A fairly entertaining movie, but not exactly historically accurate. Wyatt Earp supposedly tracked down the men who murdered his brothers Morgan and Virgil. Though it is true Morgan Earp was shot in the back while shooting billiards, Virgil Earp lived a fairly long life, and died of pneumonia in 1905, at the age of 62, which was a full life at the time.
shareWhat is your point - the movie showed Virgil survived the attempt on his life (he was the guy getting on the train to California with Morgan's body and the rest of the family when Stilwell was killed by Wyatt). It is historically accurate that an attempt on Virgil's life was made and that i resulted in him losing the use of one arm. As for the rest of the accuracy in the movie there are probably heaps of dramatic licence taaken as well as outright falsehoods.
It is a movie tho not a documentary so we should't get too upset.
[deleted]
The beginning of the movie actually starts out with the announcement, "This is what actually happened."So did King Arthur and nobody takes that seriously.
[deleted]
I saw that announcement at the opening of the film. I have seen several documentaries on the gunfight at the OK corral and its aftermath and some of the events shown in this movie was way off base (especially with Ike Clanton). I also visited Tombstone. AZ a few years ago and the tour guides discussion there were more closer to the documentaries.
shareLike why was the county sheriff referred to as Sheriff Bryant, when it clearly should have been Sheriff Behan?
shareFinding a historically accurate portrayal of Wyatt Earp will be quite challenging indeed. History has a tendency of making martyr's out of thugs like Earp.
share"Thug" seems a bit much, especially in light of the fact that two of Earp's brothers were TWICE shot by members of the outlaw gang. The members of the Clanton/McLaury/Broscius gang were known stage robbers, cattle thieves and killers- nobody denies this. The Earps were not the paragons of virtue as portrayed by Hugh O'Brien in the TV series, "Wyatt Earp", but neither were they particularly different than the average lawmen of the West. When Wyatt killed several members of the outlaw gang during the so-called "Vendetta Ride", it was because law & order had so broken down in that part of Arizona that to get convictions on the gang for the killing of Morgan and the crippling of Virgil became impossible. The sensibilities of that time and place were different than ours today. Earp was forced to choose between either upholding Law, and surrendering Order, or upholding Order, and going against the letter of the law. he chose to do the latter. To second guess him now, in the comfort of our modern lives, or to label him a "Thug" because we might have chosen differently, probably because we lack the courage and fortitude to do what he did, seems petty and small. One might ask martimus98 what HE might have done, in that time and place, in similar circumstances. I doubt he will be willing to say, however.
shareWell said.
shareEarp was'nt a thug, he was a MAN.
shareYou have to wonder about the judgment (not to mention the eyesight) of someone who makes a big deal about Virgil Earp being murdered in the movie when he's clearly shown surviving the attempt. Who did the OP think that guy with his arm in the sling Wyatt was helping board the train was? Just a stranger Wyatt was being kind to?
shareThe depiction of Curly Bill Broscius's death and the duel with Ike Clanton bothered me a lot more.
"I shall tread uncommon wary and keep my pepperbox handy."
Doc Holliday was 29 when the OK Corral occurred, gray haired Jason Robards was 45 when this movie was made.
This will be the high point of my day; it's all downhill from here.
I don't know how I missed this over the years but I flipped the TV on in the middle of the night and there it was. Missed too much to make a good judgement?
I thought Robards was ok (much better as Cheyanne a year later for Leone)and R.Ryan was the most elegant looking I.Clanton you could imagine.
Kisskiss, Bangbang
I'm sure it was a bit of showmanship on John Sturges's part, pretty much claiming it was a "true" story.
I thought it was a good by the numbers western without being any thing special. IMO Garner and Robards lacked a little chemistry together, but given this was a sequel to his own Gunfight at the OK Corral, maybe Sturges thought he'd focused enough on their relationship in that episode.
I just want to know why Holliday looks like an old man? He was 29/30 years old during the fight at the OK Corral. In this he has gray hair, and looks as if he's in his 50s+.
-Nam
I am on the road less traveled...