Sergio Leone Web Board

Films of Sergio Leone => Other Films => Topic started by: cigar joe on December 13, 2006, 07:04:48 PM



Title: Wyatt Earp (1994)
Post by: cigar joe on December 13, 2006, 07:04:48 PM
Ok getting "Gunfight at the OK Corral" last week and a short time before that picking up "Tombstone" sort of piqued my interest in "Earp" related films, so while at the local video rental shop the other day I rented Costner's "Wyatt Earp".

So far now I've seen Ford's "My Darling Clementine" (1946), Sturges' "GatOKC" (1957), Sturges' "Hour Of The Gun" (1967) Perry's "Doc" (1971), Cosmatos' "Tombstone" (1993) and Kasdan's "Wyatt Earp".

The only film I'm missing that coverd the events around the OK Corral is I believe Cahn's thinly veiled "Law & Order" (1932). Other films depict Wyatt Earp as a cameo type character (Winchester 73) but I'm just really concerned with these films depicting the famous shootout.

This one was a tad long basically a biopic.....


To be continued.....



Title: Re: Wyatt Earp (1994)
Post by: Groggy on December 14, 2006, 06:17:14 PM
Unlike a lot of people I actually like this movie.  It's not very high on my list, but I think Costner's a good Earp and it has some excellent scenes.


Title: Re: Wyatt Earp (1994)
Post by: Sanjuro on December 14, 2006, 07:46:31 PM
We have Wyatt Earp's grave in our neighborhood. I paid a visit a couple of years ago. And the name of the cemetery is--------, you guessed it, not Sad Hill  ;D but Colma Cemetery.


Title: Re: Wyatt Earp (1994)
Post by: Tuco the ugly on December 15, 2006, 07:24:04 AM
i don't like it very much...maybe d.quaid a little.


Title: Re: Wyatt Earp (1994)
Post by: cigar joe on December 15, 2006, 09:23:19 PM
continued....

Out of all the films so far Tombstone and Wyatt Earp seem to be the two that show the details that are closest to the actual events at the OK gunfight. You should check out the IMDb on the nitpicking of fans that are truely intence  :o:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0111756/board/thread/33748435

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0111756/board/thread/32145747

One thing strange thing I've noticed is that for some cockamamie reason Ford's  MDC and GATOKC portray James Earp as the "youngest" Earp brother where as in actuality James is the oldest brother. What's up with that?

Here are their actual age breakdowns in 1881:

James Earp 38
Virgil Earp 36
Wyatt Earp 31
Morgan Earp 28
John Holliday 28

here are the various actors ages when they portrayed each major character:

My Darling Clementine:

Henry Fonda (Wyatt) 41
Victor Mature (Holliday) 33
Tim Holt (Virgil Earp) 28
Ward Bond (Morgan Earp) 43
Don Garner (James Earp) 14
Walter Brennan (Old Man Clanton) 52
John Ireland (Billy Clanton) 32

Gun Fight At The OK Corral

Burt Lancaster (Wyatt) 44
Kirk Douglas (Holliday) 41
Hudson (Virgil Earp) 35
Kelly (Morgan Earp) 37
M. Miller (James Earp) 26
John Lerland (Johnny Ringo) 43
Dennis Hopper (Billy Clanton) 21

Hour Of The Gun

James Garner (Wyatt Earp) 39
Jason Robards (Holliday) 45
S. Mellville (Morgan Earp) 31
F. Converse (Virgil Earp) 29
Robert Ryan (Ike Clanton) 58
John Voight (Curley Bill) 29

Doc

Stacey Keach (Holliday) 30
Harris Yulin (Wyatt Earp) 34
J. Bottoms (Virgil Earp) 32
M. Witney (Ike Clanton) 40

Tombstone

Kurt Russel (Wyatt Earp) 42
Val Kilmer (Holliday) 34
Sam Elliot (Virgil Earp) 49
Bill Paxton (Morgan Earp) 38
Michael Biehn (Ringo) 37
Powers Booth (Curley Bill) 45
Thomas Hayden Church (Billy Clanton) 33

Wyatt Earp

Kevin Costner (Wyatt Earp) 39
Dennis Quaid (Holliday) 40
Michael Masden (Virgil Earp) 35
Andrews (James Earp) 42
Ashby (Morgan Earp) 33

So as far as closest to the histotical figure in actual age at time of portrayal goes.......

