I have just watched back to back these two movies and ranked both an 8. Kevin Costner, Dennis Quaid, Gene Hackman Etal made me feel that their movie was closer to history and also brought pride in their perceived honor. The chronicle from childhood to the 20th Century felt complete. BUT Then came Kurt Russell, Val Kilmer, Sam Elliott and Powers Boothe (Deadwood 93) etal and left me entertained to the ninth degree. The sheer pace of this one leaves you breathless.

These movies should be seen back to back and not compared as they tell two different stories occurring at the same time and place. Costner as Wyatt was more believable But Russell's Earp was more fun. Quaid was Doc Holiday but Kilmer had a holiday with the role. I will concede that Sam Elliott made Virgil his and nobody is going to take it away. Rent or buy both movies as it a worthwhile investment of your time.

If a year has two big Western movies that both have the same theme/main character(s) ... something probably didn't quite work out right. Because there is only so many people who will watch either of the movies. I did not remember how it went down with Wyatt Earp and Tombstone ... the latter apparently made some money at the box office, while Wyatt Earp tanked completely.

I remember Tombstone fondly, though even that probably was not as appreciated back when it came out as it may be now. I am a sucker for Western movies, I grew up with them. And they made a big chunk/part of my life. Together with Eastern movies and Sandal movies and so many other things that I would call entertainment.

Having said all that, Kevin Costner is a way bigger fan of the Western genre than I am. And he is phenomenal as Earp - add to that a great cast to support him ... and the movie is not anything I would dare calling bad. There are some odd choices in the narration and editing (I'm saying this without being totally aware of the myth/story overall) - and while I don't remember Tombstone as well as I should and Dennis Quaid gives a great performance here as well - Val Kilmer killed it in Tombstone (no pun intended).

If you consider watching only one of the two movies I'd say go with Tombstone. But if you are like me and you like Western movies ... well I suppose it won't hurt to watch both of them. Allegedly there is a longer cut than the one I watched (which already is over 3 hours long) ... and the same is true for Tombstone - I even have the Directors Cut on DVD ... a 4k is about to be released in late 2022, but apparently they don't plan to include the longer cut on it ... not sure why that is and very dissapointed by that decision.

Back to this though, you cannot be easily offended or faint hearted. The violence is quite grim and even the good guys have either a shady background or their choices and actions are ambigious to say the least. An interesting movie that may be a bit too long, but tense and good all the way through.

Wyatt grows up a young man who loves the law. When his wife dies early in their marriage he goes off the rails and becomes a drunk and a thief. When he is offered a chance at redemption he takes it and becomes a deputy. His legend spreads and he is offered the chance to be the deputy for Dodge City. He has great success but is removed from the job for being too brutal. When his replacement is killed as the law falls away in Dodge, Wyatt returns before moving on to Tombstone but finds his initial run-in with the Clantonhas left harbouring resentments.

When I saw this in the cinema, it was hassled by the fact that another, more multiplex-friendly version of the story had just been released shortly before. Viewed separately years later it fares better without the comparison to Tombstone, which is, in fairness, more of a fun bang-bang affair, although now it struggles because Costner's reputation is not even at the level it was when this film was released. The plot is good and is supposedly a true telling of the legend, although the film is careful to pepper the running time with hints that stories get changed with the telling.

The very honest and respectful telling of the story means that it gets told in a very deliberate and careful manner. This means on one hand that we get a good picture over Wyatt's life as opposed to the events in Tombstone, however it also means that the film itself is a little dull and overlong. It is overly deliberate and doesn't flow as well as it should - flowing more like syrup than water at times. Where some three-hour running times fly by, here it does feel like at least three hours - not always a good thing! The filling out of the characters doesn't always work either - I knew more about Wyatt but I didn't understand his character much more, also I was surprised that I was none the wiser about why he and Doc became friends considering how long was spent with them. A big failing of the film is that it assumes the status of an epic rather than earning the status. What I mean by this is that it tries too hard to be an epic - with constant sweeping music where it didn't need it. I still thing the film has an epic sweep to it, but it didn't need the cinematic tricks to achieve it; in fact, it could have down played it and let the sweep of the film do it for itself.

