Wyatt Earp's Revenge

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.

Wow. This movie was a turkey. I've been collecting every film ever done on Wyatt Earp, and each one in its on way has a greatness to it. Until now.

Truthfully, I only bought 'Revenge' to complete the collection. Why? This video has turkey sign all over it:

1) It was made after 'Wyatt Earp' and 'Tombstone'. Those movies set the bar so high one would have to wonder why anyone would bother remaking the Earp story for quite a long time.

2) It has Val Kilmer playing Wyatt Earp. 'nuff said.

3) The title alone casts suspicion.

Once into the movie you notice all the things the other reviewers have commented on. Nice looking costumes... but they look like they just came off the rack. The titles stated the movie was based on a real event. Key word there is "based on", if even that much is true. I also didn't like the way they handled the rape of the prairie wife. The whole scene with that family was stretched to the point that the story turned into a (bad) horror flick. But maybe I'm just a sissy.

What to watch instead of this gobbler? ANY other Wyatt Earp film. Even the 1983 made-for-TV Earp flick with Marie Osmond, 'I Married Wyatt Earp', is better than this. Far better. Far far better.

As I write this review a new Earp film is in production starring Harrison Ford as Wyatt. Hmmm. Gotta go. I think I have a turkey in the oven to check on.

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.

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.

So the tale of Wyatt Earp gets a 21st century makeover. Perhaps best described as Wyatt Earp: The Early Years, this movie details an adventure in the life of the young (late 20-something) Wyatt, and is narrated by an older Wyatt (Val Kilmer - who did a fine job of playing Wyatt's sidekick Doc Holliday in Tombestone waaay back in 1993) Featuring a cast of young guns including Shawn Roberts as Wyatt and Matt Dallas as Bat Masterson the film is good clean fun set against the backdrop of the violent west. Playing out like a modern version of the B-western oaters that used to be a cinema staple, it'll be a hard hearted viewer indeed that can't find something positive to say about this flick. True, it looks low budget and appears to have come from a different era of comic books and B-movies, but that's part of the joy. Everyone involved seems to be having a blast from country star Trace Adkins to dastardly bad guy Daniel Booko as Adkins wayward son. Other noteworthy performances include David O'Donnell, Levi Fiehler and a brief but memorable performance from Brian Groh as Confederate Jones, which leaves you longing for the bit part character to get his own movie. While not in the same league as My Darling Clementine, Gunfight at the OK Coral or even 1990s efforts Tombestone and the Wyatt Earp, the yarn is sufficiently entertaining to make you glad they bothered to make it. One is just left longing for some appearances by old time western stars such as Harry Dean Stanton and LQ Jones in these modern day oaters.