Harris Yulin in "Doc" at 34 is the closest to Wyatt in actual age.
For Doc Holliday, Stacey Keach in "Doc" at 30, followed by Victor Mature at 33 in "MDC", then Val Kilmer at 34 in "Tombstone".

Farthest from "age" truth in portrayal are:

Burt Lancaster 44 as Wyatt in "GATOKC"
Jason Robards 45 as Doc Holliday "HotG"

Actor that looks the most like the actual Wyatt Earp..., for me its Kurt Russell in "Tombstone"

Best portrayal of Doc Holliday, both Kilmer in "Tombstone" and Quaid in "Wyatt Earp" do memorable jobs however the real Doc Holliday was describes as a "walking cadaver" and for me that would fit more Quaids performance.

Again the problem with doing Western's with actual real life characters puts limits on "artistic license" some great real life charaters just barely brush up against each other in history and the tend is to try and make more out of that than actually occured.

Anyway WE drags, Tombstone is more "Hollywood", HotG also drags, GATOKC is "dramaticaly enhanced", Doc drags and MDC is Ford's mostly fabricated artistic sentimental masterpiece.

If you get a chance watch them and see what you think.



Title: Re: Wyatt Earp (1994)
Post by: The Firecracker on December 17, 2006, 12:41:57 AM
In Orlando (Downtown Disney West Side market place) they are selling an authentic Wyatt Earp autograpgh from the 1920's (just before he passed on). He signed a water canteen.

It has been on sale for about $13,000 for a little over a year now.


Title: Re: Wyatt Earp (1994)
Post by: KevinJCBJK on August 27, 2007, 11:19:09 AM
I think I will watch this today.


Title: Re: Wyatt Earp (1994)
Post by: tucumcari bound on August 27, 2007, 12:10:35 PM
I think I will watch this today.

I don't blame you. I personally think it's an underrated film. I prefer this to Tombstone.


Title: Re: Wyatt Earp (1994)
Post by: KevinJCBJK on August 27, 2007, 12:20:15 PM
I don't blame you. I personally think it's an underrated film. I prefer this to Tombstone.

Watching it right now, first time seeing it. What a cast.


Title: Re: Wyatt Earp (1994)
Post by: Groggy on August 28, 2007, 06:54:57 AM
I don't blame you. I personally think it's an underrated film. I prefer this to Tombstone.

It's good but I think it's main flaw is that has pretensions of being a great Western epic. I like the cast, the gunfights are well done generally speaking, but it's just too long. You could easily chop 20-30 minutes out of it, and it would be better for it.


Title: Re: Wyatt Earp (1994)
Post by: tucumcari bound on August 28, 2007, 08:25:02 AM
It's good but I think it's main flaw is that has pretensions of being a great Western epic. I like the cast, the gunfights are well done generally speaking, but it's just too long. You could easily chop 20-30 minutes out of it, and it would be better for it.

It is a bit to long but I honestly wasn't as bored during some sequences as other people. Maybe it's just my love for Epic's?


Title: Re: Wyatt Earp (1994)
Post by: Jill on August 28, 2007, 12:29:16 PM
I found this boring. Tombstone was much better, especially for Val Kilmer. O0


Title: Re: Wyatt Earp (1994)
Post by: tucumcari bound on August 28, 2007, 12:41:53 PM
I found this boring. Tombstone was much better, especially for Val Kilmer. O0

Val Kilmer was the only high point in the film. I don't hate Tombstone but it just plays out like a made for TV western. It's all action with not much else working for it.

