Wyatt Earp (1994) Poster

(1994)

User Reviews

Review this title
208 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
8/10
Wyatt Earp Vs Tombstone - An unfair comparison
RAY-13024 September 2006
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.
87 out of 95 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
The other Tombstone
kosmasp12 March 2022
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.
17 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Kasdan's epic Western proved absorbing
Nazi_Fighter_David21 April 2006
Warning: Spoilers
"Law and Order" (1932), a film starring Walter Huston and Harry Carey, had blazed the Earp screen trail with a brave version of the 0. K. Corral happenings, although the true-life characters were never named… "Frontier Marshal" (1939) starring Randolph Scott and "Wichita" (1955) with Joel McCrea also told the story…

To most modern cinema-goers, however, the Corral incident and the confused events and motivations which led to it have been best served by four films, John Ford's "My Darling Clementine" (1946), John Sturges' "Gunfight at the O.K. Corral," (1957), Sturges' "Hour of the Gun" (1967), and George P. Cosmatos' "Tombstone" (1993). But the question has yet to be solved: should the American West be depicted on the screen as it actually was, or should it continue to be a form of mythology?

Hollywood's version of history is considerably at variance with the facts, and life on the frontier in the 19th century would appear to have been more dull and monotonous than exciting and colorful… Certainly, life in Tombstone, Arizona, in its time of greatest prosperity as a mining town must have been anything but healthy, with its vast number of rough working men relieving their boredom with drinking and brawling, and occasionally shooting each other…

In Kasdan's epic Western, Earp is the upright defender of the law, and Doc, a dissolute gambler… Nevertheless, the men are compassionate and respectful, and both have a kind of dignity… Holliday is much more credible as the black sheep of an aristocratic Virginia family and a jaded idealist… Dennis Quaid allowed himself to lose 30 pounds of his weight only to accurately portray the gun-notorious Doc Holliday, now, alas devoted to the bottle and in the latter stages of tuberculosis…

In this instance we have Quaid breathing fire and fury at the slightest hint of an insult before breathing more heavily into his handkerchief… He's a multi-dimensional human being who provides most of the film's best moments… His character has his own form of ability… Quaid does a far better work of portraying the effects of Holliday's tuberculosis… Kilmer, in "Tombstone," never seems to have anything worse than a bad flu, except when it's dramatically necessary for him to look bad in greater degree…

Earp (Kevin Costner) finds Doc sincere but nevertheless strikes up an understanding which one feels will blossom into grudging joint gun-action should the need arise… The need is obviously there in villainous Clantons and McLaurys… The path is well and truly pointed to that rendezvous at the Corral…

Kasdan's motion picture covers areas of Earp's life that George P. Cosmatos' film "Tombstone" does not even touch… While "Tombstone" was an action picture, centering on the events leading up to and including the famous gunfight, Lawrence Kasdan's "Wyatt Earp" focused on the man himself and his life from childhood to the confrontation and beyond…The film starts with the teenage Earp and progresses through old age…

The action in Kasdan's film is firm and fresh, nicely photographed and the story well told… But we always remember Ford's "My Darling Clementine" for its other qualities—for the unhurried lulls and the 'time off' taken on the way… This is Ford indulging himself, as was his habit, but on this occasion the indulgences all come off and are imparted with magic…

"My Daring Clementine" was a film of touches—Fonda, seated, adjusting his boots and his balance while the world, such as it is, goes by; Fonda, the peacemaker, right-and-properly in church; Fonda, with an old-world frontier concept of courtesy leading his lady in the out of doors dance…

Earp in Kasdan's biopic is an ordinary man who met and married a beautiful young woman who died of typhoid a short time after the marriage… Profoundly bitter about her death, he goes from a drunken fellow to horse thief to buffalo hunter to stagecoach driver to Dodge City, Kansas where he became one of the most famous "Westerners" of all time...
42 out of 52 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Overly long and deliberate but a fine story
bob the moo21 December 2003
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.
66 out of 75 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A near miss
gws-212 September 2005
"Wyat Earp" had the misfortune to be released not long after the classic "Tombstone," which told the same story. Nevertheless, "Wyat Earp" is a laudable effort and well worth the time to sit through its three hours and fifteen minutes running time.

