Overrated

brilliant actors, brilliant editing

There are better movies of two hours length. I loved the actress'performance.

The acting in this movie is really good.

It was okay. Not worth investing 188 minutes of your life to. It had good moments sure, but Wyatt Earp is forgettable and not worth remembering in the first place. The movie uses a PG-13 F bomb(the rarely broken rule that you can use the F word once in a PG-13 movie to maintain that rating) very meaninglessly. Wyatt says "I'm Wyatt Earp." A man responds with "Who the ---- is Wyatt Earp?" Um, the guy who said so-perhaps? Kevin Costner has better movies than this, like Field of Dreams, JFK, etc. Also, Roger Ebert gave it 2/4 stars-if that tells you anything about these 2 ratings.

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.

In the old West one of the most heavily milked upon subject that every fan of Western history will always spring into mind was the event that happened on October 26, 1881, that was the infamous showdown at the O.K. Corral located in Tombstone, Arizona. For many years, filmmakers have been making adaptations and documentaries about this fearsome battle that if you've seen enough of these, it's very hard for you to forget about. In 1993 and 1994, two movies spawned upon this topic came out one after the other that were pretty high in terms of budget. Those two film were "Tombstone" from 1993 and "Wyatt Earp" from 1994. In a sheer twist of irony, both films were being made pretty much simultaneously and nearing butting heads around the same locations. And while George Cosmatos' "Tombstone" emphasized on the epic gunfight itself, Lawrence Kasdan's "Wyatt Earp" concentrated on the main character of "Wyatt Earp". From his humble beginnings to his deadly showdown and everything else in between Kasdan left nothing out. In 1993, "Tombstone" received a substantial amount of praise and well-deserved accolades and was opened more to big box office success. Warner Brothers had to stall "Wyatt Earp" from its release months later as to avoid from being on a competitive level with "Tombstone". When "Wyatt Earp" was released in June of 1994, it still had the warm reception it had like "Tombstone", but the box office had a lower impact. My guess was that it came out too soon and people were still buzzing about "Tombstone" and just weren't freshening up to this more character driven film. And though it remains the kid brother to "Tombstone", it still doesn't mean this movie was terrible. In fact for a biopic, it is a very engaging film that deserves the humble credit it had. For a movie that crawls over the three hour hurdle, this movie literally chronicles Wyatt Earp from his childhood era as he wanted to free himself from his family life to move onto bigger and better things. We watch as he was vital in the building of the famous transcontinental railway lines even down to his personal life from the loss of his first wife his alcoholic phase from becoming an outlaw to throwing his evil ways away to becoming a lawman which eventually led him and his brothers to the big shooting party at the O.K. Corral in Tombstone, Arizona. One of the idiosyncrasies that makes this film special was that Kasdan and co-writer Dan Gordon really put a lot of thought and a lot of care for the material and there's never a dull scene and the narrative remains at a steady pace throughout. The performances were really accurate in it portrayals. Kevin Costner who at the time seemed like an aficionado in the Western genre was the perfect casting choice for the role of the titular character. He just felt his comfort zone in this very complex role. Though Costner carries the heavy cargo in this role doesn't mean that the supporting characters were insignificant. Round out the cast Dennis Quaid was equally riveting as another will known lawman named Doc Holiday. He even molded himself to lose 30 lbs. to look like a sickly man who has tuberculosis. Other well known performers include Michael Madsen as Wyatt's brother Virgil, Gene Hackman as his father Nicholas, Mark Harmon as lawman Johnny Behan, Catherine O'Hara as Allie, Bill Pullman as deputy Ed Masterson, Tom Sizemore as his brother Bat and Isabella Rosselini as a hooker named Big Nose Kate. In spite of this electrifying cast Kasdan ensures that no one gets usurped and no one is left out. The cinematography by Oscar nominee Owen Roizman stands out very well too. Roizman manages to make the landscapes look and feel quite authentic. If I was to say there was a weakness, it would have to be the length of this film. I'm not going to whine about the length, but even for a patient man, this film can be quite long and not very comfortable on the buttocks either. My advice, bring a soft cushion to watch this film, it is that long. After all's said and done, "Wyatt Earp" succeeds in being epic and provocative and very rich in both action and character. It displays a crew that enjoyed their work and the heart put into it. The characters were rich and the acting was superb. Sure it was lengthy, but it will still tug at your heartstrings. It's not better than "Tombstone", but equally captivating.

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.