For all it's faults, Wyatt Earp is the better film, with the most realistic portrayal of Wyatt Earp.


Title: Re: Wyatt Earp (1994)
Post by: The Firecracker on August 28, 2007, 01:50:09 PM
Val Kilmer was the only high point in the film. I don't hate Tombstone but it just plays out like a made for TV western. It's all action with not much else working for it.


Haven't seen WE yet but I agree with TB's comments on TOMBSTONE.
Much too overrated that picture.


Title: Re: Wyatt Earp (1994)
Post by: Groggy on August 28, 2007, 02:16:36 PM
There are some weak moments, mostly involving Kurt Russell, but "Tombstone" is very entertaining as a fun Western.


Title: Re: Wyatt Earp (1994)
Post by: KevinJCBJK on August 28, 2007, 02:39:28 PM
I thought Dennis Quaid was the best part of this film. He made me laugh.


Title: Re: Wyatt Earp (1994)
Post by: tucumcari bound on August 28, 2007, 03:19:05 PM
I thought Dennis Quaid was the best part of this film. He made me laugh.

Yeah, Dennis was very good in the film. Did you like it overall Kevin?


Title: Re: Wyatt Earp (1994)
Post by: KevinJCBJK on August 28, 2007, 03:44:49 PM
Yeah, Dennis was very good in the film. Did you like it overall Kevin?

Yeah I liked it, a little long, but it was good.


Title: Re: Wyatt Earp (1994)
Post by: tucumcari bound on August 28, 2007, 05:08:20 PM
Yeah I liked it, a little long, but it was good.

I'm happy you liked it. I've always thought this film got undeserved criticism.


Title: Re: Wyatt Earp (1994)
Post by: KevinJCBJK on August 28, 2007, 05:30:07 PM
I'm happy you liked it. I've always thought this film got undeserved criticism.

Yeah, like a Razzie for Kevin Cosner. He wasn't that bad.


Title: Re: Wyatt Earp (1994)
Post by: geoman-1 on August 28, 2007, 05:39:29 PM
Both good films. But I thought the casting in Tombstone was second to none.


Title: Re: Wyatt Earp (1994)
Post by: tucumcari bound on August 28, 2007, 05:47:54 PM
Both good films. But I thought the casting in Tombstone was second to none.

Funny thing though, Kevin Costner was attached to playing Wyatt Earp in "Tombstone" first before Kurt Russell.


Title: Re: Wyatt Earp (1994)
Post by: KevinJCBJK on August 28, 2007, 06:00:17 PM
Funny thing though, Kevin Costner was attached to playing Wyatt Earp in "Tombstone" first before Kurt Russell.

Tombstone came after Wyatt Earp right?


Title: Re: Wyatt Earp (1994)
Post by: tucumcari bound on August 28, 2007, 06:02:55 PM
Tombstone came after Wyatt Earp right?

No, it came before. That's one of the reason's why "Wyatt Earp" flopped. Nobody wanted to see another film based on Wyatt Earp so shortly after "Tombstone" was released.


Title: Re: Wyatt Earp (1994)
Post by: KevinJCBJK on August 28, 2007, 06:52:50 PM
No, it came before. That's one of the reason's why "Wyatt Earp" flopped. Nobody wanted to see another film based on Wyatt Earp so shortly after "Tombstone" was released.

I see, I wonder why Hollywood insists on make the same movies? They do that a lot lately.


Title: Re: Wyatt Earp (1994)
Post by: titoli on August 29, 2007, 08:24:19 AM
I have missed both last ones. My favourite is HOTG, which I don't think it drags a little bit: it kept me on the brink of the chair the whole time. The Ford has the usual defects any Ford has, but it has some strong visuals which can compete with anything Ford ever made.   