The performances were uniformly good, with a skeletal Dennis Quade particularly fine as the doomed Doc Holliday. In fact, I thought that Quade's funny and moving performance as Doc Holliday was in the same class as Val Kilmer's portrayal of the same character in "Tombstone." The women playing the Earp wives, Catherine O'Hara, JoBeth Williams, Mare Winningham, and Betty Buckley, were also very effective. The beautiful Joanna Going was a pleasure to watch as Josie Marcus, the woman who Wyat Earp spent the last 47 years of his life with. Unfortunately, her acting skills did not match her beauty.

The thing that makes the film rise above the mediocre to me is its stunning visual and aural beauty. Its 5.1 Dolby Digital soundtrack is world class, and its outdoor photography is evocative.

Recommended, 7 out of 10.
47 out of 69 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Goodish, but not great, and much potential wasted
grantss8 March 2015
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.
10 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Long let his legend be told. Worthwhile western epic.
michaelRokeefe5 March 2001
Director Lawrence Kasdan gives us three hours of wild west adventure, rugged romance and plenty of gunfire. An almost excellent script from Kasden and Dan Gordon that is put to the test by a talented ensemble cast. The life and legend of Earp and his family proves very interesting, although taking a back seat to the film TOMBSTONE.

Kevin Coster does a good job as the famed lawman, but seems a little less powerful compared to the image of Earp in our minds. Dennis Quaid gives us a different slant on Doc Holiday. One of his better roles. Other fine performances are logged in by Mark Harmon, Catherine O'Hara, Gene Hackman, Bill Pullman, Michael Madsen, Tom Sizemore, Tea Leoni, Martin Kove and Joanna Going.

Maybe a half hour too long, but this movie is more than your average western. Relax and enjoy a very good version of the life of Wyatt Earp.
23 out of 35 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Accurate
legacy-615 November 1999
Probably one of the more accurate filmatisations of Wyatt Earp. And Dennis Quaid is without a doubt the best Doc Holliday to this day. I really like that they at no point try to idealize the life in the west at this period. There were no real heroes. Only people who tried to live their lives or to make something out of their lives. Wyatt Earp is portrayd as an at sometimes ruthless character, yet someone who cares for his close family and friends. One of Kevin Costners better movies and worth watching at least once. If you choose not to it's really your loss.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
A very misunderstood and under-appreciated film
more_tones2 July 2004
"Nothing counts more than blood... the rest are just strangers," speaks Wyatt's father at the beginning of the film--the most important line perhaps in the movie, with the exception of Wyatt's own at the end "Some say it didn't happen that way," commenting upon a flashback recounting his brand of law and justice in the wild cattle town of Dodge City.

I wholeheartedly admit the film is long--but so are many other great films. I also admit that it is not the shoot 'em up Tombstone is, but this film is a far greater one, a character study of a man whose innocence is laid to rest by the harsh wilderness of both the American West and human nature. By the end of this movie, Wyatt is a used up and bitter man, and I would argue that this film was never meant to be a heroic portrayal of an individual, only a dark and complicated one. It reminds me thus of the greatest of character portrayals, Raging Bull--though I'm sure the parallel isn't obvious.

I probably am more forgiving of this film since I like Westerns, dark dramatic stories, and admittedly uneven plots, because the characters usually are so great in them. This one is no different, and was likely made for a viewer like me, and not the mainstream audience.

It's very ambitious, and successful, I believe, on its artistic merits. Whether it's "entertainment" for the masses, well that's another story altogether, and that story's name is probably "Tombstone."
121 out of 170 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Rich in detail
flakcfan19 April 2002
I've seen pictures of the real Wyatt Earp, and Kevin Costner nailed this part. This movie is rich in detail, and likely the most accurate of all the movies about the famous lawman to date. Dennis Quaid should have received an Oscar nomination for his portrayal of Doc Holliday.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
It's all about Kevin
angelsunchained26 August 2018
Fair film with Mister Cosner's ego basically bogging the movie down with dullness. Cosner is not the greatest actor in history, but he is likable enough to enjoy his movies. Here he is just plain stiff, wooden, emotionaless and boring. It is all about Kevin and his ego. He is in virtually in every scene and he is doing nothing at all. There is absolutely no chemistry between him and his leading ladies. Anyhow, if you like Kevin in the morning and Kevin in the evening and Kevin at suppertime, then you will like this film. If not, forget about it and watch Kurt Russell in Tombstone.
23 out of 30 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
I'll Take This Version Over The Rest
ccthemovieman-125 October 2005
This is one of the best, and underrated, westerns ever made. It was a very intense, interesting character study of a famous lawman, showing flaws and all. In fact, this is the only version, I believe, that really shows the sadistic side of Wyatt Earp, and what made him a bitter man. To be fair, it also shows his good traits.