The cast is pretty good and also pretty deep. Costner may not be seen as a star anymore but that doesn't mean he can't act and can't hold the attention. He is a reasonable Wyatt but he suffers from being too deliberate and too shut off at times. I understand he needed to do it for the character but it contributes to the film feeling slow. The other brothers are played well by Madsen, Ashby and Andrews. Maybe it is because of Costner's drab Wyatt, but Quaid really lightens things up as Doc Holliday. His colourful character stands out easily against the old west types. The support cast is deep and includes faces such as Hackman, Fahey, Harmon, Pullman, Sizemore, Rossellini, Williams and O'Hara.

Overall this is a film that requires patience - if you prefer your films to contain action more than story then Tombstone may be more for you - but, for all it's failings, this is still a solid western and a good telling of the legend with more emphasis on background than action and fluidity.

Goodish, but not great. Excessively long, at over three hours. Lacks focus, dwelling too much on minor details and irrelevant sub- plots. It could easily have been cut down to two hours, and been tighter, punchier and just as character-centric.

I am not a fan of Kevin Costner, and this movie didn't help that impression. He doesn't do Wyatt Earp much justice - trying to act the hero by being cool and calm, but just coming across as solemn, aloof and boring.

This said, the cinematography and scenery are great. Dennis Quaid's portrayal of Doc Holliday is something to behold.

The remainder of the cast is pretty amazing for the names involved, some of which weren't stars yet and/or had very minor roles - Gene Hackman, Mark Harmon, Bill Pullman, Michael Madsen, Jeff Fahey, Isabella Rossellini, Tom Sizemore, Mare Winningham, Tea Leoni.

So much potential wasted.

"Wyat Earp" had the misfortune to be released not long after the classic "Tombstone," which told the same story. Nevertheless, "Wyat Earp" is a laudable effort and well worth the time to sit through its three hours and fifteen minutes running time.

The performances were uniformly good, with a skeletal Dennis Quade particularly fine as the doomed Doc Holliday. In fact, I thought that Quade's funny and moving performance as Doc Holliday was in the same class as Val Kilmer's portrayal of the same character in "Tombstone." The women playing the Earp wives, Catherine O'Hara, JoBeth Williams, Mare Winningham, and Betty Buckley, were also very effective. The beautiful Joanna Going was a pleasure to watch as Josie Marcus, the woman who Wyat Earp spent the last 47 years of his life with. Unfortunately, her acting skills did not match her beauty.

The thing that makes the film rise above the mediocre to me is its stunning visual and aural beauty. Its 5.1 Dolby Digital soundtrack is world class, and its outdoor photography is evocative.

Recommended, 7 out of 10.

I've seen pictures of the real Wyatt Earp, and Kevin Costner nailed this part. This movie is rich in detail, and likely the most accurate of all the movies about the famous lawman to date. Dennis Quaid should have received an Oscar nomination for his portrayal of Doc Holliday.

Director Lawrence Kasdan gives us three hours of wild west adventure, rugged romance and plenty of gunfire. An almost excellent script from Kasden and Dan Gordon that is put to the test by a talented ensemble cast. The life and legend of Earp and his family proves very interesting, although taking a back seat to the film TOMBSTONE.

Kevin Coster does a good job as the famed lawman, but seems a little less powerful compared to the image of Earp in our minds. Dennis Quaid gives us a different slant on Doc Holiday. One of his better roles. Other fine performances are logged in by Mark Harmon, Catherine O'Hara, Gene Hackman, Bill Pullman, Michael Madsen, Tom Sizemore, Tea Leoni, Martin Kove and Joanna Going.

Maybe a half hour too long, but this movie is more than your average western. Relax and enjoy a very good version of the life of Wyatt Earp.

"Nothing counts more than blood... the rest are just strangers," speaks Wyatt's father at the beginning of the film--the most important line perhaps in the movie, with the exception of Wyatt's own at the end "Some say it didn't happen that way," commenting upon a flashback recounting his brand of law and justice in the wild cattle town of Dodge City.

I wholeheartedly admit the film is long--but so are many other great films. I also admit that it is not the shoot 'em up Tombstone is, but this film is a far greater one, a character study of a man whose innocence is laid to rest by the harsh wilderness of both the American West and human nature. By the end of this movie, Wyatt is a used up and bitter man, and I would argue that this film was never meant to be a heroic portrayal of an individual, only a dark and complicated one. It reminds me thus of the greatest of character portrayals, Raging Bull--though I'm sure the parallel isn't obvious.

