Wyatt Earp

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.

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.

I have just watched back to back these two movies and ranked both an 8. Kevin Costner, Dennis Quaid, Gene Hackman Etal made me feel that their movie was closer to history and also brought pride in their perceived honor. The chronicle from childhood to the 20th Century felt complete. BUT Then came Kurt Russell, Val Kilmer, Sam Elliott and Powers Boothe (Deadwood 93) etal and left me entertained to the ninth degree. The sheer pace of this one leaves you breathless.

These movies should be seen back to back and not compared as they tell two different stories occurring at the same time and place. Costner as Wyatt was more believable But Russell's Earp was more fun. Quaid was Doc Holiday but Kilmer had a holiday with the role. I will concede that Sam Elliott made Virgil his and nobody is going to take it away. Rent or buy both movies as it a worthwhile investment of your time.

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.

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.