It's rough until the end for me. Really slow. But I find most westerns to be painfully slow. I will agree the gun fight at the end is incredible.
Tombstone or Wyatt Earp??
- Thread starter cyfanatic
- Start date
Wyatt Earp over Tombstone and Hawkeyes over Cyclones. This checks out.
Tombstone and Cyclones in a landslide.
I like the authenticity of Open Range. Captures a lot of little realities of the time period that most westerns gloss over or ignore entirely. Like how hard it could be just to cross the street during a big rain storm. How the bill of Charlie's hat was way more folded over on one side than the other because of how cowboys would always grab their hat to take it off and put it on with the same hand. How it was a big deal for Sue to go into the saloon at the end to check on him because women back then didn't go into saloons unless they were working girls. Plus the cinematography is amazing.
Since we're discussing a couple other westerns, I really enjoyed the newer 3:10 to Yuma, I have not seen the OG one.
My dad is an old school Gunsmoke type of guy and thought the new True Grit was just as good if not better than the Wayne version.
My dad is an old school Gunsmoke type of guy and thought the new True Grit was just as good if not better than the Wayne version.
Ya I agree it was a more realistic view of that time. Idk what it is about westerns and me? Even Tarantino's Western bored me.
It's the Coen Brothers so i'm biased but True Grit was great. Hailee was so good in her role.
I made the mistake of going to Wyatt Earp in the theater. I did not realize at the time it was like 3.5 hours long. It might be ok as more of a biography, but as a movie, oof not good. The movie felt like it could have ended at least 3 different times, yet it continued on and on and on and on.
If you are watching a movie for entertainment, there is no comparison, its Tombstone. If you are looking for a detailed fairly accurate biography, of basically every aspect of Wyatt Earp's life, then you go with Wyatt Earp.
If you are watching a movie for entertainment, there is no comparison, its Tombstone. If you are looking for a detailed fairly accurate biography, of basically every aspect of Wyatt Earp's life, then you go with Wyatt Earp.
Last edited:
This is pretty much how I feel! I think both films are good but fit different purposes. Tombstone was made to entertain and I feel that Wyatt Earp was made to teach about Wyatt Earp. Both are entertaining but in different ways. I feel a bit bad for Dennis Quaid though because after anyone sees Val Kilmer's portrayal of Doc Holliday...you can't unsee it! No actor will live up to Kilmer's portrayal of Holliday. That said...I feel that Kurt Russell's portrayal of Wyatt Earp is not quite at the level of Costner's. That might be due to the films serving different purposes though?
Tombstone is way better. However, both are really false representations of Wyatt Earp. He honestly was like a thug with a badge in real life.
It is funny that the debate regarding that quote still rages on...30+ years later! So many people still hang on to the idea that Doc was saying "huckle bearer" (which I understand given the definition of that phrase) but even Val Kilmer acknowledged that it truly is "Huckleberry" and one can look up the reasons why it is that if they want.
Even without a badge! There is evidence that he "fixed" a heavyweight boxing championship fight when he was the referee! How that guy lived to be 80 is amazing with all the scandals he surrounded himself with (including his wife)! Also hard to picture Earp living right up to the beginning of the Great Depression as to me the "old" west and 1929 seem like completely different historical eras. I get that the math makes it easy to have experienced both eras...but so much change in the world from the 1880s to the 1920s!