It also has a terrific, deep cast and features a good mix of drama, romance and action. Even the music grows on you after several viewings. There is no humor in here: this is a serious story. Unlike the more popular "Tombstone," this Earp story has a lot less profanity and almost no usage of the Lord's name in vain....but there is rough language and some crude sexual remarks, so don't watch it with the kiddies.

At rate, the movie is a lot better than the critics would have you believe. (All nationally-known critics but one panned this, as far as I know.)

Kevin Costner performed one of his better acting jobs. It was nice to see Michael Madsen and Tom Sizemore as good guys. That's not seen in too many films! They were low-key characters, too. Dennis Quaid did a nice job as the fascinating "Doc Holliday." It's generally conceded that Val Kilmer's "Doc" in "Tombstone" was the best-ever, but Quaid version is just fine, thank you, and gets better and better with each viewing.

This is a long movie, but it's never dull and it never overdoes the action, either. The cast is deep so you see a lot of familiar actors. As mentioned, this film is extremely underrated. I know most people prefer "Tombstone" but I'll take this version of the Earp saga any time!
83 out of 123 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
One of the Better Modern Westerns.
JamesHitchcock8 December 2005
Warning: Spoilers
The great critical and commercial success of "Dances with Wolves" and "Unforgiven" in the early nineties led many, myself included, to hope that a great revival of the cinematic Western might be on the way. Although those hopes have largely been disappointed, the genre is in better health now than it was in the eighties and there have been a number of good examples. "Wyatt Earp" is one of them.

Earp has been the hero of several Westerns, and those that I have seen (I have not seen either John Sturges's "Hour of the Gun" or the more recent "Tombstone") have concentrated either on events in Tombstone ("My Darling Clementine", "Gunfight at the OK Corral") or on those in Dodge City ("Dodge City" itself, which offered a fictionalised version of the Earp story). "Wyatt Earp", however, is an attempt at a filmed biography which gives us its hero's entire life story, starting with his boyhood in Illinois. Most of the first hour or so is taken up with Earp's life before he became a lawman; the famous gunfight, about two-thirds of the way through the film's three hours, only takes up about a couple of minutes of the action.

The advantage of showing us the hero's early life is that this allows us to understand many of the facets of his character. Perhaps the most important incident in the film is the tragically early death of his young first wife Urilla; Earp's grief at her death turns him from a quiet, studious young man with an ambition to become a lawyer into a lawless desperado. Facing a death-sentence in Arkansas for horse-stealing (evidently still a capital crime in America in the 1870s, long after it had ceased to be one in Britain), Earp is rescued by his father's intervention and flees to the West as a fugitive from justice. His later career as a lawman is interpreted as an effort to make amends for this youthful foray into lawlessness. Another aspect of his character brought out in these early scenes is the importance to him of family ties. He and his brothers Morgan and Virgil later make a formidable team, with stronger emotional ties to one another than to the women in their lives.

In an earlier age, Earp would probably have been portrayed as a clean-cut hero, the brave man in the white hat cleaning up the wild frontier, but in the revisionist nineties such an approach seemed too simplistic and the film offers us something closer to a "warts and all" portrayal. Apart from the horse-stealing incident, Earp is sacked from his job as Sheriff of Dodge City because his methods of law enforcement seem excessively harsh even by Wild West standards, and much of the film is taken up with details of his loveless sexual relationship with the prostitute Mattie Blaylock. There is, however, a limit to the film's revisionism. As with many biopics, the film-makers have selected episodes from their subject's life in order to form a coherent narrative to illustrate a particular viewpoint. In this case the narrative seems to be that of a wild young man who matures into a legendary hero of the West, and any historical details which do not fit in are ignored. For example, the film does not explore the suggestion made by some historians that the Gunfight had less to do with law enforcement than with a feud between the Earp family and their Clanton rivals over control of Tombstone's businesses. On the other hand, the film is sometimes harder on Earp than the historical record might warrant. In reality, there is considerable doubt about whether he was actually guilty of horse-stealing; in the film his guilt is quite apparent.

