Open Range v. Tombstone
There as good as each other in there own way.
sharei think it would be hard to compare, one based on reality, the other fiction.
but i would definately say 'Open Range', the acting is better.
"I don't wanna kill you, and you don't wanna be dead"
Easily, "Open Range". Although the comparison is apples/oranges as Zee mentioned. One is an original movie and the other tells a true story.
"Open Range" has much better cinematography, which is key in a western, easily one of the best gunfights in western history, and great performances from Duvall, Costner, & Michael Jeter.
"Tombstone" is too slick and cheesey in my book. It doesn't have the heart or the grit that "Open Range" has. Although both movies do bog a bit with the romance factor. Annette Bening's part should have been less important in "O R" and Dana Delaney shouldn't have even been in "Tombstone". Someone esle should have played Josie, although it wouldn't have changed anything as her part might be the worst written female part in western history.
Shh don't tell Eddie!, you said all that.
I almost completely forgot about this film, i think this might be what Costner needed, to help his dismal career as of late. Unlike 'Tombstone', directed by low rate Cosmatos, 'Open Range' was directed by Costner himself.
"I don't wanna kill you, and you don't wanna be dead"
[deleted]
Maybe Open Range has better acting, but that's the only better thing it has going for it.
shareI don't know about that. The gunfighting scenes in OR are much better because the sound of the firearms are more realistic and the look and feel of OR is much grittier. I like them both, but Open Range seems to be a more realistic movie whereas Tombstone is more like a storybook come to life.
share[deleted]
"Open Range" solid, classic western. "Tombstone" cartoon like violence and lame acting! So, "Open Range" by a longshot!
shareOpen Range is probably better overall, but Val Kilmer's Doc Holliday charcter should have won him an oscar(and I'm not even a fan of Kilmer).
"Nonsense, I have not even begun to defile myself."
"Why Johnny Ringo...you look like somebody just walked over your grave."
"Apparently Mr. Ringo is an educated man. Now, I really hate him."
"I'm your huckleberry."
etc. etc. etc.
I liked Quaid's Holliday better than Kilmer's.
shareOk. This really depends. If you like a good clean rugged western with really good scenery and an explosive shoot out at the end, I reccomend Open Range.
If you like a western with a little more comic releif (EG 'Doc Holiday' among others), with a good shoot out, I reccomend Tombstone. Tombstone gives you a dry dusty feeling but it makes up for it with awesome..well awesome everything else.
"Fashionably late, eh Johnas? Fashionably late. Gimme a kiss baby!"
Whoa whoa whoa... the gun sounds in Open Range are more realistic? Were you there? Do you go to wastern gunfights very often where they fire off real bullets from guns of that era? Tombstone has far more of a story than open range. Plus Earp and Holiday are much more likable and easier on the eyes than the horrid nameless wonders of Open Range. In my humble opinion... Tombstone isn't that great to begin with but it still outshines Open Range by a few nautical miles.
shareTomstone blows, if you take away Kurt Russell and Val Kilmer, you are not left with much, just lame performances by sub-characters (examples Dana Dalaney, Stephen Lang, Micheal Beihn, Bill Paxton) bad cinematography and a third act that is just plain pointless, let's see how many cowboys we can kill in twenty minutes, "Good shootin' Wyatt"...."Why thank you Doc, I'll let you get the next one"....."Wyatt...you are just too kind". the late George P. Cosmatos was never a good character director, a good action director however. Tombstone gets worse every time I see it. even 'Quick and the Dead' is better in more ways than one.
And i must also say that both Micheal Beihn and Bill Paxton, have given awesome performances for James Cameron's films, but that's because Cameron is a way better director than Cosmatos would ever have hoped to be. A good director is going to get the most out of his/her actors.
Now that being said now for OPEN RANGE:
Open Range is awesome, and if you take away Kevin Costner and Robert Duvall, you are still left with alot, great performances by all of the sub-characters, good cinematography, and a superb gun fight. Annette Bening is lightyears away from the crap performance by Dana Dalaney, the same can be said about Micheal Jeter and Micheal Gambon. Costner, unlike Cosmatos, is BOTH a great character and a action director.
I know all of those staunch Tombstone lovers are going say "You don't know s**t, Tombstone is awsome and the best western ever". Well I do know s**t, and Tombstone lacks what is needed to be great, and the best western ever is 'THE WILD BUNCH'. and I can name more, any number of Clint Eastwood films, Sergio Leone etc, that along with Open Range are still BETTER than Tombstone.
