Wyatt Earp's Revenge (2012 Video) User Reviews

Not great, but not terrible

[deadasjuliuscaesar · 6/10 · 10 March 2012]

Straight-to-video is justified, considering the low budget. However, as Earp movies go, this was more than watchable. A fairly well-structured narrative. But definitely more for those, like myself, who are fascinated with the subject matter.

Val Kilmer plays an aging Wyatt Earp giving an interview to a newspaper reporter about his involvement in the investigation of the murder of actress Dora Hand in Dodge City, which is a genuine historical event (though to what degree the real Earp's involvement actually was depends on which historian's account you may be reading). Kilmer's work is probably the most memorable element of this film, very moving, making Earp down-to-earth and realistic. The actor playing the reporter does a fine job as well (not sure who he is, but he bears a striking resemblance to Patrick Dempsey).

The actors playing the young Earp, Bat Masterson, Charlie Bassett, Spike Kenedy, etc. are also fine, though the script doesn't give them much to work with as far as deep character development. The actor playing Doc Holliday (in one scene only) is very memorable. His expressions ('daisy', etc.) may seem like they're borrowed from Kilmer's Doc from "Tombstone", but they're actually historically validated as being genuine southern expressions, and many books attribute them to Holliday. This might be the first on-screen Doc since Victor Mature NOT to have a mustache, though (for what that observation's worth).

My gripes are: a. The music score didn't seem to fit very well. That's very often a crutch with movies; the use of the music can often damage the 'mood' of a film which would be better served having no music at all. b. When Bat Masterson is introduced, he's involved in a fist-fight which employs some use of slow-motion which doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever. c. The film looks too 'neat'. A grittier, darker look would have infinitely improved the experience.

A nice thing about this film is the use of almost 'forgotten' lawmen, such as Charlie Bassett and Bill Tilghman, who have gotten very few portrayals in film.

Overall, not a complete waste of time. Again, more for those interested in Earp history. I appreciated the references to the "Buntline Special" revolver, the historicity of which has been debated for quite some time.

A Fair Straight to DVD Experience for Die-Hard Genre Fans

[deawesk · 5/10 · 6 March 2012]

When someone says "straight to DVD" that invokes a certain "image" about a film, and this movie embodies it perfectly. Small budget, virtually unknown cast, simple story... pretty much everything you'd expect. But that's not to say it doesn't have good points too: Val Kilmer as an elder Wyatt Earp does a fine job and has several genuinely touching moments. Wilson Bethel steals his scenes as Doc Holliday, taking a hilarious and memorable turn as the character Kilmer himself made famous. (And Kilmer as Doc fans will appreciate that Bethel seems to be playing from the former's play-book - down to using Kilmer's more memorable lines.) There are some truly lovely vista shots (as one would expect from any western worth it's salt) and a few honestly funny comedic moments.

Down the downside, I do wish Trace Adkins had gotten more scene time and the script could have definitely done with a bit of a cliché overhaul.

Overall, I'd say it does a fine job at being exactly what it is - a straight to DVD Western; nothing more and nothing less.

A Sad, Dull And Extended TV Show

[messiercat · 4/10 · 5 March 2012]

Apologies to Deadwood for any comparison. If you're just going to wave a western in front of a camera, a viewer has to ask the valid question - what's the point? Apparently all involved with this enterprise thought that superficial pretense could carry the day and ridin' around 'n ominous music would convey all ya need to know about some sort of story. The casting was positively ludicrous. Every one of the twenties something pampered southern Cal principles here looked fresh out of a shower and the makeup trailer, and I'm telling you, dentistry in the late 1800s must have been pretty cutting edge with all those pearly whites on display. A very lame and uninteresting production that wasn't even worthy of having Val Kilmer snoringly narrate the tale with innumerable pregnant pauses, but maybe having Timothy Olyphant and John Hawkes lookalikes was supposed to make up for all it's low budget deficiencies. A real poser. Bleh.