"Wyatt Earp"'s main weakness is its great length. It is clearly aiming to repeat the success of Kevin Costner's other epic Western of the nineties, "Dances with Wolves", but does not have that film's staying power, and at times can seem too slow-moving. Costner's acting is not quite as compelling as in the earlier film, but he is still very watchable, and this is one of his better films, much better than, say, "The Bodyguard" or the embarrassingly bad "Waterworld". There is a good cameo from Gene Hackman as Earp's father, but the best contribution is probably from Dennis Quaid as the tubercular Doc Holliday, spitting out defiance of the world in his Southern drawl in between his bouts of coughing.

Despite its occasional longueurs, in its latter stages (which deal with the post-Gunfight spiral of revenge between the Earp and Clanton gangs, with Wyatt's happy second marriage to the beautiful Josie and with his final promotion to legendary status) the film achieves a similar epic grandeur to that of "Dances with Wolves", aided by those familiar features of the large-scale Western, sweeping photography of the scenery and a stirring musical score. One of the better modern Westerns. 7/10
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Tedious
MikeyB179317 April 2009
There are a number of 3 hour movies that are great – Gandhi, Schindler's List, Dances With Wolves come to mind. This is definitely not one of them. There are so many shoot-outs, so many relationships between an assortment of gun-fighters and their women friends (usually referred to by well known descriptive words) that after about an hour we lose track and could care less.

By the time the second DVD disc was in, my spouse was ordering me to hit fast-forward and I readily concurred. Unless you are a die-hard Western fan stay away. Even as a biography it's rather poor and much too long for this topic.
27 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Very enjoyable film
DocHollidayIV4 June 2004
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.
148 out of 181 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
fascinating
disdressed1220 April 2008
this movie is quite a bit different than 1993's Tombstone.obviously it focuses on Wyatt Earp,more than anything.this movie paints quite a different picture of Earp than Tombstone does.it depicts him in a much different light.Kevin Costner's portrayal of Earp is much different than Kurt Russel's in Tombstone.i think i liked Russel's portrayal a bit more.Dennis Quaid portrays Doc Holliday,and his portrayal is much different than Val Kilmer's in Tombstone.i actually liked Val Kilmer's performance better,and i liked his character more.Quaid does a good job though.the supporting cast is also very good.another big difference between this movie and Tombstone,is that this movie is very deliberately paced,and more in depth.the story is much deeper.there is not that much action,and some may be turned of by the length of the movie at over 3hrs.but if you can view it as character study,you might enjoy it.one thing i really liked rising the musical score.i found it very rousing and poetic.for me,Wyatt Earp is a 7/10
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
You should better watch Tombstone
pandoras8 October 2022
There is a peculiar thing with "Wyatt Earp". It is not that bad a movie, but certainly looses compared to the very similar "Tombstone" released just a year prior.

Aside from Kevin Costner's association with both movies, one cannot help but make a real comparison to what each movie tells. For me, "Tombstone" is an enjoyable movie with remarkable acting and sets, while "Wyatt Earp" is an overly long epic that tries to say a lot and manages little in the end.

It is a great same that all this gathered star power is left unexploited, that we the movie goes on and on, probably unnecessarily and that in the end, it is unfavorably compared.

"Wyatt Earp" is more than a mediocre movie, all the elements are there, it just doesn't set off to capture its audience. The fact that "Tombstone" is so great (to my opinion) makes it seem too little.

And to answer the age long question of who portrayed the betted Doc Holiday, Val Kilmer of Dennis Quaid, I will side with Kilmer's portrayal as more enjoyable to watch, for me an Oscar worthy performance (as a second role). Still, Quaid is probably more realistic and down to earth as a dying man trying to make a living in the Wild West.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Long, rambling, and way too long
SnoopyStyle12 July 2014
Nicholas Earp (Gene Hackman) is the patriarch of the family. To him, only blood matters and everybody else is just a stranger. The family including Wyatt Earp (Kevin Costner) goes out west after the end of the civil war. Years later, he goes back to Missouri and marries Urilla Sutherland (Annabeth Gish). When she dies, he is depressed and aimlessly roams the country. Eventually it culminates into the legendary gunfight at the OK Corral with Doc Holliday (Dennis Quaid).