"I don't wanna kill you, and you don't wanna be dead"
tombstone is a popcorn hollywood version of what happened at the ok corral while open range is a fictional story it gives a real authentic feel to it.i can imagine thats how alot of disputes came about and went down back in the west.
i enjoyed tombstone but i think what made it so great was val kilmers performance as doc holliday although he made him a fun likeable character that is far from an accurate portrayal.dennis quaids portrayal was far more accurate.i really cant remember as i havent seen it in years but tombstone also has a huge editing mistake in the film that im not sure any of you realize and unfortunately i cant remember right now.if any of you know what im talking about remind me.
Tombstone may be based on a true story but Open Range had a more authentic feel to me and it was based on fiction. I've seen Tombstone once, I've seen Open Range 4 or 5 times.
shareOnce again... how is Open Range authentic? Are you talking about the brilliant way in which Kevin costner slapped the guy for cheating in the card game? Or the way they took 20 minutes of the film to go from one place to another and back while absolutely nothing happens except lots of beautiful scenery? And even if it is authentic, what the hell does that matter if it's not entertaining, interesting or intriguing? And no, rescuing a dog from a flood does not fall under any of those three adjectives. The love story is... just tepid and very uninteresting because it doesn't resemble the old west, it more or less resembles "The days of our lives".
shareAnd Tombstone IS authentic? It's lame cinematography, and questionable acting and Cosmatos's crap directing, does NOT help it at all. With all that being said, it does not feel authentic. Just because a film is peppered with true facts does not mean in any way, that is automaticly authentic. Tombstone SUCKS compared to 'OPEN RANGE', as a matter of fact the film SUCKS in general.
"Don't mind me, man, I'm just @#$%in' with ya…" - Janis Joplin
I asked you first... prove to me Open Range is authentic... As for Tombstone, how exactly is the cinematography lame? And how is Cosmato's directing... crap? Just because you can think of a bunch of really second hand adjectives right off the bat doesn't mean it's true. I can and have pointed out ACTUAL scenes in Open Range that totally lack drama entirely. I can point out actual scenes that take up a good hours worth of time that do not need to be in the movie. But I guess you didn't actually see Tombstone since you can't cite any REAL examples. Piss on you.
shareCasmatos has never directed a good film, just look at majority of all the sub-characters in 'Tombstone', they suck, Dana Dalaney is very good example. THE MAN COULD NOT DIRECT ACTORS, and get the most of them, besides Russell and Kilmer. The cinetography is so overlit, it lacks shadow detail and depth, which is needed in any great western film. And YES I DID SEE TOMBSTONE, and IT IS STILL CRAP. I guess you just didn't see OPEN RANGE.
As for OPEN RANGE, it actaully feels WAY MORE authentic, the costumes have a lived in look(unlike Tombstone), the sets have that realistic look, and also lived in look and feel(unlike Tombstone), and the sub-characters give awesome performances(again unlike Tombstone).
Tombstone is just a typical Saturday afternoon action film, and can't be taken all that seriously. Or you for that matter.
"Don't mind me, man, I'm just @#$%in' with ya…" - Janis Joplin
...while I'm not a fan of Tombstone, its costumes are actually more authentic than Open Range's. Tombstone was a large boomtown, and therefore had a tendency towards more cosmopolitan dress.
The grey-brown motifs of Open Range would have been wrong for a town like Tombstone. Open Range's hats are mostly incorrect, and likewise for the way they wear their clothes.
As for the sets, Tombstone is supposed to be a town at its inception, not a bunch of rundown shacks built with bent nails and broken wood.
Tombstone tried to buck some of the cliches of Hollywood Western production design by looking closer at history, while Open Range's production design is far more standard. Too bad the rest of Tombstone sucked. So many good costumes gone to waste.
I like pie.
"As for OPEN RANGE, it actaully feels WAY MORE authentic, the costumes have a lived in look(unlike Tombstone), the sets have that realistic look, and also lived in look and feel(unlike Tombstone)"
I totally agree. I didn't mind the good guys' clothes, but it was like each bad-guy actor in "Tombstone" got to choose his own (silly) costume and each one tried to pick the most colorful (and silly) outfit so he would stand out on screen the most. I hate it when movies do that. Tombstone's bad guys resembled the Brady Bunch "western" episode. All it needed was an astro-turf ranch. Open Range does a lot better job of portraying a realistic-looking West. Although not a Western, "Homegrown," a movie starring Billy Bob Thornton, Hank Azaria & Ryan Phillipe as marijuana growers, does a good job of this: the three guys really did look like they had been living outdoors.