Title: Re: Wyatt Earp (1994)
Post by: Groggy on August 31, 2007, 08:57:39 PM
No, it came before. That's one of the reason's why "Wyatt Earp" flopped. Nobody wanted to see another film based on Wyatt Earp so shortly after "Tombstone" was released.

Well, let's be fair: "Tombstone" wasn't all that successful either. It made about $60 million, which isn't bad, but even in the nineties was far short of a blockbuster.


Title: Re: Wyatt Earp (1994)
Post by: moviesceleton on September 17, 2008, 12:36:02 PM
Wyatt Earp (1994) - 7/10


Title: Re: Wyatt Earp (1994)
Post by: tucumcari bound on September 17, 2008, 12:48:23 PM
Wyatt Earp (1994) - 7/10

I prefer this to "Tombstone." I think it gets a bad rap from time to time but it's the closest to reality with the Wyatt Earp story.


Title: Re: Wyatt Earp (1994)
Post by: Groggy on September 17, 2008, 02:31:00 PM
I prefer this to "Tombstone." I think it gets a bad rap from time to time but it's the closest to reality with the Wyatt Earp story.

Not really. It's just as inaccurate as Tombstone, albeit in different and generally less obvious ways. It's a decent movie with some strong-points (I think Costner is probably the best screen Wyatt Earp, Quaid is a fun Doc and more realistic than Kilmer's version) but Tombstone is far more entertaining.


Title: Re: Wyatt Earp (1994)
Post by: tucumcari bound on September 17, 2008, 02:34:48 PM
Not really. It's just as inaccurate as Tombstone, albeit in different and generally less obvious ways. It's a decent movie with some strong-points (I think Costner is probably the best screen Wyatt Earp, Quaid is a fun Doc and more realistic than Kilmer's version) but Tombstone is far more entertaining.

It is though. I've read the biography of Earp. This is a far better screen adapation than the made for T.V. looking "Tombstone." I like "Tombstone", don't get me wrong, but so many people hold that movie so high on a pedestal. It's ridiculous in my opinion. I prefer that more EPIC result of "Wyatt Earp."


Title: Re: Wyatt Earp (1994)
Post by: Groggy on September 17, 2008, 02:58:43 PM
Which biography of Earp? There are quite a few.

Made-for-TV looking Tombstone? You do know that Wyatt Earp was originally conceived as a miniseries, right?

As for inaccuracies, why did Wyatt Earp recycle Tombstone's conceits of having Marshall White as an old geezer when he was really in his late twenties, or having Morgan and Virgil shot on the same night? The OK Corral gunfight is wildly inaccurate, or at least follows the rather specious Clanton account of the gunfight too closely. (Tombstone's is exaggerated, but it gets all of the basic facts correct, except Ike's shooting from the photo shop and Josie's presence as a witness.) All of the vendetta ride stuff is pretty inaccurate too, particularly the Stinking Springs shootout and the death of Johnny Ringo.

Tombstone isn't a paragon of historical accuracy, but it's dressed up as an action film, so it can get away with more IMO. Wyatt Earp wears the pretensions of being an accurate epic, when it really is as inaccurate as any other Earp film except My Darling Clementine.


Title: Re: Wyatt Earp (1994)
Post by: tucumcari bound on September 17, 2008, 06:39:29 PM

I read Wyatt Earp: The Life Behind the Legend and also have read about him in other books as well.

Here's the book...

http://www.amazon.com/Wyatt-Earp-Life-Behind-Legend/dp/0471283622/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1221697887&sr=1-1


Title: Re: Wyatt Earp (1994)
Post by: Groggy on September 17, 2008, 06:43:47 PM
I own that book actually. It doesn't really contradict my opinion, from my recollections.


Title: Re: Wyatt Earp (1994)
Post by: tucumcari bound on September 17, 2008, 07:01:24 PM
I own that book actually. It doesn't really contradict my opinion, from my recollections.

