MovieChat Forums > Wyatt Earp (1994) Discussion > My one big problem in Wyatt Earp

My one big problem in Wyatt Earp

posted 9 years ago by A_Real_Hip_Dude
16 replies | jump to latest

I like the movie but this is something that is just painful to watch: When Costner plays the young Wyatt driving a stage it seems that his understanding of the character was such that he was a mentally deficient (retarded) young man of forty-five years old.

Apparently to Costner, the way to portray Earp in his young days was to have him appear simple and goofy, with a bit of "aw, shucks" wholesome naiveté. I just thought this was an area where the movie, particularly Costner's acting, really fell apart. And this is on top of the fact that no matter how simple Costner appeared, he could still not convincingly come off as a roughly twenty-ish year old boy.

reply

[–] Corky666 9 years ago

You're the one who's RETARDED
He was playing WE in his younger years, who cares if Costner was 45, he played the part well.

Terrible post, go back to Transformer and Michael Bay movies you DOLT

reply

[–] A_Real_Hip_Dude 9 years ago

Dude, I would love to argue this with you, but first say something intelligent. Please come back at me, I love seeing people bring themselves down with their own ignorance and stupidity.

Suggestion: make a point in regards to my analysis and why I'm wrong. Please.

Btw, haven't seen the Transformers movies, and even if I did, who cares? I'm not afraid to like what I like.

reply

[–] Corky666 9 years ago

Um, you used "retarded" not me.

reply

[–] A_Real_Hip_Dude 9 years ago

So nothing? I'm retarded because I didn't like his acting in a certain part of the movie?

reply

[–] Corky666 9 years ago

Because it's clear you never studied the history of WE. You're basing his character on the way he's portrayed in the movie. Kasdan and Costner nailed it for your info. Call me a WE historian or whatever but I studied this time in history for years and years. Call me a WE snob, that's ok, but I know everything there is to know on the man, his myth, his legend and his facts. Stop basing your opinions on his real character for your lack of information.

reply

[–] A_Real_Hip_Dude 9 years ago

So if I understand you right, and if I don't please make yourself clear to me, the fact that I don't like Costner's acting in a couple of select scenes, to you, means that I don't know anything about the history of the character?

That my friend is a VERY interesting path of reasoning. If told you that I use mid-grade gasoline, would you conclude that I hate motorcycles?

reply

[–] artistathome 9 years ago

The best line in the movie is; "Damn!" Who's Ed Ross?"

the writing in this movie was great.

reply

[–] spookyrat1 9 years ago

I thought Costner was pretty convincing as the young Earp. I didn't mind that the character reflected a certain naïve charm at that stage. Wyatt himself admits that he hadn't killed any one, but we see the evolution of his character from fresh-faced youngster to hardened, experienced, frontier lawman-killer.🐭

reply

[–] A_Real_Hip_Dude 9 years ago

And that's certainly fair, I don't think that everyone has to have my take on those scenes (obviously), but from what I can tell, Wyatt was always a bit of the serious, straight-up, sparse-words type. He got it from being at home working under his father, who was a strict disciplinarian, and having to be on-hand for the wagon train headed to California, while his older brothers were away in the Civil War.

But even so, it can certainly be of value to watch that progress from young and naïve to older and stern. But my real gripe was just with his acting in those several scenes (and I generally really like Costner in this as Wyatt); I really felt like he played naïve a little too strongly and came off as almost a little too simple. Plus the fact that Wyatt was about 18 or so at the time of the stage scenes and that's just hard to pull off if you're 49 years old, no matter how good of an actor you are.

But all-in-all I really like this movie and really liked Costner and Quaid in it. I'm really just thankful they made it. As much as I love Tombstone I'm happy to have something that looks deeper into Wyatt's life.

reply

[–] spookyrat1 9 years ago

... and that's just hard to pull off if you're 49 years old, no matter how good of an actor you are.

No he was only 39 at time of filming, not 49 and I think the make-up artists do a pretty good job of making him look twentyish.🐭

reply

[–] A_Real_Hip_Dude 9 years ago

I should have proof read that, it was supposed to be 39, not 49.

reply

[–] JacksWarning 8 years ago

I Have and your opinion on the man is way off. This film gets SO MUCH wrong with the history and with the character of Wyatt Earp.

Wyatt Earp was never a drunkard at that period of his life. Wyatt Earp was not some kind of expert pistolier. He never burned down his home. He never beat a man half to death and stole his horse. His father was NOT a lawyer. He was not a stone face jerk and he was portrayed by a wooden Kevin Costner in a horrible manner.

If you want to see an accurate portrayal, watch the Johnny Tyler scene in Tombstone. THAT is Wyatt Earp.

reply

[–] bobbiekaye69 8 years ago

If you want to see an accurate portrayal, watch the Johnny Tyler scene in Tombstone. THAT is Wyatt Earp.

I agree totally. Wyatt was human, and therefore flawed. But he was generally on the side of right over wrong. He was very charismatic, and he carried an air about him that his enemies found intimidating. Hence the Johnny Tyler scene, which was outstanding. "Are you just gonna sit there and bleed?"

I once read of an incident in Tonopah in the early part of the 20th Century. There was a dispute over a mining claim that almost came to a gun battle. Wyatt walked right into the middle of it and ordered the men to calm down and put their weapons away. Wyatt's very presence was enough to defuse a bad situation.

Tombstone is a great film, and portrays Wyatt and the rest much more accurately than this film does.

I intend to live forever.
So far, so good.

reply

[–] kellydofc 9 years ago

I think Costner is a poor "actor" all the way around. I have never seen a Kevin Costner movie where he isn't playing himself and it always pulls me out of the movie.
I was so excited when this movie came out because I was living very near Tombstone at the time and so went to many, many re-enactments in the town. Heck my mother's dentist played Doc Holliday in the one of the yearly events for ages so he told me all kinds of information about the gunfight and is probably responsible for my fascination in this event. I have lost count of how many books I have read about what happened in the town in the early 1880's and I couldn't wait to see it come to life in this huge movie epic.
For the most part I was dissapointed. I have seen this movie several times and to this day I still can't tell one Clanton or McLaury from the other. As mentioned, I found Costner to be horribly wooden (though to be fair I find Wyatt to be the least compelling of all the participants of the events in Tombstone). The script was bloated and should have been tightened and streamlined so that we could get to know some of the other characters better (I have a feeling Costner would have preferred to make Wyatt Earp a miniseries a la The Hatfield and Maccoys). Some of the costume choices were blatantly wrong. I think Catherine O'Hara was terribly miscast as Allie Earp, who was a petite Irish spit-fire. I did like Dennis Quaid and thought the other Earp brothers weren't bad. The movie was visually stunning but in the end it just didn't move me. I didn't care when people were shot or killed with the exception of Urilla's death and that was due to Karen Grassle's moving performance and surely we are meant to feel something when Morgan is killed or Virgil is shot.
I still don't think the definitive version of what happened in Tombstone in 1881 has been made. Personally, I would love it if someone would do a 2 night miniseries about John Henry Holliday especially since we've gotten 2 really good bios about him in the past decade or so.
Is Wyatt Earp horrible? No, I've seen worse movies. Is it the epic Costner tried to sell it as? Also, no and I suspect that has more to do with Costner's ego than almost anything else.

Freedom of religion means ALL religions not just your own.

reply

[–] AndoMando 8 years ago

This movie is massively underrated. And for the record Costner was 39 when this was shot. Not 45.

reply

[–] A_Real_Hip_Dude 8 years ago

Thats already been addressed. And yes, it is underrated.

reply