Kevin Costner is fine as a younger Wyatt still searching for a direction. He's not so great as the drunken mess. Later he's OK as the lawman. He has the righteousness but not necessarily the gravitas. It's asking a lot to play this wide range for anybody.

The biggest problem is the general long winding life story. This is long, epic, and very long. It's like a biopic from a historian. It is too rambling and unfocused. Director Lawrence Kasdan does a good job filming the movie but this long biopic will always have problems. It's too rambling to create much tension or pick up any pacing. It's just overly ambitious.
6 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Meandering Movie with Multiple Endings
LeonLouisRicci15 March 2016
Kevin Costner can Pass as a Movie Star, once in awhile, but Simply does not have the Depth as an Actor to Pull Off this Heavy Study of the Western Icon. Especially when the Script takes Over Three Hours to put On Screen, the Length and Microscopic Details that Focus on the Life of Wyatt Earp ends up Revealing itself as another Kevin Costner Vanity Project.

He is a Much Better Fit in "Open Range" (2003) having Grown Out of His Self Aggrandizement and His Film Projects in the Later Years show a Humble Restraint. Lessons Learned.

Mediocre and Inconsistent Director Lawrence Kasdan must take Equal Blame for this Elongated, Episodic Epic. It's Not a Bad Film, but Only Slightly Above Average. Because the Better Parts (the Cinematography, and some good B Actors) are Intruded Upon by way too Many side Stories and a Bloated, Wordy Script that Keeps making the same Points, Over and Over.

Overall, it's an Obese Film that seems to Never get any Momentum and even when it Manages some Motion, it is Reined In and Slowed Down by rather Boring and Unwelcome Scenes. The Movie Ends a Number of Times and the Train Sequence in one of the Endings is so Mishandled and Unremarkable as to be Anti-Climactic and Nearly Incomprehensible.

Worth a Watch for Die-Hard Western Fans, but Others are Not Likely to be Impressed and may have Trouble making it to One of the Endings.
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Reassessing an underrated masterpiece.
Rocking DH19 February 2004
I have to thank Kevin Costner for taking me West. "Wyatt Earp" led me to pick up a copy of the early Earp bio by Stuart Lake while working in Canada, and I was surprised to find photos of the actual historical people tipped inside. The resemblance of the actors to those they portrayed impressed me.

I continued to research. I went to Tombstone and stayed at a nearby ranch. The town itself declined Costner's office to rebuild it with accuracy, preferring the leave things as they are (very touristy). The gunfight was actually held in the street, etc. My research matched at least striking physical/type casting for 17 characters, from major characters (the Earps and their wives/women) to the Cowboys, Beehan, Doc Holiday, his Kate, and Bat Masterson. Linden Ashby is the most striking doppelganger; indeed, he seems to be a physical reincarnation of Morgan Earp. Dennis Quaid lost some 40 pounds or so for the role of Doc Holiday and his resemblance to the TB-plagued gambler from Valdosta, Georgia is eerie as well.

Costner caught a lot of flack for this film; in fact, few critics noted the historical sense that he achieved. Granted, some cuts are made in time frame/continuity to speed plot along (i.e. timing of attacks on Morgan and Virgil), and the film is lengthy. I learned that the Cowboy/Earp feud was not mere ill-will, but that the strife represented political differences and clashing economic interests, as well as the "theft" of a lover. The old diaries and biographies are fascinating! I learned that Morgan Earp told Allie Earp something like, "I want to leave Tombstone and never come back" moments before he was shot to death.

Of note, Johnny Beehan's partner in the Dexter Corral in Tombstone was a man named "John Dunbar". This was Costner's character's name in "Dances with Wolves". Go figure. Read more about it! Granted Lake embellished Earp's image, but the place, the times and the issues are fascinating.
50 out of 72 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Wyatt Earp - Quiet Burp
drdos4319 March 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I just viewed this movie on the History Channel and the commercials were somewhat better than the movie. I couldn't wait for the breaks, but I kept on watching it anyway. That should tell you something. Perhaps I am a glutton for punishment.