Worn out western

[Wizard-8 · 30 August 2014]

I first learned of this movie when finding a DVD copy of it in my local Wal-Mart's $5 DVD bin. Now, I love westerns, and I was tempted to buy it since it was a western and cheap. But then I remembered that Val Kilmer in recent years has said yes to numerous junky projects. So I ultimately decided not to buy it. But today I watched it after it appeared on a movie TV channel, and boy, am I glad I didn't buy it all those months ago. To begin with, the movie is a cheat. Though Val Kilmer's name is trumpeted, in fact he only has about seven to ten minutes of footage in the entire movie. Which is just as well, because the combination of his uninspired acting plus his strangely puffy face doesn't exactly make him interesting to observe. Actually, the rest of the cast is pretty awful as well. They give "modern" performances despite the bulk of the movie taking place in the 1800s, and none of their characters come across in a compelling way. The surroundings are shabby as well - there's not that much action, with the movie mostly being conversations, none of which sounds very interesting. And the movie looks real cheap, from the unconvincing sets to unspectacular countryside. Whether you are a Kilmer fan and/or a western fan, more likely than not you'll find this movie to be really poor and not worth any attention.

Spend your time elsewhere

[TMoney46 · 3/10 · 3 October 2012]

For very good reason, copies of this on DVD are selling for around A$2 on eBay. The parts of Val Kilmer retelling the story weren't too bad - it was the parts that showed the story that were just awful. It didn't flow at all and jumped around too much to be able to relate to any of it.

There's no other way to describe the acting than shocking. I've seen better acting at school plays than was on show here. I'd love to know how much these people were being paid for their roles. If it's anything significant then I'm downing tools and becoming an actor because while I may not be better than this lot (Kilmer excluded), I couldn't be worse.

The actual premise of the story in itself isn't a bad one and having done some research on it is quite an interesting tale. The way it's portrayed in Wyatt Earp's Revenge is just terrible. I wouldn't have been surprised if Rob Schneider popped in for a cameo it was that cringe worthy.

Kilmer was good, the rest not even worth bothering with.

Dismal!

[stevenhenry_69 · 1/10 · 10 March 2012]

I seldom write reviews...However...On this occasion I felt the "Western genre" fans needed a heads up on this title. Westerns are rare these days and having always liked the genre...I thought I'd give this a try...having my appetite whetted again with the likes of "Deadwood" or even 3:10 to Yuma. Oh my! What a total and utter disappointment. To use a British term... What a lot of utter tosh! I sat through it thinking "it''s got to get better or have some saving grace"....it didn't on either count... now all that valuable time I wasted when I could have been doing something useful like picking my feet is gone forever. This movie went straight to DVD...can see why...but don't know why they even bothered. It was made with the same panache and imagination as Bonanza in the 60's. The story was predictable in the extreme and the acting and dialogue was embarrassing to watch. The costumes were laughable as well as very clean and I was left feeling that the movie was either made as a prank or for a bet. I cannot believe somebody actually sank money into making it. I guess Val Kilmer was there to give it some credibility..........he didn't! I would rank this as about as bad as a western gets...in fact off the top of my head I cannot recall one that was worse than this offering This ranks high on my list of all time movie garbage. So please if you're thinking of actually paying money for this, do yourself a real big favour and ...DON'T! Do something useful with the cash instead like having a few beers or giving to the homeless...because if you do buy it....well you have been warned!

There should be a zero star rating...

[phil-932-237806 · 1/10 · 24 November 2018]

How not to make a western... looks like a video made for television. Too many tight lens / moving camera shots. A western should be shot on film with wide angle lenses and SMOOTH camera moves.

Tombstone Prequel gone wrong..

[opensorce69 · 1/10 · 25 June 2012]

The direction and (with the exception of Mr Kilmer) the acting in this movie are so badly done it honestly felt like a fan fiction. While it was interesting and even entertaining to see Val Kilmer play Wyatt Earp, there is nothing else even remotely redeeming about this movie.

There were many places where the filmmakers tried desperately to pay homage to the 1993 movie Tombstone. Even going as far as having characters from both movies say similar lines and using Michael Sherayko, the actor who played Texas Jack Vermillion in Tombstone, in a small role. However, it fails miserably.

