Wyatt Earp

If a year has two big Western movies that both have the same theme/main character(s) ... something probably didn't quite work out right. Because there is only so many people who will watch either of the movies. I did not remember how it went down with Wyatt Earp and Tombstone ... the latter apparently made some money at the box office, while Wyatt Earp tanked completely.

I remember Tombstone fondly, though even that probably was not as appreciated back when it came out as it may be now. I am a sucker for Western movies, I grew up with them. And they made a big chunk/part of my life. Together with Eastern movies and Sandal movies and so many other things that I would call entertainment.

Having said all that, Kevin Costner is a way bigger fan of the Western genre than I am. And he is phenomenal as Earp - add to that a great cast to support him ... and the movie is not anything I would dare calling bad. There are some odd choices in the narration and editing (I'm saying this without being totally aware of the myth/story overall) - and while I don't remember Tombstone as well as I should and Dennis Quaid gives a great performance here as well - Val Kilmer killed it in Tombstone (no pun intended).

If you consider watching only one of the two movies I'd say go with Tombstone. But if you are like me and you like Western movies ... well I suppose it won't hurt to watch both of them. Allegedly there is a longer cut than the one I watched (which already is over 3 hours long) ... and the same is true for Tombstone - I even have the Directors Cut on DVD ... a 4k is about to be released in late 2022, but apparently they don't plan to include the longer cut on it ... not sure why that is and very dissapointed by that decision.

Back to this though, you cannot be easily offended or faint hearted. The violence is quite grim and even the good guys have either a shady background or their choices and actions are ambigious to say the least. An interesting movie that may be a bit too long, but tense and good all the way through.

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.

I've done extensive reading and research on Wyatt Earp, Doc Holliday and this era. With that as a start, let me continue.

The roles of Wyatt, Virgil and Morgan Earp were well-cast and portrayed. The actors bore reasonable physical resemblance to the real men. Dennis Quaid as Doc Holliday was superb; I thought his portrayal was more accurate than that of Val Kilmer in "Tombstone", his personality and his appearance.... although with friends, Doc Holliday was a pretty affable gentleman.

The story was a nice story, although there were significant problems with some of the historical accuracy. First, Morgan and Virgil were NOT shot on the same night... actually 3 months apart. Things like that bother me when seeing a supposedly historically accurate film. But what I considered the weakest part of this movie (and "Tombstone" as well) was the very incomplete and weak buildup to the gunfight. There was so much more that happened, so much that affected the relationship between the good guys and the bad, so much missing that both films almost made the fight look like a spur of the moment battle... which is far from factual. What many people don't realize is that Bat Masterson spent time in Tombstone during this era, although not directly involved in the "action"; also, Luke Short was a major ally of Wyatt's throughout this time.

I very much liked that Wyatt's young life was shown... his time as town constable, his marriage to Urilla Sutherland, her death and his resulting devastation, his pony stealing in Arkansas... all things that most folks never realized.

I would very much liked to have seen more of Wyatt's revenge ride and subsequent deaths and scattering of the Clanton gang. Also, the absence of any sequence involving the robbery of the Benson stage and the killing of Bud Philpot and Peter Roehrig is regrettable, as this was a major factor leading to the battle. Also, as a result of the stage robbery, we should have seen a sequence regarding Wyatt's agreement with Ike about turning in the robbers. Finally, how Behan backed out on his deal with Wyatt regarding the sheriff's office... a major factor in the animosity between the two men.

Yes... there are many other missing historical incidents that would have made the film more accurate and real.

Anyone who has an interest in this era should see the film. If you're not a stickler like I am for total historical accuracy, you should enjoy the film.

Goodish, but not great. Excessively long, at over three hours. Lacks focus, dwelling too much on minor details and irrelevant sub- plots. It could easily have been cut down to two hours, and been tighter, punchier and just as character-centric.

I am not a fan of Kevin Costner, and this movie didn't help that impression. He doesn't do Wyatt Earp much justice - trying to act the hero by being cool and calm, but just coming across as solemn, aloof and boring.

This said, the cinematography and scenery are great. Dennis Quaid's portrayal of Doc Holliday is something to behold.

The remainder of the cast is pretty amazing for the names involved, some of which weren't stars yet and/or had very minor roles - Gene Hackman, Mark Harmon, Bill Pullman, Michael Madsen, Jeff Fahey, Isabella Rossellini, Tom Sizemore, Mare Winningham, Tea Leoni.

So much potential wasted.

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.