You cannot rate this film as great, but it is rather interesting and intriguing. Rather than calling it an historical adult western, I would attach to it the description of dark, drawn-out,"Dancing with Wolves" type of Western. I will not say, as others have, that the film is boring. It can only be boring if you haven't had enough sleep. The film has much going for it, i.e., good acting (esp. Dennis Quaid as Doc Holiday), action, excellent photography, and philosophical dialog...probably too much of the latter.

The one memorable moment, that I can recall, is when young Wyatt (with his companion riding "shotgun", is driving a wagon at break-neck speed, trying to outrun a band of outlaws. As in real life, it is almost impossible to shoot a man off a galloping horse from a moving wagon, unless you happen to be an Annie Oakley. Wyatt, shouts to his companion something to the effect, "For crying out loud, shoot the lead horse. You can shoot a horse, can't you!" He does shoot the horse, and the chase abruptly ends. Think of all those old movies where the wagon or stage coach goes over the cliff when all you had to do was shoot the outlaws' horses...easy targets.

At any rate, all that was going through my mind during this entire movie was the the theme song from the 1950's Wyatt Earp TV series starring Hugh Obrien:

Wyatt Earp, Wyatt Earp,

Brave courageous and bold...

Long live his name and long live his glory

And long may his story be told.

Marvin Cohn
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
A potentially good film, mishandled by the director
tomgillespie200221 March 2011
Being one of the most popular figures of the mystical Old West, Wyatt Earp has been dramatised a countless number of times on the big screen and on television. His notoriety as a no-nonsense lawman, his friendship with the drunken and dying Doc Holliday, and his participation in the legendary gunfight at the O.K. Corrall, has made him the stuff of legend. Of all the portraits, this 1994 epic, directed by Lawrence Kasdan is possibly the most accurate and detailed, following Earp's childhood amongst his many siblings, through to his old age heading to strike lucky during the Gold Rush. It's just a pity that for all it's trying and accuracy, the film isn't at all very good.

The film begins on the Earp farm where the young Wyatt is taught the words of wisdom by his father Nicholas (Gene Hackman) - 'blood is thicker than water' - which stays with Wyatt throughout his life. It's clear that his family are important, and he and his brothers are soon grown up and are making a living out on their own. Wyatt is refereeing bare-knuckle boxing matches and is soon making enemies. He romances an old flame who dies tragically, causing the recently-married Wyatt to lose his ways and becomes a drunkard, stealing from good Samaritans who offer him food and shelter. After a visit from his father in prison, he changes his ways and finds himself appointed Deputy Marshal in Wichita, after bravely shooting down a violent drunk when the cowardly sheriff watches. As his reputation as a good lawman grows, he is offered a job in Dodge City along with his brothers Virgil (Michael Madsen) and Morgan (Linden Ashby), where his reputation starts to take a turn for the worse.

After the huge success of Dances With Wolves, this film seems to take a similar approach - epic, sweeping storytelling as opposed to the more action-packed angle usually taken when filming an Earp biography. Yet the majority of the film is handled with such a ham-fisted and amateurish approach by Kasdan that the film is nowhere as good as it should be. Kasdan, whose films have mainly consisted of Kevin Kline vehicles, had directed a very young Costner before in a western in the very enjoyable Silverado. It's a strange performance by Costner, who in the first half seems to be sleepwalking his way through his role, delivering his lines like a nervous primary school kid finding himself cast in the lead role. The second half, when he becomes the more Republican, violent Earp, is very good. He can do brooding very well, and even though Wyatt Earp is portrayed as a complete bastard, with Costner playing him he remains an engaging character.

Even with all the star actors on show - Madsen, Hackman, Bill Pullman, Tom Sizemore, Jim Caviezel, Jeff Fahey, Isabella Rossellini, Catherine O'Hara, and the excellent Dennis Quaid as Doc Holliday, the film does begin to drag. I almost feel bad saying that, as I have a lot of respect for a director when he takes his time to develop a good story and fully- realised characters, and clocking up a long-running time. But around the 2 hour 30 mark, I found myself wanting the film to end. After the infamous O.K. Corral gunfight (which is refreshingly low-key), the film carries on for another 40 minutes as Earp begins his vendetta against the 'cowboy' gang. In a better directors hands, the last segment could have been a way to portray Earp's fall from grace and his descent into blind blood-lust. But instead it just becomes a long, drawn-out manhunt.

