MovieChat Forums > Wyatt Earp (1994) Discussion > Just saw it. Why all the hate?

Just saw it. Why all the hate?


I just saw this movie and as a die-hard fan of Tombstone, I was really expecting to hate this movie but...I really, really liked it! Nominated for a Razzie? Were they just short in finding bad films for 1994?

reply

Awesome film. This is a true biopic. Tombstone is a readers digest, soap opera version of Wyatt Earp.

reply

Before watching this film, your comment would have ticked me off but afterwards, I'm afraid to say that Tombstone is a bit more of a polished and glossy version. Although I liked the Tombstone character development a bit more. Whereas in Wyatt Earp, I couldn't tell the Cowboys apart half the time.

reply

What I really hated about Tombstone was how the Cowboys really hammed it up. It was very comical to me. In WE I felt the Cowboys played it straight and one guy didn't stand out above another. I say that because I read about everything I could ever read about WE including old newspaper accounts and they were all equally bad from Ringo to Stillwell to Curly Bill to the Clantons etc. Yes some personalities stronger than others but just the same I looked at them as a gang in WE where Tombstone worked too hard trying to individualize them.

reply

Couldn't agree more.

To me, Wyatt Earp is a sweeping masterpiece - Kevin Costner was awesome in the title role.

reply

This is a true biopic.
Tombstone is more of an action-packed fictionalized western. This is clearly fashioned as a biopic and sticks far more closely to the known facts of his life. I liked it too and can't imagine why it was nominated for "Razzies", apart from the fact that this was made around the period where "hating Kevin Costner" became rather fashionable. 🐭

reply

'94 was a pretty good year for films, and it's easy to pick on a big-screen failure like this one, especially one starring Kevin Costner that most people found to be slow and pretentious. I actually appreciate it a lot more over time.

reply

Yea same for me not sure why all the hate.. Its not a perfect movie but it was still pretty good with a story that keeps your interest.. I definitely agree Tombstone had a better more exciting whats gonna happen next feel, but this movie was good on its own right.. The one thing I loved that this movie had over Tombstone was that it was a 3hr 10min movie,, I love long long movies.. I wish Tombstone had another hr of story or back story,, it would of just made it that much better.. But all in all they were both good western movies,, its just Tombstone had better acting & was just better written overall..

reply

Tombstone had better acting??? Put down the crack pipe you DOLT

reply

Wyatt Earp is an incredibly well made film in many respects. Well written, well acted, great music, great sets, costumes, etc.

It's just incredibly poorly paced and there's nothing memorable about the bad guys.

People go to the movies to be entertained. Tombstone's more entertaining. It hits harder and gets to the point. Wyatt Earp's scenes drag on forever. A great example is the train scene (eventual killing of Stilwell). The action gets to the point in Tombstone. In Wyatt Earp, you've got the bad guys walking along the train. Then the good guys are walking along the train. Then the bad guys are going around the caboose. Then the good guys are walking around the caboose. Etc., etc., etc. You don't need all that in a movie that's already got so much in it.

reply

Costner's version is epic. Tombstone is shorter faster and more Hollywood.
If you have the time this version is well worth it.
Tombstone is a great Saturday morning film when you are resting after mowing the lawn. Wyatt Earp is when you have a whole afternoon.

reply

You're a very smart person. I appreciate your words

reply

I agree! And I say this as someone that likes both of the films. You summed it up all right there!

reply

This movie is awful. If The Price Is Right wasn't worse, I'd be watching that. I like all the iterations of the O-K Corral business and love a good Western. I usually like Costner, and Kasdan has made a lot of good films, but this one is missing badly. I''m not even sure what to pin it on, but I will say a lot of the dialog is so stilted and so poorly delivered, it's painful. And every scene seems too overtly "stagey." Regardless of whether the actors are rolling in the dirt or wearing their Sunday best, it's too overt. I have no feeling for these characters, and it all looks like too much effort has been put into every scene and camera angle. I'll stick with it, but it's painful.Not to mention the soundtrack ! A soundtrack goes a long way i influencing how we receive a film, and here again it all seems like too much. And I want to like this movie. It was fun to see Tea Leoni, Karen Grassle and Betty Buckley, however brief. And I apologize to everyone who likes WE. I don't go out of my way to be negative about stuff I simplay don't care for, but when I saw this was going to be on, I was pretty happy about it. I mean, we're going up against My Darling Clementine with Hank Fonda and Walter Brennan and all the subsequent incarnations and similar efforts.

reply