Micitype Pretty Good

Thehibikiew Not even bad in a good way

Winifred The movie is made so realistic it has a lot of that WoW feeling at the right moments and never tooo over the top. the suspense is done so well and the emotion is felt. Very well put together with the music and all.

Kayden This is a dark and sometimes deeply uncomfortable drama

burn4580 Having watched both movies again recently and reading other reviews, I felt compelled to write my own review. I enjoyed both movies, but having researched Wyatt Earp and the Tombstone era, it seems that 'Tombstone' is not as accurate as 'Wyatt Earp.' Yes, 'Wyatt Earp' is quite long, but it does give a lot more background about Earp. It's funny, people in reviews rant about the length of the movie, but then talk about things it left out. The real Wyatt Earp had such a complicated life, that no two or three our movie could possibly cover it all and have it make sense. First, while I like Kurt Russell in 'Tombstone', I thought that his portrayal was too soft, overall. The Earps had a reputation for bullying people, which I thought Kevin Costner played better in 'Wyatt Earp.' 'Tombstone' has Wyatt Earp resisting to be a lawman again until just before the infamous shootout, when, in fact, he was one form of lawman or another the entire time he was in Tombstone, which "Wyatt Earp' covers better. 'Tombstone' makes no mention whatsoever about brothers James and Warren, when, in fact, James was in Tombstone at the time of the shootout, but didn't take part because of his useless arm, an injury from the war (which they covered by the way). Warren took part in the posse vendetta, which 'Tombstone' did not cover. 'Wyatt Earp' mentioned or showed actual places like the Cosmopoliton, where the Earps stayed after the shootout, Fly's Photography and Boarding House, the Oriental Saloon and Hatch's Pool Hall, where Morgan was killed. Yes, there are inaccuracies as well. Virgil and Morgan were not shot on the same night. Virgil was first and three months later, Morgan. 'Tombstone' did the same thing, only worse. They'd had you believe that Virgil was shot and Morgan became so enraged that he went to play pool, then got shot himself and that Wyatt wasn't there. 'Wyatt Earp' shows that Wyatt was in the pool hall with Morgan and a bullet hit the wall next to him, which is what really happened. The only problem I have with the shootout in 'Wyatt Earp' is that Doc Holliday didn't fire his shotgun until the end, when most accounts say he fired it first, killing Tom McClaury. Most accounts say that just before any shots, a double click was heard, which most attribute to Doc cocking the shotgun. 'Tombstone' doesn't show Doc as being shot, but he was, which is shown in 'Wyatt Earp.' Later, when Stilwell was found shot at the railroad terminal, he had numerous bullet wounds, including a shotgun blast, which 'Wyatt Earp' depicts. I like Dennis Quaid's portrayal of Doc Holliday better than Val Kilmer's, although both were good. I liked Quaid's Georgia accent much better. By the way, both movies say Doc died in a sanitarium, which is not true. He died in his bed in the Glenwood Hotel. However, 'Tombstone' does show what Doc supposedly said just before he died while looking at his feet, "This is funny!" However, they don't indicate what he meant which was, he'd always thought he'd die with his boots on, not in his bare feet. Wyatt Earp did not learn of Doc's death for several months and was not with him just before he died as portrayed in 'Tombstone.' To me, 'Tombstone' does more accurately depict the shootout with Curly Bill and his bunch than 'Wyatt Earp' does. Neither film covers the shooting of Marshall White accurately according to statements (even by Earp himself). Both movies treat the shooting as intentional, which, I guess it could have been, but the movies leave no room for doubt. To sum up, I believe 'Wyatt Earp' to be more factual than 'Tombstone.' However, both movies take the usual Hollywood liberties to make the movie more enjoyable and watchable. It you want a totally accurate account, I suggest you find a good documentary about Wyatt Earp or find a good history book. Not many movies about real people are ever true-to-form.