Well, I wasn't saying you contradicted yourself, I was just saying that I thought "Wyatt Earp" was a little bit more believable compared to "Tombstone." Just my opinion.


Title: Re: Wyatt Earp (1994)
Post by: titoli on July 10, 2009, 07:13:19 PM
A regret was this wasn't conceived as a mini-series. I never found it dragging if not towards the end. The scenes at the train station and the other shootings after the gunfight are disappointing, if compared to the ones in HOG or Tombstone. But still this is my favourite Earp movie with HOG and Gunfight. Costner is not my actor but I can't see he's worse than Kurt Russell. Quaid is probably the best Holliday of the screen. 8\10


Title: Re: Wyatt Earp (1994)
Post by: Groggy on July 11, 2009, 12:50:58 PM
Pretty sure it was intended as a miniseries at first and then edited down into a film. At the very least I've seen it played on WGN/TBS in a "miniseries" format.


Title: Re: Wyatt Earp (1994)
Post by: Dust Devil on July 11, 2009, 01:19:14 PM
I'd give it maybe a 6/10, but I definitely agree it would work better as a mini series.


Title: Re: Wyatt Earp (1994)
Post by: Groggy on July 11, 2009, 02:49:50 PM
Kevin Costner is IMO the best screen Earp to date (having not seen Hour of the Gun), and Quaid gives Kilmer a run for his money as Doc. Pity the film itself wasn't better.


Title: Re: Wyatt Earp (1994)
Post by: titoli on July 11, 2009, 03:26:02 PM
Fonda is the best Earp. Garner comes second. 


Title: Re: Wyatt Earp (1994)
Post by: Dust Devil on July 11, 2009, 03:51:20 PM
Kevin Costner is IMO the best screen Earp to date (having not seen Hour of the Gun)

I don't know about that. Costner's Earp is basically the same character Costner always plays in Ws (and quite a few other movies, to be honest). Jake from Silverado, Dunbar from Dances with Wolves, the guy from Open Range... If we'd put them one next to the other and have them recite a couple of not so well known lines from those movies I'd have a hard time figuring which movie does each one come from. Still, that doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad thing; Costner is good in portraying rugged cowboys from the Old West, no argument about that, it's just that I think the character of Earp deserves more than being just one in the line.

And although he's perhaps not the most historically accurate and is certainly the most artificially flavored, because of his onscreen charm and presence more than anything else, my vote goes to Fonda's Earp.


Title: Re: Wyatt Earp (1994)
Post by: titoli on July 11, 2009, 03:52:45 PM
Anybody saw this?

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51TPivUEQ8L._SS500_.jpg)


Title: Re: Wyatt Earp (1994)
Post by: Groggy on July 11, 2009, 03:53:15 PM
Jake in Silverado is a clownish goofball. That's pretty far from any of the other roles you mention.

Fonda is great in MDC but he isn't really Earpish to me.


Title: Re: Wyatt Earp (1994)
Post by: Dust Devil on July 11, 2009, 03:55:51 PM
Jake in Silverado is a clownish goofball. That's pretty far from any of the other roles you mention.

Ah, he was younger then, but that's the whole difference.

Fonda is great in MDC but he isn't really Earpish to me.

I concord.


Title: Re: Wyatt Earp (1994)
Post by: Dust Devil on July 11, 2009, 03:59:21 PM
Anybody saw this?

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51TPivUEQ8L._SS500_.jpg)

That's the television series... I saw bits of it but it was nothing I really cared to remember.

Apparently, there's was a sequel of some sort: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0111757/

Hugh O'Brian's last role, as it turns out.


Title: Re: Wyatt Earp (1994)
Post by: titoli on July 11, 2009, 04:03:53 PM
I don't know about that. Costner's Earp is basically the same character Costner always plays in Ws (and quite a few other movies, to be honest). Jake from Silverado, Dunbar from Dances with Wolves, the guy from Open Range... If we'd put them one next to the other and have them recite a couple of not so well known lines from those movies I'd have a hard time figuring which movie does each one come from. Still, that doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad thing; Costner is good in portraying rugged cowboys from the Old West, no argument about that, it's just that I think the character of Earp deserves more than being just one in the line.