I probably am more forgiving of this film since I like Westerns, dark dramatic stories, and admittedly uneven plots, because the characters usually are so great in them. This one is no different, and was likely made for a viewer like me, and not the mainstream audience.

It's very ambitious, and successful, I believe, on its artistic merits. Whether it's "entertainment" for the masses, well that's another story altogether, and that story's name is probably "Tombstone."

There are a number of 3 hour movies that are great – Gandhi, Schindler's List, Dances With Wolves come to mind. This is definitely not one of them. There are so many shoot-outs, so many relationships between an assortment of gun-fighters and their women friends (usually referred to by well known descriptive words) that after about an hour we lose track and could care less.

By the time the second DVD disc was in, my spouse was ordering me to hit fast-forward and I readily concurred. Unless you are a die-hard Western fan stay away. Even as a biography it's rather poor and much too long for this topic.

This is one of the best, and underrated, westerns ever made. It was a very intense, interesting character study of a famous lawman, showing flaws and all. In fact, this is the only version, I believe, that really shows the sadistic side of Wyatt Earp, and what made him a bitter man. To be fair, it also shows his good traits.

It also has a terrific, deep cast and features a good mix of drama, romance and action. Even the music grows on you after several viewings. There is no humor in here: this is a serious story. Unlike the more popular "Tombstone," this Earp story has a lot less profanity and almost no usage of the Lord's name in vain....but there is rough language and some crude sexual remarks, so don't watch it with the kiddies.

At rate, the movie is a lot better than the critics would have you believe. (All nationally-known critics but one panned this, as far as I know.)

Kevin Costner performed one of his better acting jobs. It was nice to see Michael Madsen and Tom Sizemore as good guys. That's not seen in too many films! They were low-key characters, too. Dennis Quaid did a nice job as the fascinating "Doc Holliday." It's generally conceded that Val Kilmer's "Doc" in "Tombstone" was the best-ever, but Quaid version is just fine, thank you, and gets better and better with each viewing.

This is a long movie, but it's never dull and it never overdoes the action, either. The cast is deep so you see a lot of familiar actors. As mentioned, this film is extremely underrated. I know most people prefer "Tombstone" but I'll take this version of the Earp saga any time!

Probably one of the more accurate filmatisations of Wyatt Earp. And Dennis Quaid is without a doubt the best Doc Holliday to this day. I really like that they at no point try to idealize the life in the west at this period. There were no real heroes. Only people who tried to live their lives or to make something out of their lives. Wyatt Earp is portrayd as an at sometimes ruthless character, yet someone who cares for his close family and friends. One of Kevin Costners better movies and worth watching at least once. If you choose not to it's really your loss.

Fair film with Mister Cosner's ego basically bogging the movie down with dullness. Cosner is not the greatest actor in history, but he is likable enough to enjoy his movies. Here he is just plain stiff, wooden, emotionaless and boring. It is all about Kevin and his ego. He is in virtually in every scene and he is doing nothing at all. There is absolutely no chemistry between him and his leading ladies. Anyhow, if you like Kevin in the morning and Kevin in the evening and Kevin at suppertime, then you will like this film. If not, forget about it and watch Kurt Russell in Tombstone.

I've done extensive reading and research on Wyatt Earp, Doc Holliday and this era. With that as a start, let me continue.

The roles of Wyatt, Virgil and Morgan Earp were well-cast and portrayed. The actors bore reasonable physical resemblance to the real men. Dennis Quaid as Doc Holliday was superb; I thought his portrayal was more accurate than that of Val Kilmer in "Tombstone", his personality and his appearance.... although with friends, Doc Holliday was a pretty affable gentleman.

The story was a nice story, although there were significant problems with some of the historical accuracy. First, Morgan and Virgil were NOT shot on the same night... actually 3 months apart. Things like that bother me when seeing a supposedly historically accurate film. But what I considered the weakest part of this movie (and "Tombstone" as well) was the very incomplete and weak buildup to the gunfight. There was so much more that happened, so much that affected the relationship between the good guys and the bad, so much missing that both films almost made the fight look like a spur of the moment battle... which is far from factual. What many people don't realize is that Bat Masterson spent time in Tombstone during this era, although not directly involved in the "action"; also, Luke Short was a major ally of Wyatt's throughout this time.

I very much liked that Wyatt's young life was shown... his time as town constable, his marriage to Urilla Sutherland, her death and his resulting devastation, his pony stealing in Arkansas... all things that most folks never realized.

