Wyatt Earp

Costner is up there with John Wayne in terms of me being unable to see the appeal or even talent.

Is this a deconstruction of the Earp legend? We see Earp hardened into a stoic, brutal avenger, his will and his sense of justice set into unforgiving stone, leading to failure in his relationships with basically everybody. He can’t fit into society, yet because he lacks the sheer chaos of even wilder, more violent people, society looks to him to bring those elements in. could appreciate a movie that looks at the dark side of an old West lawman, but I could only appreciate it at 2 hours or les

Another note to Kevin Costner: Don't make a movie about Wyatt Earp the year AFTER Tombstone!!! Swing-and-a-miss Costner strikes again, which is rather ironic I know.

Dumb. Watch Tombstone instead, it's WAY better.

I don't know what's up with all the mediocre scores on Criticker because I found this movie to be positively fantastic from start to finish; all 190 minutes of it. Costner is in top form, Hackman and Quaid are great supporting actors and Michael Madsen is even quite good. It's far more based on the character and general life of Wyatt Earp than all the gun-slinging, but of course that does play an important part of the film. It's a great movie for any western fan.

This is a murkier retelling of the life of Wyatt Earp who wasn't necessarily the swashbuckler as painted in cartoons and afternoon shows. Rather Earp is painted as a philandering drunk with a broken heart. I cannot testify to the movie's historical accuracy one way or the other, but if you're looking for fun action, there isn't much sense of adventure and gunslinging here.

First of all, it is long. Way too long. You also know that it's going to get compared to Tombstone every single time and I'm pretty sure whenever that happens, people agree that Tombstone was better. I preferred the way in which Tombstone gave ground to the other people involved, as well. It's not a bad western, but it feels very mediocre while it tries to be too epic for its own good. This one just felt like Costner wanted to roleplay Wyatt Earp so bad.

An interesting approach to turn a legendary figure into something low-key but it suffers from being boring. The film drags with so much superfluous non-sense that I was becoming increasingly tired of watching it, especially since most of the characters are stand ins for dull, overwritten morality speeches bolstered by a cheesy orchestra. Costner also gives a dull performance where his character seems to have little feedback on various plot beats and comes across as stone faced most of the time.

I liked Open Range better.

One of the best western's I've ever seen. Costner is perfect for the role, and the rest of the casting is spot-on as well. Every scene feels natural, and the pacing is just right. Excellent production value, cinematography, atmosphere and of course action! My only criticism would be for the length; I had to watch it in three sittings.

Uneven and way too long. But there are great things to admire. It looks great, Costner is very good, and some scenes are brilliant.

I think this one doesn't get the recognition it deserves. Another beautiful Kevin Costner epic with a great ensemble cast and wonderful music and writing.

I remember it was long. Very, very long...

63.500

Insanely long biopic is (probably) more factually accurate than Tombstone, but not nearly as entertaining.

Designed to put people into Costner-induced comas; Dennis Quaid was quite good, though. It's not necessarily 'bad', as much as it's bland all over, for over three hours. I could never have watched this fully on my own.

Passes the time.

Tombstone.... Watch Tombstone instead... This is a slogfest.

Really quite entertaining, but lacks true quality performances or any really magic scenes that a required for any film to be truly of a high quality. It is very long, but is solid enough to see out its run time quite comfortably.

rather enjoyable

I have the super-extended-TV-miniseries version, and it's even longer than I dare to comprehend. This is a movie so long (arduous) everyone has seen it, but does not remember where or when, or even if they've seen it in bits here and there. That works against it, despite the fact that, well, everyone has seen it.

Ambitious, too-long, and lacking in a well-defined point of view with regard to its title character. *Tombstone* covers similar ground and is a more involving and memorable film. "Doc Holliday" is the best role in both films. Dennis Quaid's "Doc" is dark and deadly, a "good bad guy". So is Val Kilmer's "Doc", but he's smart and witty as well.

The poor man's tombstone.

liked Tombstone better, of the simultaneous releases

Not knowing anything about Wyatt Earp, I enjpyed this western very much. I think that Costner personifies Earp very good and it's not that glorifying than other pictures.

tombstone was better, but this is by no means a bad movie, just one more proof positive that the western still lives...and thrives.

I find it amazing that Costner can make a character as interesting as Earp as uninteresting and as boring as possible. Well done, Kevin.

The boring version of Tombstone.

well researched but dull

Good cowboy movie. I'm telling you, this is Costner's true calling.

Better historically than Tombstone, but I liked Tombstone better