In WE Costner is credible when he changes from young man to mature: no mean feat. And this from one who can't put up with him and his movies, though he doesn't irritate me like Tom Cruise can.
 
But I sti.ll can't understand all the hatred against this movie, which is a very good one.  


Title: Re: Wyatt Earp (1994)
Post by: titoli on July 11, 2009, 04:05:02 PM
That's the television series... I saw bits of it but it was nothing I really cared to remember.

Apparently, there's was a sequel of some sort: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0111757/

Hugh O'Brian's last role, as it turns out.

I'm half sure it was aired over here too and probably never cared to watch it. Sounds interesting though.


Title: Re: Wyatt Earp (1994)
Post by: Dust Devil on July 11, 2009, 04:20:15 PM
But I sti.ll can't understand all the hatred against this movie, which is a very good one.

I don't hate it, but I understand perfectly why many don't like it: Cosmatos' Tombstone, that came out the same year (or was it the year before?), with a serious departure from those earlier ''Wyatt Earp, one of the fathers of our great nation'' serious-type walkie-talkie Ws, and with probably Val Kilmer's best career performance (although a bit clownish and excessive) was one hell of a entertaining flick. Had Wyatt Earp been made 3-5 years before or after Tombstone, I'm convinced it would have been treated better.


Title: Re: Wyatt Earp (1994)
Post by: Groggy on July 11, 2009, 05:37:12 PM
The difference between the two films is:

Tombstone - fun, well-acted entertainment Western which happens to be more accurate than most Earp films (not a great achievement mind you).

Wyatt Earp - serious, dramatic (perhaps overly so) biopic/would-be epic. Has its moments but not really entertaining. It's arguably more inaccurate than Tombstone which moots its ostensible purpose.

Tombstone has by far the better cast of the two, aside from Costner and Quaid none of WE's cast (even the good actors like Gene Hackman, Tom Sizemore, Jim Caviezel, Adam Baldwin, Michael Madsen) has much anything to do. Tombstone on the other hand has (besides Russell and Kilmer) Michael Biehn, Powers Boothe and Stephen Lang as three of nastiest baddies in Western history (with Thomas Haden Church and Robert John Burke on bench support), plus Harry Carey Jr., Charlton Heston, Michael Rooker, Buck Taylor, Terry O'Quinn, Jon Tenney, the always-kickass Sam Elliot and a surprisingly tolerable Bill Paxton. Granted, it also has Dana Delaney, Jason Priestly, and Billy Zane...


Title: Re: Wyatt Earp (1994)
Post by: cigar joe on July 11, 2009, 06:46:33 PM
Anybody saw this?

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51TPivUEQ8L._SS500_.jpg)

Didn't I send you that in that TV compilation, one of the TV episodes sampled was of this show. It's the one with the constant choir of voices as a soundtrack.


Title: Re: Wyatt Earp (1994)
Post by: titoli on July 11, 2009, 09:50:37 PM
Quote from: cigar joe
Didn't I send you that in that TV compilation, one of the TV episodes sampled was of this show. It's the one with the constant choir of voices as a soundtrack.

You're probably right. I'll check later. 


Title: Re: Wyatt Earp (1994)
Post by: uncknown on July 19, 2009, 11:51:40 PM
is there a preference among those who have seen it for the longer version?
thx!


Title: Re: Wyatt Earp (1994)
Post by: titoli on July 20, 2009, 12:03:06 AM
Didn't I send you that in that TV compilation, one of the TV episodes sampled was of this show. It's the one with the constant choir of voices as a soundtrack.

I saw the episode. Embarassing. Cheap-looking.