I would very much liked to have seen more of Wyatt's revenge ride and subsequent deaths and scattering of the Clanton gang. Also, the absence of any sequence involving the robbery of the Benson stage and the killing of Bud Philpot and Peter Roehrig is regrettable, as this was a major factor leading to the battle. Also, as a result of the stage robbery, we should have seen a sequence regarding Wyatt's agreement with Ike about turning in the robbers. Finally, how Behan backed out on his deal with Wyatt regarding the sheriff's office... a major factor in the animosity between the two men.

Yes... there are many other missing historical incidents that would have made the film more accurate and real.

Anyone who has an interest in this era should see the film. If you're not a stickler like I am for total historical accuracy, you should enjoy the film.

Nicholas Earp (Gene Hackman) is the patriarch of the family. To him, only blood matters and everybody else is just a stranger. The family including Wyatt Earp (Kevin Costner) goes out west after the end of the civil war. Years later, he goes back to Missouri and marries Urilla Sutherland (Annabeth Gish). When she dies, he is depressed and aimlessly roams the country. Eventually it culminates into the legendary gunfight at the OK Corral with Doc Holliday (Dennis Quaid).

Kevin Costner is fine as a younger Wyatt still searching for a direction. He's not so great as the drunken mess. Later he's OK as the lawman. He has the righteousness but not necessarily the gravitas. It's asking a lot to play this wide range for anybody.

The biggest problem is the general long winding life story. This is long, epic, and very long. It's like a biopic from a historian. It is too rambling and unfocused. Director Lawrence Kasdan does a good job filming the movie but this long biopic will always have problems. It's too rambling to create much tension or pick up any pacing. It's just overly ambitious.

Kevin Costner can Pass as a Movie Star, once in awhile, but Simply does not have the Depth as an Actor to Pull Off this Heavy Study of the Western Icon. Especially when the Script takes Over Three Hours to put On Screen, the Length and Microscopic Details that Focus on the Life of Wyatt Earp ends up Revealing itself as another Kevin Costner Vanity Project.

He is a Much Better Fit in "Open Range" (2003) having Grown Out of His Self Aggrandizement and His Film Projects in the Later Years show a Humble Restraint. Lessons Learned.

Mediocre and Inconsistent Director Lawrence Kasdan must take Equal Blame for this Elongated, Episodic Epic. It's Not a Bad Film, but Only Slightly Above Average. Because the Better Parts (the Cinematography, and some good B Actors) are Intruded Upon by way too Many side Stories and a Bloated, Wordy Script that Keeps making the same Points, Over and Over.

Overall, it's an Obese Film that seems to Never get any Momentum and even when it Manages some Motion, it is Reined In and Slowed Down by rather Boring and Unwelcome Scenes. The Movie Ends a Number of Times and the Train Sequence in one of the Endings is so Mishandled and Unremarkable as to be Anti-Climactic and Nearly Incomprehensible.

Worth a Watch for Die-Hard Western Fans, but Others are Not Likely to be Impressed and may have Trouble making it to One of the Endings.

this movie is quite a bit different than 1993's Tombstone.obviously it focuses on Wyatt Earp,more than anything.this movie paints quite a different picture of Earp than Tombstone does.it depicts him in a much different light.Kevin Costner's portrayal of Earp is much different than Kurt Russel's in Tombstone.i think i liked Russel's portrayal a bit more.Dennis Quaid portrays Doc Holliday,and his portrayal is much different than Val Kilmer's in Tombstone.i actually liked Val Kilmer's performance better,and i liked his character more.Quaid does a good job though.the supporting cast is also very good.another big difference between this movie and Tombstone,is that this movie is very deliberately paced,and more in depth.the story is much deeper.there is not that much action,and some may be turned of by the length of the movie at over 3hrs.but if you can view it as character study,you might enjoy it.one thing i really liked rising the musical score.i found it very rousing and poetic.for me,Wyatt Earp is a 7/10

Every now and then 2 studios will 'magically' drop movies on the same subject matter, around the same time. The general public isn't privy to why this happens. One can only guess. - Well, this movie dropped after Tombstone - which took the more entertaining, 'casual route' to the story; leaving this more 'serious tone' work to be ridiculously slow and boring, comparatively. Basically, it never stood a chance. Especially Quaid's Doc Holiday compared to Kilmer's. To this day, almost 30 years later, when I attempt to watch this film - I get a quarter of the way in and think "I'd rather just watch Tombstone, again."

