Wyatt Earp's Revenge

Apologies to Deadwood for any comparison. If you're just going to wave a western in front of a camera, a viewer has to ask the valid question - what's the point? Apparently all involved with this enterprise thought that superficial pretense could carry the day and ridin' around 'n ominous music would convey all ya need to know about some sort of story. The casting was positively ludicrous. Every one of the twenties something pampered southern Cal principles here looked fresh out of a shower and the makeup trailer, and I'm telling you, dentistry in the late 1800s must have been pretty cutting edge with all those pearly whites on display. A very lame and uninteresting production that wasn't even worthy of having Val Kilmer snoringly narrate the tale with innumerable pregnant pauses, but maybe having Timothy Olyphant and John Hawkes lookalikes was supposed to make up for all it's low budget deficiencies. A real poser. Bleh.

For very good reason, copies of this on DVD are selling for around A$2 on eBay. The parts of Val Kilmer retelling the story weren't too bad - it was the parts that showed the story that were just awful. It didn't flow at all and jumped around too much to be able to relate to any of it.

There's no other way to describe the acting than shocking. I've seen better acting at school plays than was on show here. I'd love to know how much these people were being paid for their roles. If it's anything significant then I'm downing tools and becoming an actor because while I may not be better than this lot (Kilmer excluded), I couldn't be worse.

The actual premise of the story in itself isn't a bad one and having done some research on it is quite an interesting tale. The way it's portrayed in Wyatt Earp's Revenge is just terrible. I wouldn't have been surprised if Rob Schneider popped in for a cameo it was that cringe worthy.

Kilmer was good, the rest not even worth bothering with.

When someone says "straight to DVD" that invokes a certain "image" about a film, and this movie embodies it perfectly. Small budget, virtually unknown cast, simple story... pretty much everything you'd expect. But that's not to say it doesn't have good points too: Val Kilmer as an elder Wyatt Earp does a fine job and has several genuinely touching moments. Wilson Bethel steals his scenes as Doc Holliday, taking a hilarious and memorable turn as the character Kilmer himself made famous. (And Kilmer as Doc fans will appreciate that Bethel seems to be playing from the former's play-book - down to using Kilmer's more memorable lines.) There are some truly lovely vista shots (as one would expect from any western worth it's salt) and a few honestly funny comedic moments.

Down the downside, I do wish Trace Adkins had gotten more scene time and the script could have definitely done with a bit of a cliché overhaul.

Overall, I'd say it does a fine job at being exactly what it is - a straight to DVD Western; nothing more and nothing less.

The basic motif to see it is Val Kilmer. In fact, he is the only one. Yes, the story is a too simple sketch and the portrait of events is far to be inspired . All remains conventional, in service, not in brilliant manner, of easy cliches and the film gives not something real useful as memory. So, a film about Wyatt Earp. Posible, not the worst one.

I first learned of this movie when finding a DVD copy of it in my local Wal-Mart's $5 DVD bin. Now, I love westerns, and I was tempted to buy it since it was a western and cheap. But then I remembered that Val Kilmer in recent years has said yes to numerous junky projects. So I ultimately decided not to buy it. But today I watched it after it appeared on a movie TV channel, and boy, am I glad I didn't buy it all those months ago. To begin with, the movie is a cheat. Though Val Kilmer's name is trumpeted, in fact he only has about seven to ten minutes of footage in the entire movie. Which is just as well, because the combination of his uninspired acting plus his strangely puffy face doesn't exactly make him interesting to observe. Actually, the rest of the cast is pretty awful as well. They give "modern" performances despite the bulk of the movie taking place in the 1800s, and none of their characters come across in a compelling way. The surroundings are shabby as well - there's not that much action, with the movie mostly being conversations, none of which sounds very interesting. And the movie looks real cheap, from the unconvincing sets to unspectacular countryside. Whether you are a Kilmer fan and/or a western fan, more likely than not you'll find this movie to be really poor and not worth any attention.