Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
35 of 38 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Storytelling at its best, 20 Oct 2002
By A Customer
I read recently that Kevin Costner doesn't like the usual (what he regards as short ) running time of movies. Since the ground breaking Dances With Wolves he has tended to extend running time enabling his movies to get to grips with a true narrative style, where he takes the audience deep into the world of the central character and allows us the privilege of "living the life" of the character along with them. This has the effect of giving the movie a more "natural" feel, allowing the audience to identify with the character at quite a deeper level than is usual with movies of 90 minutes or so in length. This approach has worked particulary well with this movie, and (without spoiling the plot for new viewers), it is fair to say that because of life events Earp matured into both a complex and serious character. One of the enduring qualities of this movie is that Costner doesn't play Earp as the consummate hero of the Wild West. He is a human being with all the failings and insecurities of those around him and is not portrayed as an unbeatable gunslinger. All credit to Costner, the director, the producers and everyone involved for taking this approach. What does set Earp apart however, according to the narrative here, is his strength of character. The question we have to ask ast the end of the movie is was that strength of character ultimately beneficial or detrimental to Earp and the members of his family? So all in all a thought provoking movie on one of the greatest legends of the Old West, and one that has prompted me to want to read further about the enigmatic Earp. A special mention must also go to Dennis Quaid for his excellent portrayal of Doc Holliday.
|
|
|
6 of 7 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
"Blood counts the most.", 23 Aug 2007
Having won the battle of the Robin Hoods, Costner wasn't so lucky with Wyatt Earp: forget Waterworld, this is still the biggest box-office disaster of Costner's career, a $63m epic Western that struggled to make $25m at the US box-office yet somehow managed to avoid being nicknamed 'Kevin's Gate' (although it did earn Michael Madsen's unending animosity when the lengthy shoot prevented him from playing Vincent Vega in Pulp Fiction). Originally intended as a mini-series and tracing the famed lawman's life from farm boy, freight driver, law student, drunk, horse thief, buffalo hunter to the aftermath of the Gunfight at the O.K. Corral, it's an ambitious attempt at an American epic with an increasingly unlikeable main character, but it's more of an occasionally ambitious failure than a genuine success.
Not nearly as much fun as the rival Tombstone, it's often at its best in the early scenes detailing the side of Earp that the movies previously overlooked as he goes from idealism to bitterness and misogyny following the death of his first wife. Taking its lead from Nicholas Earp's credo that family comes first and "Blood counts the most," Costner's determination not to play likable is admirable, but it casts a dour shadow over a film with increasingly little lightness or humour to break up its bleak view of an embittered man whose only real talent is for violence and make it more palatable. America tends to like its heroes cut and dried, but Costner's Earp is not so much flawed as downright unsympathetic at times - more of a 70s anti-hero than one who would find favour in the 90s, leaving a cruelly overlooked at Oscar time Dennis Quaid (stunningly good) as Doc Holliday to carry the audience sympathy.
Once the film enters more familiar territory with Earp's years as a lawman, the flaws start to become more significant. Even in the extended laser disc directors cut many of the huge supporting cast tend to get lost and forgotten and at times it feels like its treading water, never really going into much detail about the reasons for the feud between the Earps and the Clantons and the McLaurys, while the Gunfight at the O.K. Corral itself is badly staged - even the 'walk thing' makes Wyatt, Doc and the brothers just look like a bunch of angry Mennonites - and the film loses momentum afterwards, which is surprising considering the aftermath is in many ways far more interesting than the gunfight itself. On a visual level, Kasdan's direction is somewhat disappointing: despite having huge resources at his disposal, there's a striking lack of long shots to take advantage of them that becomes much more noticeable on the small screen than the big, while despite the length there are increasingly few memorable or significant scenes en route to the contentious epilogue. One of the most misconceived endings of the 90s (at least until Costner's The Postman came along), a clumsy flashback-led variation on 'Print the legend' that seems to be arguing that the legend is indeed true, it does the film no favours and probably did much to leave audiences unimpressed.
It's a shame, because for all its faults there's much in the film to admire, from some fine supporting performances among the huge cast - the aforementioned Quaid, horribly gaunt and convincingly tubercular, Gene Hackman, Bill Pullman, Michael Madsen, Tom Sizemore, Annabeth Gish - and a superb score from James Newton Howard. Perhaps for once a little less ambition and a little more light rather than constant shade would have yielded a more successful result.
The film is annoyingly spread over two sides of a single disc, although boasts a good 2.35:1 widescreen transfer. Along with the full theatrical trailer (but not the teaser, which included somedeleted scenes) it also includes the deleted scenes from the Director's Cut as well as two featurettes on the making of the film culled from interviews shot at the time.
|
|
|
15 of 19 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Brilliant, 3 Oct 2005
theres no point in comparing this to Tombstone. they may be based on the same character and 1 specific incident but its like comparing a day to a millenium.This movie charts the whole life of Wyeth Earp from start to finish to such an extend that Tombstone is just a footnote. The other difference is that this movie is accurate. Bpeople complain about Hollywood changing reality, well thats what happened in Tombstone. This isnt fiction. Thats not too say that Tombstone isnt a good movie, it is. Its a great movie and Russel and Kilmer put in the performances of their lives but Costner equals Russel for the simple reason that he is portraying a different type of Earp. On the other side Quaid is put ot shame by Kilmer.
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|