I have to thank Kevin Costner for taking me West. "Wyatt Earp" led me to pick up a copy of the early Earp bio by Stuart Lake while working in Canada, and I was surprised to find photos of the actual historical people tipped inside. The resemblance of the actors to those they portrayed impressed me.

I continued to research. I went to Tombstone and stayed at a nearby ranch. The town itself declined Costner's office to rebuild it with accuracy, preferring the leave things as they are (very touristy). The gunfight was actually held in the street, etc. My research matched at least striking physical/type casting for 17 characters, from major characters (the Earps and their wives/women) to the Cowboys, Beehan, Doc Holiday, his Kate, and Bat Masterson. Linden Ashby is the most striking doppelganger; indeed, he seems to be a physical reincarnation of Morgan Earp. Dennis Quaid lost some 40 pounds or so for the role of Doc Holiday and his resemblance to the TB-plagued gambler from Valdosta, Georgia is eerie as well.

Costner caught a lot of flack for this film; in fact, few critics noted the historical sense that he achieved. Granted, some cuts are made in time frame/continuity to speed plot along (i.e. timing of attacks on Morgan and Virgil), and the film is lengthy. I learned that the Cowboy/Earp feud was not mere ill-will, but that the strife represented political differences and clashing economic interests, as well as the "theft" of a lover. The old diaries and biographies are fascinating! I learned that Morgan Earp told Allie Earp something like, "I want to leave Tombstone and never come back" moments before he was shot to death.

Of note, Johnny Beehan's partner in the Dexter Corral in Tombstone was a man named "John Dunbar". This was Costner's character's name in "Dances with Wolves". Go figure. Read more about it! Granted Lake embellished Earp's image, but the place, the times and the issues are fascinating.

The timing of this version of the venerable saga was highly disadvantageous, its release being so very close to "the other Wyatt Earp," Tombstone. That said, it's a completely different movie. While "Tombstone" relied on more dramatic license and cinematic bombast, this one was far more historically accurate, right down to the decidedly period dialog. However, it was far too long for most viewers, with a pace that left much to be desired, suffering more from its extended length than any other issue with the film itself. The acting was good, with Costner his typically unemotional self. However, his supporting cast was especially good, particularly in the case of the Earp Women. Dennis Quaid was excellent, in a stunning transformation over his usual roles. Once again, his version will be certainly be compared to the superb Val Kilmer, but once again, in terms of history, one would have to describe it as more accurate. Again, a drastic editing would have made this a far better overall film experience.

Being one of the most popular figures of the mystical Old West, Wyatt Earp has been dramatised a countless number of times on the big screen and on television. His notoriety as a no-nonsense lawman, his friendship with the drunken and dying Doc Holliday, and his participation in the legendary gunfight at the O.K. Corrall, has made him the stuff of legend. Of all the portraits, this 1994 epic, directed by Lawrence Kasdan is possibly the most accurate and detailed, following Earp's childhood amongst his many siblings, through to his old age heading to strike lucky during the Gold Rush. It's just a pity that for all it's trying and accuracy, the film isn't at all very good.

The film begins on the Earp farm where the young Wyatt is taught the words of wisdom by his father Nicholas (Gene Hackman) - 'blood is thicker than water' - which stays with Wyatt throughout his life. It's clear that his family are important, and he and his brothers are soon grown up and are making a living out on their own. Wyatt is refereeing bare-knuckle boxing matches and is soon making enemies. He romances an old flame who dies tragically, causing the recently-married Wyatt to lose his ways and becomes a drunkard, stealing from good Samaritans who offer him food and shelter. After a visit from his father in prison, he changes his ways and finds himself appointed Deputy Marshal in Wichita, after bravely shooting down a violent drunk when the cowardly sheriff watches. As his reputation as a good lawman grows, he is offered a job in Dodge City along with his brothers Virgil (Michael Madsen) and Morgan (Linden Ashby), where his reputation starts to take a turn for the worse.