I would rank this one right up there with Showgirls, Highlander:The Source and Bloodrayne:Third Reich.

Only watch this if it's a choice between this movie and a punch in the face

[brendancclarke · 1/10 · 18 July 2012]

There are so many goofs in this sad rubbish that I am quite at a loss to know where to begin. What about the opening scene when the young reporter (who turns out to be the kid who's father is boringly killed by the boring killer) starts talking to the old Kilmer Earp, who just stares off into space for two minutes like he has forgotten his stupid lines and then snaps out of it all of a sudden (with no explanation) and starts babbling. Little does the viewer know that the nasty, uncouth Earp is going to turn into a little mound of sugar at the end of this "movie". We are introduced to one of the (boring) characters with a (for no reason) slow motion fight scene, which, I might add is Apaullingly done. The fight is between one of the main characters and someone I call "Mr Shampoo" as for all the grease and grime that covers his body and clothes, he made sure to wash and condition his hair before filming so that his hair flows around in slow, dramatic... boring motion. I was expecting him to say "because Im worth it" but the idiot never said a word. I suspect this that particular useless actor was the brother of the director. If not I can't work out why he didn't end up on the cutting room floor. At least I had a laugh when after getting punched, he turns and leaps onto a pile of what look like pillows on the floor. I did laugh at that bit. What about the unrealistic gunfights with the guns that sound like wet squibs? What about the boring bad guy father of the evil dude with a funny name....? Er was it Mougli or Mimi or mumikins or something like that... Oh I don't know. But all the way through it they are building up to this bad dad type and then when you finally meet him, the scariest thing about him is his uncool beard! Sheesh! There's the brother of the bad guy who just gets shot every five minutes but never actually gets round to dying, the silly punch ups, and the irritating Mexican gentleman who only cackled instead of speaking. Does the word "racism" mean anything to anyone? And what a stylish ending... Wyatt Earp bashes the evil dudes head in with a rock? ohhhh Im impressed! And then the evil dude, boringly does not die... and then he does... also boringly. Oh and the music... Oh dear! There are some films in which the music stands out for its excellence: The godfather, the Good the bad and the ugly, Jaws, Cape Fear and Pulp fiction to name but a few. Generally speaking however, the music is an element that shouldn't be noticed in a movie. it should add to the dramatic build up of the scene. I'll tell you how the (boring) sound editors of this movie did it: They opened the sound editing software and went to the file called "western soundtracks" and they scrolled down to the subfile called "total cheese" and they double clicked. In that folder they found backing music with memorable titles such as "drunken maniac slapping a broken banjo with a fish" and "Off key western saloon piano played by total beginner at frenetic speed" and even "What it would sound like if a classically trained pianist were totally coked up and forced at gunpoint to play the piano, blindfolded and with his knees... sped up really fast" and other gems. The mad person in charge of the soundtrack thought all of this was the coolest and didn't hesitate to pop it all in at every part of the movie that the alcoholic director of this nonsense would let him. The result being a totally distracting and really bad soundtrack. Hmmm now have I left anything out? Well yes. Every single scene in this waste of time is like torture. i went to the toilet after watching this and realised that the act of going to the toilet was much more intellectually stimulating that this picture. I hope the losers that made this movie never work again. Look at the filmographies of the director and you see that he makes million of TV movies at the same time. He has no interest in quality and deserves to be unemployed. Did this movie make any money? I hope it made a terrible loss. If I can have any influence on the universe let it be this: Don't watch this movie! Don't waste your money on this total incompetence. Now just a little message for Val Kilmer: Mate! You are the best actor in this flick but the movie is baaaaaaaaaaaaaaad. Most of us thought you would never get your credibility back after "The Saint" but we were actually starting to forgive and forget and then what did you do? Val... What were you thinking? This movie! Now I realise it just took you one afternoon and that the money probably wasn't bad for an afternoons work but come on. Nobody will take you seriously if you do garbage like this. Now a message for the director: You didn't have to bother with Val Kilmer. Just get any old nerd with no personality and pop a hat and five kilo moustache on him. Call him Val Killmar and no one will notice. You could have saved money there.You didn't take advantage of Val Kilmer at all. You could have used him but no... You took the cheaper option didn't you? Apart from that one more thing: You deserve unemployment. To the producers... well kinda the same. I hope you never work again. The actors: You guys are just starting out so I can forgive you. You guys were not too bad except the shampoo guy and the cackling Mexican who were terrible. I'm not sure I have made myself clear.

