Wyatt Earp (1994) (1 Viewer)

[The General]

Even though it starred Kevin Costner and went for over 3 hours I actually really enjoyed it.

Your thoughts?

 

[binder001]

It's not bad at all. I prefer John Milius' "Tombstone" but the Costner effort wasn't bad. My favorite scene is when Earp is called back to Dodge City, Earp and his friends walk into the saloon, fire a barrel from the shotgun and announce "..it all stops NOW!".

Gary

 

[UKReb]

Sorry guys it missed by a mile and believe it or not I am a Costner fan but he let his small fan base down real bad on this one.

W.E. was trumpeted as the first serious film about this enigmatic lawman; gambler; brothel keeper and killer. But what we got was a half hearted epic desperately searching for a story, it's just a series of events in Earps life that just don't flow together and definitely doesn't congeal. There are some truly magnificent visual images captured on screen but that's just not enough to carry an audience through 3 hours. Costner's performance is really laborious and stodgy with his usual deadpan expression more evident than ever throughout the film right up to his final scene and line "Some people said it didn't happen that way" Boy I for one can believe it.

Madsen as his brother Virgil is a complete miscast, as a modern urban killer on screen he has few equals but to expect us to believe his character is a lawman who has spent his whole life in the 19th century west was too much for this viewer. However, Quaid's role as Doc is the one saving grace, the movie bursts into life whenever he is on screen and from his first appearance and utterance "Wyatt Earp! I have heard the name! It was not good". But the script does not allow us to see enough of him and worse does not allow us to appreciate why these two men were apparently so devoted and loyal to each other. And why no closing scene between them? Doc just seems to disappear (think of Garner and Robards final poignant scene in Hour of the Gun that perfectly depicts the strength of their friendship)

But by far the biggest flaw was the complete lack of villains. Sure there was the Clanton gang but none of them were fleshed out. We didn't really know who they were or where they had come from. What were their motives? Why did they hate the Earps?. They just suddenly appear just to be shot down almost as if the script/director/Costner was relying on our historical knowledge of the skirmish at the OK Corral. "It's OK we know you guys know who the Clanton's are so you don't need us to tell you".
Now that's what I call taking the audience for granted or worse!

Like I said guys that's why for me the movie's a complete dud but fortunately after this abject box-office failure Costner learned a hell of a lot about portraying Western characters the next time he put his boot into a stirrup. He got it about spot on with Open Range cos that's a film that will have the audience rooting when Boss and Charlie take on the bad guys which has to be one of the most authentic gun-fights ever to be put on celluloid and a good all round movie to boot.

Reb

 

[marco55]

Tombstone killed W.E. and Quaid's Doc Holliday couldn't compare with Val Kilmer's.MHO.
Mark

 

[lancer]

IMHO "Open Range" is a top-notch western. As to the Earp movies, "Hour of the Gun" is better than either of the two recent work, although I do think Quaid's Holliday is terrific. My personal favorites are both older and more inaccurate but better pieces of film making, "My Darling Clementine" and "Gunfight at the O.K. Corral". Hard to beat Fonda and Lancaster if the Duke ain"t around. Clint can make a pretty good western, too. -- lancer

 

[lancer]

P.S. -- forgot to add, a real good book on Earp and THE gunfight is "And Die In The West" by Paula Marks. Outstanding read. -- lancer

 

[The General]

Sorry guys it missed by a mile and believe it or not I am a Costner fan but he let his small fan base down real bad on this one.

W.E. was trumpeted as the first serious film about this enigmatic lawman; gambler; brothel keeper and killer. But what we got was a half hearted epic desperately searching for a story, it's just a series of events in Earps life that just don't flow together and definitely doesn't congeal. There are some truly magnificent visual images captured on screen but that's just not enough to carry an audience through 3 hours. Costner's performance is really laborious and stodgy with his usual deadpan expression more evident than ever throughout the film right up to his final scene and line "Some people said it didn't happen that way" Boy I for one can believe it.

Madsen as his brother Virgil is a complete miscast, as a modern urban killer on screen he has few equals but to expect us to believe his character is a lawman who has spent his whole life in the 19th century west was too much for this viewer. However, Quaid's role as Doc is the one saving grace, the movie bursts into life whenever he is on screen and from his first appearance and utterance "Wyatt Earp! I have heard the name! It was not good". But the script does not allow us to see enough of him and worse does not allow us to appreciate why these two men were apparently so devoted and loyal to each other. And why no closing scene between them? Doc just seems to disappear (think of Garner and Robards final poignant scene in Hour of the Gun that perfectly depicts the strength of their friendship)

But by far the biggest flaw was the complete lack of villains. Sure there was the Clanton gang but none of them were fleshed out. We didn't really know who they were or where they had come from. What were their motives? Why did they hate the Earps?. They just suddenly appear just to be shot down almost as if the script/director/Costner was relying on our historical knowledge of the skirmish at the OK Corral. "It's OK we know you guys know who the Clanton's are so you don't need us to tell you".
Now that's what I call taking the audience for granted or worse!

Like I said guys that's why for me the movie's a complete dud but fortunately after this abject box-office failure Costner learned a hell of a lot about portraying Western characters the next time he put his boot into a stirrup. He got it about spot on with Open Range cos that's a film that will have the audience rooting when Boss and Charlie take on the bad guys which has to be one of the most authentic gun-fights ever to be put on celluloid and a good all round movie to boot.

Reb

Wow UKReb are you sure you're not a frustrated movie critic?

As an Aussie who doesn't know too much about the history of the American West I wasn't plagued by the historical inaccuracies of the film. I just really enjoyed the cinematography, the drama and even the story line.

I never thought I could sit through a 3 hour movie.

I think I will definately have to check out Tombstone (1993) for a comparison.

Cheers
Pete

 

[The General]

Costner's performance is really laborious and stodgy with his usual deadpan expression more evident than ever throughout the film

My girlfriend is in total agreement with you there on that. She managed to make it through to the end though. She's a real trooper!