HotToastyRag I always find it fun when a boring movie's backstory is juicy; it's like a consolation prize! So here's the deal with Wyatt Earp: Kevin Costner was going to star in Tombstone, but he split off from the project and co-produced Wyatt Earp with Lawrence Kasdan. He'd wanted the movie to be all about Wyatt, so hopefully he was happy with his own version. The ironic revenge of Tombstone? It was released six months earlier and made more money at the box office.Now, to the movie. It's over three hours, which is an improvement over the 6-hour miniseries it was originally intended to be! But it's still really long, and not in a good way. Some movies can get away with a slow pace, and this just isn't one of them. The cure for such terrible boredom would have been a title character so wonderful and easy to root for that the audience doesn't mind the slowness. In this version, Wyatt just isn't likable. He's violent, vengeful, selfish, loses his temper constantly, and is a womanizer who doesn't have any respect for women. I don't usually have an issue with that, especially if it's during a time period when respect for women is hard to find anyway, but the "charm" Wyatt uses during his romantic interactions is more offensive than appealing. I tried, but it was pretty impossible to root for Kevin Costner in this movie, and if you're not rooting for the hero, you've got a very long three hours in store for you.My favorite version of this story is 1957's Gunfight at the O.K. Corral. But if you like modern westerns and Kevin Costner, watch Open Range. It's similar and much, much better.

octagonproplex Director Lawrence Kasdan went mythic in scope and breadth with his majestic ode to the great lost American West for "Wyatt Earp". It's just full-on romantic sweep, hard-nosed stoicism, and pioneer spirit -- making for one of the most rousing pleasures in the entire genre. An initially overlooked classic, having had the misfortune to arrive under the still looming shadow casts just prior by the similar themed (and also great) "Tombstone". The two very different films share old west lawman Wyatt Earp as their main protagonist, but only overlap in depicting the episodes that culminated in the legendary Gunfight at the O.K. Corral -- which occurred in Tombstone's namesake; So naturally that film -- which focuses squarely on the particulars of those specific events -- wins, in rendering fuller aspect to its isolated circumstances.Whereas 1993's "Tombstone" was a cracking contained rollicking rampage of a buddy action western, 1994's "Wyatt Earp" acted as the saga of a man, a family, and a country -- a lavish production spanning the majority of its titular figure's lifetime.Kevin Costner is every bit as excellent in his own way here portraying Wyatt Earp as Kurt Russell was in his unique fashion for "Tombstone". But instead of being as hellbent and primal, Costner goes for quiet simmering dread. He's a peaceful realist haunted by violence, willing to warily adapt to triumph within those means. A harsh man with heart, convicted by the decency dispersed down to him by his disciplined and principled patriarch father, memorably played to perfection in just a few scenes by the always wonderful Gene Hackman. Doc Holiday is not the breakout star in this opus like he was in Val Kilmer's show stealing performance for "Tombstone", but rather he shows up maybe half way through and is played very believably and seriously by Dennis Quaid. More amusingly cantankerous in his witty retorts than Kilmer's swaggeringly deft provocateur. I imagine Quaid's less seductive Doc Holiday is honestly more realistic than Kilmer's, although Kilmer wins in entertainment value and greater sense of unpredictable danger. For the Tombstone set portion that occurs in "Wyatt Earp", it's really very well done, but admittedly it's mostly bettered in "Tombstone" simply because of that film's ability to flesh out just that story over the course of its entire running time. But also, I think the casting is slightly better, or at least flashier, there too -- I mean "Tombstone" has Bill Paxton, Sam Elliot, Powers Booth, Michael Biehn, and Stephen Lang just gnawing on the scenery and spitting it out! Although Michael Madson and Linden Ashby are no slouches as Earp bother's Virgil and Morgan, neither is Mark Harmon's local sheriff stooge Behan. One casting the two movies have in common that I find "Wyatt Earp" has a resounding superiority over "Tombstone" in though, is that of Wyatt's great lasting love Josie; In "Tombstone" she is played quite shrill and to my taste unappealing by Dana Delany, whereas Joanna Going here is so very graceful and lithely empowered that one easily imagines Wyatt's old weather-beaten heart's sudden exposure to the supple elements of such a fine specimen of femininity being quite enough to absolutely consume it. What I'm saying is Joanna Going is very pleasant in deed, which is especially good, because Josie plays a more integral role in "Wyatt Earp" as well. "Wyatt Earp" is so much more expansive than "Tombstone" however, and therefore has so many more fantastically casts roles throughout. Besides the aforementioned Gene Hackman, there's Bill Pullman and Tom Siezmore as Ed and Bat Masterson, plus young Ian Bohen is really good as the boyhood Wyatt. Veteran character actor, James Gammon makes a nice appearance. Even Jim Caviezel shows up briefly as the youngest Earp brother. And the Earp wives and women actually hint at some genuine human agency, nicely realized by Mare Winningham, Catherine O'Hara, JoBeth Williams, Alison Elliott, and Betty Buckley. So, an unequivocally great cast.The set design looks wonderful and appears proper in depicting the burgeoning West under construction. The costuming feels authentic, but "Tombstone" also felt appropriate and had the added benefit of cutting an indelibly iconic silhouette with Doc and the Earp brothers drapped all in black as near undertakers in those long duster coats and Wyatt's wide flat brimmed hat. Kurt Russell and Sam Elliot also clearly won the mustache war. Not that "Tombstone" wasn't a well photographed film in its own right, but oh-my, what wonders do dazzle brilliant in "Wyatt Earp"! Owen Roizman provides some of the most exhilaratingly lush pastoral scope cinematography you're likely to ever lay your gaze upon, yet then counterpoints that with wonderfully moody chiaroscuro lighting evoking the very best in film noir. It really is about as good as it gets. Yet not to be outdone, composer James Newton Howard goes on ahead and throws his hat in the arena of the very best Western film scores ever. In fact, the differences between these two iconic cinematic Earp offerings can perhaps be best encapsulated in their music scores, with Bruce Broughton composing an equally perfect accompaniment to his picture's less lofty but more rugged ambitions. But "Wyatt Earp" is just working on a whole other level, as is its moving score compositions. Although "Tombstone" was the breakout box- office hit, both succeeded wonderfully true to their aim. A provocative pulp novella, and a sumptuous sprawling tome; "Tombstone" is one terrific juicy burger, and "Wyatt Earp" is one magnificent four- course-meal. And just as a delicious entree, movies and music are treats of taste meant to be consumed and enjoyed; they're not subject to monogamous fidelity, and won't become hurt or jealous of time spent or pleasure derived from another!