Good story, decent cast, horrible interpretation of Western Kansas terrain

[aliciagregg · 6/10 · 11 March 2012]

Overall I enjoyed the movie, there were a few rough acting spots....But the story was good and believable.

What bothered me was the setting. If you are making a movie about Dodge City, or Western Kansas, please be aware that it is FLAT. The foot hills, green fields, vistas, etc., are all beautiful in this movie. However, there isn't a single hill in Western Kansas, it is as flat as a piece of paper, and dirty, dry and brown. With scenery this mismatched it was a little hard to believe the movie was supposed to be set in Dodge City and surrounding counties.

Other than the poor location shoot choice, and some awkward acting at times -- Overall, I enjoyed the movie. It's worth a watch.

Worst Western Ever

[loveskiing · 1/10 · 12 March 2012]

I've seen Westerns for many many years and this is by far the worst ever. Makes one wonder where the supposed 3M budget went because it certainly didn't go to the actors. Watching Val Kilmer struggle in this one, brought up how difficult it must be for actors that are past their prime and are willing to do grade F movies for a buck. The actors that they found to surround Kilmer must have been extras that they gave double scale pay to pretend they had talent. I kept watching trusting that at some point the movie would pick up and get better but as the minutes ticked by, I found myself getting more disappointed that I'd wasted more time on something that wasn't going anywhere fast. I've literally seen better movies done by high school and college students. Save your $$$ and pass this pathetic excuse of a movie by.

Enjoyable true story prequel to 'Tombstone'

[phd_travel · 8/10 · 21 March 2015]

This is a prequel to Tombstone, a quest by Wyatt Earp and his friends including Bat Masterson to avenge the killing of his first love Dora Hand an actress. Because the characters are real you feel for them as opposed to some fictitious Western. Also because it's a true story you don't have to question the story. Shoot outs are not too over the top and they are more realistic and exciting because of that. The Kennedy brothers who are the villains are quite well drawn villains as they sadistically shoot and kill innocent people along the way.

Val Kilmer who is a bit plump now just plays the older Wyatt Earp in the 20th century giving an interview if a San Francisco hotel to a journalist. The younger cast is led by Resident Evil's Shawn Roberts and Matt Dallas of Kyle XY. There also is an appearance by Doc Holliday played by Wilson Bethel. American Idol's Diana de Garmo plays Dora. It is interesting to see other characters besides the ones everyone knows from the OK Corrall story. This movie is a well acted true story that would be entertaining to anyone who liked Tombstone.

Above Average

[aaronnelson28 · 7/10 · 5 March 2012]

I have a soft spot for westerns, I just can't get enough of them and whilst I admit I picked this movie up primarily because Trace Adkins was in it, it turned out to be a very well made movie considering its budget and straight to video status.

Val Kilmer's narration and scenes were well acted and heartfelt and the plot was believable and paced appropriately.

The scene with 'Doc' was memorable and wildly entertaining with the actor channeling the amazing version made by, ironically enough, Val Kilmer down to a similar voice and catch phases.

I was a little disappointed that more wasn't done with Trace Adkins, although his trademark southern draw due a smile.

All in all, an above average movie and I definitely recommend it

Couldn't even watch the movie

[cptamericab · 1/10 · 16 March 2012]

This movie was so terrible i didn't even make it through the first scene. The movie opens showing some rancher randomly hammering on a piece of farm equipment from the mid 1950's. Then once he done hammering he pretends to grab the 1/4 inch steel and bend it with his fingers like he is superman or something. *Enter the dual wielding Wyatt Erp* Yes Wyatt Erp did dual wield in real life (freaking awesome considering they were single action revolvers) however he did not dual wield a little chromed out 1873 colt. He had twin Buntline special's with a freaking 12 inch barrel. After all of this, the guy holding them looked like such a California pretty boy it almost made me sick, never mind the total lack of acting skills. I would not recommend this movie to anyone that has seen Tombstone and thought that it was going to be anything with that kind of quality.