Title: Re: Wyatt Earp (1994)
Post by: cigar joe on July 20, 2009, 03:45:49 AM
the whole series had that constant chorus, lol.


Title: Re: Wyatt Earp (1994)
Post by: Jill on August 04, 2009, 05:30:42 AM
I like Tombstone more too. This was long and extremely boring, but I don't like Costner at the first place. Except Robin Hodd, but I keep re-watching that for Alan Rickman.  ;)



Title: Re: Wyatt Earp (1994)
Post by: Groggy on May 16, 2010, 10:37:47 PM
I just rewatched this tonight, for the first time in ages. I liked it a lot more than I remembered. Slow and overlong, but mostly well-done. To paraphrase the Jenkins-Titoli argument on the Tom Horn thread, it's more "authentic" than accurate, in that it gives a fairly accurate overall picture of Wyatt Earp while getting a lot of details wrong.

I will register a strong dissent over the Tombstone scenes, which are badly botched. They do a bad job establishing the Cowboys, they depict Curly Bill's shooting of Marshall White as a pre-meditated murder, and the build-up to the Gunfight is mishandled (they don't even mention Virgil buffaloing Ike the morning of the shootout). About all it gets right is the depiction of Wyatt and Josie's relationship. The Gunfight itself is a let-down, screwing up the sequence of shots and a lot of other details. Nor does it have the justification of being exciting - it might be the dullest staging of the shootout on film. Tombstone, for all its Hollywood stylization, is much more accurate in this regard.

For the most part though, it gets Earp's character right - he's a morally ambiguous character, neither good nor bad, and often bull-headed, stubborn and violent. I also liked the tension between Wyatt and the Earp wives, which is handled better than one might expect. I still like Costner more than I do Kurt Russell, but the supporting cast in Tombstone is much better. Other than Dennis Quaid (who offers a very different, but still enjoyable, interpretation of Doc than Val Kilmer) and Joanna Going all of the Tombstone equivalents are better. It does get bonus points for depicting James and Warren Earp, who are almost always left out of Earp films.

This movie is in the 7-8 Netherland for me. If it weren't for the lackluster Tombstone scenes and the lame epilogue it might have scored higher.


Title: Re: Wyatt Earp (1994)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on February 04, 2011, 07:14:08 AM
Ok getting "Gunfight at the OK Corral" last week and a short time before that picking up "Tombstone" sort of piqued my interest in "Earp" related films, so while at the local video rental shop the other day I rented Costner's "Wyatt Earp".

So far now I've seen Ford's "My Darling Clementine" (1946), Sturges' "GatOKC" (1957), Sturges' "Hour Of The Gun" (1967) Perry's "Doc" (1971), Cosmatos' "Tombstone" (1993) and Kasdan's "Wyatt Earp".

The only film I'm missing that coverd the events around the OK Corral is I believe Cahn's thinly veiled "Law & Order" (1932). Other films depict Wyatt Earp as a cameo type character (Winchester 73) but I'm just really concerned with these films depicting the famous shootout.

This one was a tad long basically a biopic.....


To be continued.....



There were also two films in the 30's entitled "Frontier Marshal," though I have not seen them and I'm not sure how much they focus on the gunfight at OK corral


Title: Re: Wyatt Earp (1994)
Post by: uncknown on August 11, 2014, 03:34:58 PM
Well, it took me 20 years but i finally got around to this.
Like most moviegoers in 1994, I opted to see TOMBSTONE.
I made the right decision.

WE , despite all the impressive aspects of production, cast, score etc. just does not work.
It is way too long. Did anyone really enjoy those early courtship scenes?

An honorable failure.
bruce marshall


Title: Re: Wyatt Earp (1994)
Post by: uncknown on August 11, 2014, 03:37:28 PM
It is a bit to long but I honestly wasn't as bored during some sequences as other people. Maybe it's just my love for Epic's?

Did we really need a wedding sequence?
Things like that could have easily been cut>