powermandan Wyatt Earp is probably the lowest rated epic on this entire site. And why? Just because it is not a masterpiece? I consider Wyatt Earp to be a "near masterpiece"--just need of some more polishing in some areas. Let's face it, Wyatt Earp has no little problems but very few big problems which ultimately cost some fans. I would rather see a movie with no little problems and few big ones than one with many little problems and no big one. One facet that made Wyatt Earp a commercial failure was that is to this day still standing in the shadow of the more successful and better-liked Tombstone from one year prior which also deals with Wyatt Earp. While Tombstone deals with Wyatt Earp and Doc Holliday's regiments in Tombstone, Wyatt Earp is a 3 hour and 10 minute biopic of the lawman's entire life. This film was originally intended to be a six hour miniseries. I wonder if it would have been better that way or if it would have just added fuel to the fire.Wyatt Earp is without question Kevin Costner's most underrated performance. He is low-key but on the whole, very accurate to the real Wyatt Earp; even more than Kurt Russell in Tombstone. Dennis Quaid steals every scene he is in as Doc Holliday. Quaid lost 43 pounds for the role and was closer to the real guy than Val Kilmer in Tombstone. The first chunk of the movie explores Earp's upbringing. He wants to be involved with the law and we all know his wish comes true. The casting call for young Wyatt was smart since the kid looked exactly like Kevin Costner at age 15. He grows up and marries a beautiful woman, but her early death takes a toll on him. I was really liking the movie a little while after her death. But as the story delves deeper into Wyatt's journey as a law enforcer, the movie really seems to lose its overall balance. From then on, the pace of the movie is very uneven and the subplots are all scrambled that make most of the movie quite confusing. The unevenness and bad pacing of the movie are the only two big flaws that impact the movie as a whole. Other than the pacing and unevenness, Wyatt Earp is a great western that almost anyone will enjoy.