The only Wyatt Earp movie I didn't like

[CoastalCruiser · 3/10 · 5 August 2012]

Wow. This movie was a turkey. I've been collecting every film ever done on Wyatt Earp, and each one in its on way has a greatness to it. Until now.

Truthfully, I only bought 'Revenge' to complete the collection. Why? This video has turkey sign all over it:

1) It was made after 'Wyatt Earp' and 'Tombstone'. Those movies set the bar so high one would have to wonder why anyone would bother remaking the Earp story for quite a long time.

2) It has Val Kilmer playing Wyatt Earp. 'nuff said.

3) The title alone casts suspicion.

Once into the movie you notice all the things the other reviewers have commented on. Nice looking costumes... but they look like they just came off the rack. The titles stated the movie was based on a real event. Key word there is "based on", if even that much is true. I also didn't like the way they handled the rape of the prairie wife. The whole scene with that family was stretched to the point that the story turned into a (bad) horror flick. But maybe I'm just a sissy.

What to watch instead of this gobbler? ANY other Wyatt Earp film. Even the 1983 made-for-TV Earp flick with Marie Osmond, 'I Married Wyatt Earp', is better than this. Far better. Far far better.

As I write this review a new Earp film is in production starring Harrison Ford as Wyatt. Hmmm. Gotta go. I think I have a turkey in the oven to check on.

What garbage!!!!!!!!!!!

[nolasofms · 1/10 · 15 March 2012]

This movie was pathetic in every way. It was an insult to the memory and legend of Wyatt Earp. I am a huge fan of "Tombstone" and Val Kilmer should be very ashamed of this piece of garbage. I like to imagine Kurt Russell calling him up and asking WTF? I now need to watch "Tombstone" again as a sort of eye cleansing after watching this nonsense. I really don't know what else to say about it. The cinematography was bad. The shootout scenes were sorry. People would get shot several times and just would not die. The main villain, who had killed a guy just for asking where he was heading, has his pursuer at gunpoint, and decides to have a conversation with him. This had all the typical clichés and stereotypes you could imagine. Shame! Val Kilmer. Shame!

Worst Western Ever

[mag6581 · 1/10 · 7 March 2012]

I can't help but compare every Western I watch to Unforgiven, partially because I've broken that film down in every context imaginable. By that measure, Wyatt Earp's Revenge is the worst western I've ever seen, and I've seen hundreds of them.

In terms of character development and portrayal, there are no opportunities to warm to any of the characters, nor nothing that makes them inherently likable. The act for which Wyatt Earp supposedly wishes to avenge solicits no emotion from the actor who plays him, and the victim of said act is not a priest or a child nor anyone else for whom the audience would care about without extensive back-story. Nor is any back-story offered after the event that might trigger any remorse for the victim in retrospect.

The acting is wooden and horrible. Where actors are meant to look introspective and brooding, they just look bored, or as if they forgot their lines. Dialogue is forced and clichéd, and there is no relevant emotion portrayed in tone. The actors appearance is largely anachronistic, and their behavior nonsensical.

The script is vacuous and terrible. You could cut half the scenes and the outcome would not change. You could tighten up the pacing by cutting half of the remaining scenes, and it would take nothing away from the final product, except that you would see the sum of it in 22 minutes instead of an hour and a half. The cinematography is boring and uninspired -- almost as if it was shot 'by the numbers', and the unending use of 'dramatic' music serves to do nothing but point out how terrible the film is, as if a sit-com with a laugh-track that activates every five seconds.

I must assume that this is a 'first movie' by a fledgling production company following the advice of 'just get that first film in the can'. It's good advice, but it doesn't necessarily mean people should spend their time watching it just for the sake of it. Leave this film as a demonstration of basic competency by a fledgling production company in search of investors, and instead go watch _any_ of the internet archive's public domain westerns instead.

