Despite trying to keep his swashbuckling to a minimum, a threat to California's pending statehood causes the adventure-loving Alejandro de la Vega (Banderas) -- and his wife, Elena (Zeta-Jones) -- to take action.
A young man (Cruise) leaves Ireland with his landlord's daughter (Kidman) after some trouble with her father, and they dream of owning land at the big giveaway in Oklahoma ca. 1893. When ... See full summary »
This is the sequel to "Romancing the Stone" where Jack and Joan have their yacht and easy life, but are gradually getting bored with each other and this way of life. Joan accepts an ... See full summary »
During the opening view of the cornfield, you can clearly see a large curved track in the field. It was caused by a Circle Pivot irrigation system, which did not exist in 1863. See more »
Do you believe in friendship, Wyatt Earp?
[nods head silently]
So do I. Do you have many friends?
[shakes head 'no' silently]
Neither do I.
John here has been a good friend to me when many others would not. *Dave Rutabagh* is an ignorant scoundrel! I disapprove of his very existence. I considered ending it myself on several occasions, but... self-control always got the better of me.
[takes a slug of whiskey]
Besides, I'm a sporting man. I'm not a killer.
[...] See more »
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.
78 of 103 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?