I suspect many of those who dislike Open Range's leisurely pace are younger viewers reared on Playstation and MTV-style, machine-gun editing. Part of the point of Open Range was portraying the languid pace of the remote control-free era. That said, I think OR could have been trimmed here and there a few minutes. The movie seemed to take way too long to END after the gunfight. Ride off in the sunset already!
I actually dislike Val Kilmer's portrayal more and more each time I watch Tombstone, and I like Kilmer as an actor (Doors, Heat, Winterland). Val's Doc Holiday over-uses the word "why" as in, "Why, Johnny Ringo..." and "Why, Wyatt..." and "Why, Johnny Tyler..." etc., etc. Too much!!
Agree with other posters re: Dana Delaney's silly character and the Chuck Norris vendetta ride (LOL). That was just plain silly.
All that said, I don't dislike Tombstone. I just think OR is a better overall film. I think 'Tombstone' is light-years better than 'Wyatt Earp' and presume it's better than 'Young Guns' and 'The Quick & the Dead', both of which I cannot bring myself to watch.
I agree with alot of what you said, except for the last part. I feel Wyatt Earp is a better film than Tombstone, which I think was poorly made.
"Don't mind me, man, I'm just effen with ya…" - Janis Joplin
Tombstone is too dramatic, and Wyatt Earp is too long.
Short Cut, Draw Blood
Tombstone is anything but authentic. I've only seen it once (not impressed, even though I think Kilmer is a real talent) BUT, the OK Corral fight lasted about 8 seconds by the account most people consider to be the most accurate (Walter Noble Burns).
This version does provide a better historical rendition than the "My Darling Clementine" and James Garner/Jason Robards versions. MDC is still the best to watch.
The actual Gunfight lasted about 30secs in real life, 8secs just doesn't sound right, considering the number of shots fired etc. Also I would say the Tombstone's version of it is a bit exaggerated, for it's stretched to almost two minutes and the number of shots fired is way to much compared to what I have read, Wyatt Earp's version however is the more accurate of the two.
"Don't mind me, man, I'm just effen with ya…" - Janis Joplin
The reason why Tombstone is so poorly done is because they wanted to jump the hurdles and beat the Wyatt Earp version. Kevin Costner was supposed to be in the Tombstone version but had already committed to do WE with Kasdan. That's an honorable thing. He agreed to do a job, went ahead and did it, and now everybody wants to pan WE in preference for TS...not me. WE had a great story, better actors, prettier actresses...just everything. And KC got to use Wyatt Earp's real gun. Did Kurt Russell?
shareconcur...Tombstone was a fun flick but not very acurate historicly. Open Range on the other hand is one of my favorites based on Robert Duvalls performance. I can never figure out what I think of Costner, Although I enjoy his movies he does not seem to have much range and always monotone...BUT his performance in this movie was excellent. Open range was a great flick and I think hands down better than Tombstone.
shareAre you kidding? Micheal Beihn owned that movie. Every scene he was in was great, especially when he was opposite Kilmer. Powers Boothe as Curly Bill is always underrated. And all the other secondary characters were good too. Except Dana Dalaney who was awful, although in all fairness she had absolutely nothing to work with.
shareZithkoff,
Cowboy Action Shooting, brother. It's entirely possible to still hear single action revolvers firing the old style powder. That being said, I can't remember if Open Range DID sound more authentic or not. But in Tombstone, the Vendetta Ride made me laugh out loud.
Why did it make you laugh out loud? Do you laugh at cool gun battles? I guess that's why you didn't laugh during Open Range eh? ;)
shareIt made me laugh out loud because it was like a cartoon or a parody of a western. I'm not talking about the shoot out in the river. I'm talking about we'll see Wyatt and crew gallop over the camera going in one direction. Then they shoot somebody. Then they gallop in another direction. Then they shoot somebody. Somebody mistakes a revolver for an opium pipe. Then he gets shot. Somebody runs away. He's roped, and shot. It's like the gun shots were evenly paced to go off every 45 seconds, with the music going in the background all flowery and dramatic. It was ridiculous.
shareThat is so true of Tombstone, and it's cartoonish violence. It seems to me that, Cosmatos was really just repeating his earlier film Rambo II, which is very similar, including the over the top violent third act. Anyone who thinks Tombstone is accurate, or a completely true story, needs to pick up a book about Wyatt Earp, and will find out just how un-true, most of Tombstone really is.