It will be a much better use of your time.

1/10

$3mil budget to made this?

[dx8260 · 2/10 · 2 June 2012]

seriously, where did that $3milion budget went? the story, i didn't even know he was going after the bad guys for killing his girlfriend. i thought they were going after Kennedy brothers for justice! the acting was questionable. last fight scene; if you paid attention,you see "spike Kennedy" threw the guns away, then you see them fighting "spike"still got his gun in the holster. he(spike) throw away his guns because he just loaded them and they went out of bullets? There were other goofs in this movie. If you are bored, i guess watch this but do not pay too much attention on the setting, acting, sound, mostly everything about the movie; just leave it running to pass time!

Historacally it's completely inaccurate, acting is bad, etc

[gorilazed · 4/10 · 17 July 2013]

I like westerns and do so even more if they're based on real events. So when I saw the title containing one of the most iconic characters of American Western History I just dropped my remote sank my butt in the couch and prepared to enjoy the show. Never have I been so wrong. Where to start...???

Acting: Val Kilmer was probably the "biggest" name of the cast and, although he portrays the main character, he literally spends the whole film sitting on a couch and telling his story. Basically he's a narrator. Maybe for the general public that's not a bad thing but personally I miss the old Val Kilmer which had bigger roles in his films. The most important thing for someone playing the narrator is definitely their voice. Kilmer wasn't that bad in this aspect but I think he was lacking a kind of "cowboy accent". Personally I was thinking why didn't they just pick the guy that narrates The Big Lebowski (he's also the one that plays the cowboy in the first Ghost Rider), he has voice and the accent. Concerning the rest of the acting it was to stiff most if not all the time. Even the fight scenes, I mean Earp just stands there when Spike launches himself over him. It wasn't even a decent jump it was kind of a poorly choreographed ballet jump. If you want to knock someone down just cannonball the hell out of him. Still on the same fight, Spike had to guns pointed at Earp and, when he decided to shoot, both guns were out of bullets. Facepalm moment.

Make up: as I've read in previous review, it actually seemed they had better hygienic habits than we have nowadays. Constantly on dirt and riding their horses but always clean. Just like their teeth, why the hell can't I have their cowboy teeth. But this is actually something recurring in almost every movie nowadays. God forbid the main characters from having dental issues.

Historical accuracy: Jesus Christ, where to begin: -Wyatt Earp wasn't the one in charge of the posse to capture Spike. It was actually Charlie Bassett. Earp was one of his deputies. -Everone seemed to know and fear Earp when in truth, during this manhunt he wasn't yet that well known. -Earp had no relationship with the actress Dora. -In the movie old Earp said he never wanted to kill and that he never killed someone for revenge. In truth there was something called "Earps Vendetta Ride" (GOOGLE IT). -Spike's father said Earp couldn't be bought with money but if Earp was as famous as they made him seem in the film he would know that Earp was also a famous gambler.(Of course this doesn't mean he would have been a sell out. I'm just saying he probably wouldn't refuse an offer so quickly). In the end, only the character names were accurate. They might as well have just put Jesse James in the film and say it was Earp that killed him. This movie, in my opinion, is just an excuse to enhance Earps greatness using lies to do so.Yes Earp was a great icon in American Western history but there wasn't the need for so many lies to make him sound great. Just check his biography and you'll find plenty of decent material to make a decent movie about this man.

Overall a give it a 4/10. I was facepalming throughout the whole movie so I don't think I've seen enough to give it a lower score.