After the huge success of Dances With Wolves, this film seems to take a similar approach - epic, sweeping storytelling as opposed to the more action-packed angle usually taken when filming an Earp biography. Yet the majority of the film is handled with such a ham-fisted and amateurish approach by Kasdan that the film is nowhere as good as it should be. Kasdan, whose films have mainly consisted of Kevin Kline vehicles, had directed a very young Costner before in a western in the very enjoyable Silverado. It's a strange performance by Costner, who in the first half seems to be sleepwalking his way through his role, delivering his lines like a nervous primary school kid finding himself cast in the lead role. The second half, when he becomes the more Republican, violent Earp, is very good. He can do brooding very well, and even though Wyatt Earp is portrayed as a complete bastard, with Costner playing him he remains an engaging character.

Even with all the star actors on show - Madsen, Hackman, Bill Pullman, Tom Sizemore, Jim Caviezel, Jeff Fahey, Isabella Rossellini, Catherine O'Hara, and the excellent Dennis Quaid as Doc Holliday, the film does begin to drag. I almost feel bad saying that, as I have a lot of respect for a director when he takes his time to develop a good story and fully- realised characters, and clocking up a long-running time. But around the 2 hour 30 mark, I found myself wanting the film to end. After the infamous O.K. Corral gunfight (which is refreshingly low-key), the film carries on for another 40 minutes as Earp begins his vendetta against the 'cowboy' gang. In a better directors hands, the last segment could have been a way to portray Earp's fall from grace and his descent into blind blood-lust. But instead it just becomes a long, drawn-out manhunt.

Perhaps I'm being harsh, but I feel this was a missed opportunity. Personally, the definitive Wyatt Earp film is John Ford's magnificent My Darling Clementine, and although it may not have the historical accuracy of this, it is a typically mystical, moving, and surprisingly dark masterpiece, featuring a great Henry Fonda performance.

www.the-wrath-of-blog.blogspot.com

Sorry, folks. I just cannot refrain from comparing this film to Tombstone. The fact is they are both very good films, and anyone interested in Wyatt Earp should certainly see both. The films were made at the same time, and comparisons are just impossible to avoid. Wyatt Earp is a more ambitious film, and it clearly looks to pay more attention to real historical accounts, In the end however, it just isn't paced that well, and it lacks the action that Tombstone delivers consistently.

Kevin Costner is quite good as Wyatt Earp. The Earp we see in this film is made out to be righteous as a younger man, then jaded and morally ambiguous once his first wife dies tragically. So much of Earp's life is attempted to be recreated by this film. Trouble is, there are not enough definitive historical accounts of some of these periods of Earp's life to substantiate some of what we see. The events told to us in Tombstone make up only about the third act of this film. Before these events, we see Earp work as a boxing referee, a stagecoach driver, a buffalo hunter, and a card dealer. Also, there is a stint in his early life when he attempts to earn a law degree. Unless you are a true Wyatt Earp historian, a lot of it won't seem all that necessary. As the years pass, we meet Earp's brothers, their wives, and other famous lawmen like Bat and Ed Masterson. The cast is uniformly excellent, and there is not a bad performance in the film. Dennis Quaid as Doc Holliday deserves special mention because the performance might well be Quaid's best. He reportedly lost nearly 40 lbs to portray the diseased gunfighter. As good as Kilmer was in Tombstone, Quaid just might be better in this film.

Most of the film deals with what made Earp famous. That being his various turns as lawman in such towns as Wichita, Dodge City, and Tombstone. Earp is quick to bash a suspect over the head with his pistol, and he always seems to be on the winning end of a gunfight. Eventually, Earp meets Josephine, an actress with whom he will spend nearly fifty years of his life. Their relationship is handled tenderly and honestly. Other than his love for Josephine and his family, Earp is a morally ambiguous man. That is the idea within the script, anyway.

Lawrence Kasdan does a very good job as director. The sets look authentic, and so do the actors. The movie bombed out badly in theaters, though. Perhaps word quickly got out about how long it was and that scared people off. Or maybe they all saw Tombstone first, and it quenched their thirst for a good western. Wyatt Earp, as well as being too long, is hurt by a terrible ending on a boat. Were they trying to channel Heaven's Gate with an inappropriate ending on a boat??? Fear not, this film is infinitely better than that one. However, Wyatt Earp is a reminder of what we learned with Heaven's Gate. A western is not a good genre of film for introspection or revision. Western audiences often expect more action than character development. The verdict: Give this film a chance, but pack you attention span. It's a long one! 7 of 10 stars.

The Hound.

No greater tale of the American west than that of the OK Corral. Unfortunately this long winded movie dilutes it to the point of just wanting to get the movie over with. Great acting, well cast, but too darn long.