"Don't mind me, man, I'm just @#$%in' with ya…" - Janis Joplin
Well tell me then, are any of the characters in Open Range all that interesting or deep? Were they written in such a way as to make us care about them? Was there much excitement in Open Range? If you answer anything but NO to those questions than you're just lying to yourself. You gotta admit... the movie has its downfalls. While we are on the subject... who gives a damn whether or not the movie is historically accurate??? Even Arthur Conan Doyle himself pointed out that in his Sherlock Holmes novels (which he made numerous errors in) he never strived for accuracy of detail, he said "what does it matter so long as I hold my readers?".
shareFinally, somebody who's got a little sense. Fine, I admit Tombstone is not the best western of all time. But at least it's got great characters who we either love or hate, there's no gray areas about that. Tombstone is entertaining throughout. Oh and FYI there's only a 3% difference between tombstone and open range over at rotten tomatoes, so I guess Open Range wins there, but on the other hand... according to rotten tomatoes, open range is only 3% better. That being said I must also cite the user ratings on rotten tomatoes. According to those, Tombstone is 91% and open range is 90%.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1048053-tombstone
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1124881-open_range
The characters of Boss and Charley ARE clearly written, defined, and made to make the viewer care for them.
Boss was married and lost his wife and child and took to the trail. As he was getting older he started to miss what he had had and was looking to set down roots. He also, along the way, took in Button and Mose and was a father figure to them. He wanted Button to realize that there was more to life than moving cows.
Charley had a dark past as a hired killer and was trying to escape his past and live an upstanding life as a cowboy and not have to live like he had lived in the past.
That's pretty good character development if you ask me. Does the movie have downfalls? Yes. The love story could have been eliminated but it showed Charley's conflict between a life he knew and life he wanted, but didn't know how to have. Therefore, I see why it's in the movie. I just wish it had not taken up as much time as it did. Charley did not have to tell her goodbye twice. Once was enough.
That aside, the movie is wonderfully acted and directed and it has one of the best gunfights in western film history. To disagree with THAT is lying to one's self!
Whatever, fine, you win, fine. The sun is not very bright, fine, you win. Fine, a gigabyte is 10 megabytes, fine, whatever, you win. Okay, Kevin Costner is the best director ever, fine, you win! Regaurdless of all the good points you made though... it's still just another opinion that's not very well supported by what you said.
shareI totally agree Mr. Macho. The Curly Bill shootout and the whole Vendetta in "Tombstone" is ridiculous. Regardless of it's lack of accuracy, it was lame!
share"Regardless of its lack of accuracy, it was lame!"? I may not be an english major but I know for a fact that's not exactly a very well-formed sentence. Usually a sentence with that structure would go like this: "Regardless of how it cool it was, it was stupid.". Come on Randy, I expect more well-written critiques of my fairly well-written critiques. I would also like to point out this episode of Family Guy where Brian (the Dog) is in hollywood and he's talking to Peter on the phone and says he's going to the premiere of...(looks at two magazines, one with Kevin Costner on the cover, and the other with Val Kilmer on the cover) when he finally decides, he says: "The new Val Kilmer picture". It's Res ipsa loquitor, the thing speaks for itself. Tombstone may not be cinematic but it sure as hell is entertaining, with far more charm coming from Kurt Russell, Val Kilmer, Sam Elliot, Dana Delany, (but NOT Bill Paxton, I'll give you that, the guy is a walking disaster movie).
shareDana Delany sucked in TS, take a close look at that awful horseback riding scene. Not only are the perfomances bad in the scene, but the dialogue as well.
She does not have good line in the whole film, and because of Cosmatos' crap directing, her entire performance falls flat.
"Don't mind me, man, I'm just @#$%in' with ya…" - Janis Joplin
I know it's ten years too late, but I wish both of y'all would relax about this topic. Both movies are entertaining, and that's all they need to be.
shareMichael Biehn and Sam Elliot were excellent in Tombstone
Short Cut, Draw Blood
I don't have to be there to know the sounds of the guns are more realistic. Have you ever heard of Cowboy action shooting? I've also fired many firearms and done plenty of reloading ammunition and attended many gun shows and shoots than I can remember. I know what a .44 or .45 of that era sounds like so before you even attempt to rake me over the coals for my comment, I'd suggest you listen for yourself.
shareQuaid was great, as was Kilmer, but totally different interpretations, with Kilmer getting more screen time.
"I'm your huckleberry".
Short Cut, Draw Blood
Damn right. Kilmer's performance is terrific.
Open Range is probably better overall, but Val Kilmer's Doc Holliday charcter should have won him an oscar...YES! share