Different movies, same character, different actors, different perspectives, same idea. How do you view these two movies?
For myself, I just now got done watching Wyatt Earp for the first time, and all I can say is that I appreciate Val Kilmer in Tombstone SOOO much more than I did before. I've always thought Kilmer was incredible, but watching Dennis Quaid (who actually did a solid job) play Doc Holiday, I couldn't help but think how much better Kilmer would have done.
Wyatt Earp
Pros:
1. The audience gets a better sense of Wyatt Earp, and the things that led up to what made him famous.
2. Wyatt wasn't the angel of Good, as he seems to be in Tombstone. His character is deeper and more complicated.
3. Introduced to the family of the Earps more, and get a better sense of who they were as people.
4. You get a better (and probably more accurate) perspective on Doc Holiday, although I still feel this movie doesn't fully account for Holiday's reputed cold-blooded attitude toward killing.
Cons:
1. Kevin Costner. The role had SO much complexity to it...and Costner just doesn't have that versatility.
2. No Val Kilmer. So Dennis, but your Doc Holiday pales besides Kilmer.
3. Too long, too much needless information. The movie was entertainment, shot as a documentary. I get trying to connect with the characters, but it was just too long, and not good enough to make it worth it.
4. Poor identification of characters. I was 2 hours into the movie before I knew all of the Earps by face. And since the Gunfight at the OK Corral was sort of the climax of the movie, you would think there would be more character development of the Clantons and McLaurys. Hell, until he died, I had no idea who was Billy Clanton. There'd be several times I'd see faces and wonder which side they were on. Poor character identification.
Tombstone
Pros:
1. Val Kilmer.
2. Val Kilmer. He was so amazing in this movie, it deserves to be mentioned twice.
3. The actors were believable bad-asses. Kurt Russel isn't the greatest actor ever, but when he's telling Johnny Tyler to "skin that smoke-wagon and see what happens", and then again when he says "you gonna do somethin'? Or are you just gonna stand there and bleed? "...you really think that Russel is a half second away from beating the man to death. His presence as a bad-ass is far superior to Costners. The characters of Virgil and even Doc Holiday made you think these were hard asses who took no shit from anyone.
4. More enjoyable. While it doesn't cover the expanse that Wyatt Earp does, by focusing in on the most memorable part of Earp's life, the movie is able to be better developed, and thus, more entertaining.
Cons:
1. Never been a fan of Russel. If he wasn't being a hard-ass, he was being sucky.
2. There are some important pieces of background that are left out, which makes the audience wonder what they are missing. For example, how did Wyatt and Doc just happen to meet in Tombstone? The way the movie makes it look, it was just pure coincidence.
3. No real concept of the family of the Earps, just individuals doing what they wanted.
4. The rift between the Earps and Behan/county isn't explored nearly as well, which is a shame as it was a very important part in history.
Overall, Tombstone is the better movie, and by far, in my opinion. But, I certainly don't regret watching Wyatt Earp, and probably will again.
Oh, and Val Kilmer is simply amazing.
For myself, I just now got done watching Wyatt Earp for the first time, and all I can say is that I appreciate Val Kilmer in Tombstone SOOO much more than I did before. I've always thought Kilmer was incredible, but watching Dennis Quaid (who actually did a solid job) play Doc Holiday, I couldn't help but think how much better Kilmer would have done.
Wyatt Earp
Pros:
1. The audience gets a better sense of Wyatt Earp, and the things that led up to what made him famous.
2. Wyatt wasn't the angel of Good, as he seems to be in Tombstone. His character is deeper and more complicated.
3. Introduced to the family of the Earps more, and get a better sense of who they were as people.
4. You get a better (and probably more accurate) perspective on Doc Holiday, although I still feel this movie doesn't fully account for Holiday's reputed cold-blooded attitude toward killing.
Cons:
1. Kevin Costner. The role had SO much complexity to it...and Costner just doesn't have that versatility.
2. No Val Kilmer. So Dennis, but your Doc Holiday pales besides Kilmer.
3. Too long, too much needless information. The movie was entertainment, shot as a documentary. I get trying to connect with the characters, but it was just too long, and not good enough to make it worth it.
4. Poor identification of characters. I was 2 hours into the movie before I knew all of the Earps by face. And since the Gunfight at the OK Corral was sort of the climax of the movie, you would think there would be more character development of the Clantons and McLaurys. Hell, until he died, I had no idea who was Billy Clanton. There'd be several times I'd see faces and wonder which side they were on. Poor character identification.
Tombstone
Pros:
1. Val Kilmer.
2. Val Kilmer. He was so amazing in this movie, it deserves to be mentioned twice.
3. The actors were believable bad-asses. Kurt Russel isn't the greatest actor ever, but when he's telling Johnny Tyler to "skin that smoke-wagon and see what happens", and then again when he says "you gonna do somethin'? Or are you just gonna stand there and bleed? "...you really think that Russel is a half second away from beating the man to death. His presence as a bad-ass is far superior to Costners. The characters of Virgil and even Doc Holiday made you think these were hard asses who took no shit from anyone.
4. More enjoyable. While it doesn't cover the expanse that Wyatt Earp does, by focusing in on the most memorable part of Earp's life, the movie is able to be better developed, and thus, more entertaining.
Cons:
1. Never been a fan of Russel. If he wasn't being a hard-ass, he was being sucky.
2. There are some important pieces of background that are left out, which makes the audience wonder what they are missing. For example, how did Wyatt and Doc just happen to meet in Tombstone? The way the movie makes it look, it was just pure coincidence.
3. No real concept of the family of the Earps, just individuals doing what they wanted.
4. The rift between the Earps and Behan/county isn't explored nearly as well, which is a shame as it was a very important part in history.
Overall, Tombstone is the better movie, and by far, in my opinion. But, I certainly don't regret watching Wyatt Earp, and probably will again.
Oh, and Val Kilmer is simply amazing.