A worthy entry in Hollywood's long cannon of Wyatt Earp movies

[apquarrell · 6/10 · 27 August 2012]

So the tale of Wyatt Earp gets a 21st century makeover. Perhaps best described as Wyatt Earp: The Early Years, this movie details an adventure in the life of the young (late 20-something) Wyatt, and is narrated by an older Wyatt (Val Kilmer - who did a fine job of playing Wyatt's sidekick Doc Holliday in Tombestone waaay back in 1993) Featuring a cast of young guns including Shawn Roberts as Wyatt and Matt Dallas as Bat Masterson the film is good clean fun set against the backdrop of the violent west. Playing out like a modern version of the B-western oaters that used to be a cinema staple, it'll be a hard hearted viewer indeed that can't find something positive to say about this flick. True, it looks low budget and appears to have come from a different era of comic books and B-movies, but that's part of the joy. Everyone involved seems to be having a blast from country star Trace Adkins to dastardly bad guy Daniel Booko as Adkins wayward son. Other noteworthy performances include David O'Donnell, Levi Fiehler and a brief but memorable performance from Brian Groh as Confederate Jones, which leaves you longing for the bit part character to get his own movie. While not in the same league as My Darling Clementine, Gunfight at the OK Coral or even 1990s efforts Tombestone and the Wyatt Earp, the yarn is sufficiently entertaining to make you glad they bothered to make it. One is just left longing for some appearances by old time western stars such as Harry Dean Stanton and LQ Jones in these modern day oaters.

A Wanna Be Western

[adicerni · 3/10 · 22 June 2012]

I can't say I've seen as poorly a written film in a long time. The plot and scenes were laughable. There were too many flubs like the fight scene with the holster that is empty, then full, then empty again. The sound of the guns sounded like cap pistols not full size guns of the time.

The acting was better than a made for TV movie but the writing took away from that entirely.

The scenery was nice and some of the costumes were interesting to examine if you can pause and rewind.

I much prefer, if I'm to watch a low budget Western, a Clint Eastwood Spaghetti Western.

Don't watch it unless you feel the need to write a review on it here.

portraits

[Kirpianuscus · 31 July 2020]

The basic motif to see it is Val Kilmer. In fact, he is the only one. Yes, the story is a too simple sketch and the portrait of events is far to be inspired . All remains conventional, in service, not in brilliant manner, of easy cliches and the film gives not something real useful as memory. So, a film about Wyatt Earp. Posible, not the worst one.

Solid performances. Captivating.

[howardoleme-67771 · 9/10 · 19 August 2018]

This story is a part of Earps life I wasn't familiar with. Watched the movie, did some research, found the movie to be fairly accurate. Acting is solid, professional. Believable. Kilmer is perfectly cast as the older Earp relating the story. Glad to see him working his way back. Movie is entertaining. Visually well done also. Enjoyed it. Recommend it.

It speaks to our times. It stammers, but it speaks.

[Nozz · 6/10 · 2 June 2012]

I'll tell you what I liked about the movie, because what's not to like has been pretty well covered. Old Wyatt Earp says, "You have to understand the War Between the States. The war formed us, made us who we are. After killing your own cousins, your own brothers, killing strangers meant nothing. Lawless times followed those long dark years." It's not a new thought, but it's well developed. Out in the countryside the movie presents people who describe themselves as Christian, as if Christianity were driven to take refuge away from the cities and the evil would have to burn itself out before Christianity could return. A parallel could be drawn with modern times in which Christian values seem to be retreating from the great American cities. Along with this idea, we have a bit of the observation that we heard in A Few Good Men, and before that in The Caine Mutiny, about how the kind of warriors we look down upon are the ones who protect our innocence. Val Kilmer hams it up a little, but some behavior that looks unforgivably strange on his part at the beginning is explained at the end. Another pivotal role is played by Diana Degarmo. If you can't believe she is a unique 19th- century stage performer whom men fall head over heels in love with-- even a sober man like Wyatt Earp-- then you don't have a movie here. But she pulls it off. You'd never guess she came off American Idol, although she did. (You'd think the guy playing Bat Masterson did, although he didn't.)

TERRIBLE

[chadwicklund · 1/10 · 24 September 2018]

Watched for free on Amazon prime. But even though it was free, it still cost me an hour and a half of my life ill never get back! Absolutely terrible! I don't understand how Val Kilmer could be in this horrific movie that is supposed to be a western. 98% of the acting is terrible and jumbled. Even the scenery is wrong.