Perhaps I'm being harsh, but I feel this was a missed opportunity. Personally, the definitive Wyatt Earp film is John Ford's magnificent My Darling Clementine, and although it may not have the historical accuracy of this, it is a typically mystical, moving, and surprisingly dark masterpiece, featuring a great Henry Fonda performance.

www.the-wrath-of-blog.blogspot.com
14 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Why compare Wyatt Earp to Tombstone?
istrice0128 May 2005
Warning: Spoilers
First of all, I would like to know why so many people are comparing Wyatt Earp to Tombstone. Yes...both films were made within a year apart, but their objectives are completely different. The titles pretty much say it. Tombstone is about the events that transpired in Tombstone...Wyatt Earp is about the man Wyatt Earp. Therefore, they do not have the same goal in mind and are telling two very different stories. I enjoyed both films for different reasons and allow them to stand on their own merits. Tombstone was more entertaining and action-packed, however, the story was not as historically accurate and the characters were a little over the top. Whereas Wyatt Earp had more of a personal, in-depth examination of the life, but not the legend, of Wyatt Earp.

Now, lets get to the intention of this film. Wyatt Earp is suppose to be a story about the lawman, with the convictions and tribulations that shape him as a young boy up to old age. Unlike, Tombstone, which focuses on an array of characters with the plot leading up to a single event, quite historically incorrect, I might add. Yes...Wyatt Earp is cold, unforgiving, bitter, reserved, etc. However, he was not always that way, as his early life traveling with his family to California and marriage to Urella Sutherland, a woman he deeply loved, demonstrates. The turning point in the story is when Wyatt's beloved wife dies along with their unborn child. Wyatt lashes out and loses all reason to live. He becomes extremely self-destructive and sets about roaming the West with no real purpose at all except to die. His father slaps some sense into him and tells him to move on with his life. Eventually, he becomes a lawman and that is when we meet the mysterious and quiet Wyatt Earp that nobody likes. So...okay...Wyatt becomes reserved, quiet, and cruel, but it is not as if we do not know why. He was a man trying to survive in a harsh, brutal land and being a lawman did not make it any easier because he was always a target. He was plagued by external demons as well as internal demons, such as the bottle and a strong yearning, undying love for his dead wife. He was very human and this movie manifests that. Tombstone is fine for those of you that do not care for Wyatt Earp beyond the infamous fight at the OK Carroll or the lawman legend. However, if you can stand a more accurate, in depth character exploration of Wyatt Earp, without any pretensions, than this is a movie worth seeing.
18 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
bloated but occasionally competent biopic of a legend
Samiam31 June 2017
Wyatt Earp offers a broadly scoped tale about the life of the immortal lawman, but it has nothing much to say about him.

Earp has earned his place in history for his law enforcement of Tombstone, Arizona which peaked at the legendary gun fight at the O. K. Corrall. Otherwise he had no major accomplishments which warrant a biopic of this length. As the film goes from scene to scene, Director Lawrence Kasdan tries to be objective and dramatically unmanipulative, unlike Tombstone. As a result, you feel like you are watching genuine pieces of history minus a feeling of emotional investment.

The first act of the film, starting with Earp as a boy and ending with the death of his first wife, could have been cut out completely. None of this material seems particularly meaningful. Wyatt Earp comes alive around the middle portion with the introduction of Doc Holiday. Filling his shoes is Dennis Quaid whose charisma steals the show and renders Kevin Costner an afterthought.

Costner himself is one of the movie's biggest problems. His Wyatt Earp is shamefully dull. It is as if he based his performance on the real mans bland facial expression in his few surviving photographs. What we end up with is a shell of a man who has no fire in his eyes, and he radiates all the stiff ghostliness of a century old mugshot. The movie builds some dramatic momentum toward the O.K. Corrall stand off. This is easily the best scene in the movie even though it lacks the fiery intensity of Tombstone's version.

Costumes, make-up and especially photography are all top notch but that's almost inevitable. With a bit of recasting, rewriting and a couple trims, this could have been a more memorable movie.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Great legend, boring movie
Calicodreamin11 December 2021
No greater tale of the American west than that of the OK Corral. Unfortunately this long winded movie dilutes it to the point of just wanting to get the movie over with. Great acting, well cast, but too darn long.
9 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed