It may be tough to see Costner turn into Russell, but you can put Earp's getting shorter and meaner down to getting older. And you'll get to see Quade turn into Kilmer! You can just put his getting skinnier and crazier down to the booze and the tuberculosis.