Wyatt Earp (1994, PG-13)

In 1993-1994, two films coming out in Hollywood competed against each other.  Both told about the famous story and legends surrounding Wyatt Earp.  Those two movies were: Tombstone and Wyatt Earp.  Between the two, the Lawrence Kasdan directed Wyatt Earp tells more of the overall life of Wyatt Earp, over the episodes at Tombstone, Arizona, like what Tombstone shows.

The film centers on the life of Wyatt Earp (Kevin Costner), and the various events that happened in his life.  Along the way, he meets the Masterson brothers, Doc Holliday and the Clanton gang.  Earp goes on to become of the toughest lawmen and gunfighters of his day. 

The real problem with Wyatt Earp is that it’s essentially a 2-2 ½ hour long movie stretched out to over 3 hours.  At times, the film contains scenes unnecessary to the movie, and Kasdan fails to introduce about half of the characters well enough so that we can take good enough notice of them (the introduction of the film's principal villains is executed rather poorly).

Nevertheless, Wyatt Earp does feature an ensemble, though not perfect, cast, who includes: Kevin Costner, Dennis Quaid, Gene Hackman, David Andrews, Linden Ashby, Jeff Fahey, Joanna Going, Mark Harmon, Michael Madsen, Tim Sizemore, Catherine O’Hara, Mare Winningham and Bill Pullman.  Of all of them Quaid gives the most distinguished performance as Holliday, having lost 50 pounds to play the part and delivering his lines reasonably well, but other than that there’s nothing too special here.  For instance, Costner gives a drowsy performance in the title role, and Hackman isn't given near enough screentime.  Despite the film’s ensemble cast, Tombstone was still the better casted, probably because the actors in Tombstone gave much more energy into their work then here.

Between Wyatt Earp and Tombstone, Wyatt Earp is easily the more ambitious but also the more longer and dull.  Like I said, it’s easily overlong, and at times, also gets unexciting though fortunately never especially boring.  In other words, Wyatt Earp isn't sufficiently entertaining enough to become a must see western.  The cinematography is fortunately not bad, and in fact almost professional, as we are given a few nice scenery shots of the landscape in the background, and that alone earned the film an Academy Award nomination for Best Cinematography.  Then again, Costner got nominated at the Razzies for Worst Actor and Kasdan for Worst Director.

            The film’s main climax comes at the Gunfight at the OK Corral and the aftermath gun battles, but by the time we’ve gotten there we’ve already gone over nearly 2 ½ hours of looking at the screen, much of which is overly dramatic, and just plain overlong.

            Tombstone was more audience friendly, and a movie that you could sit down, watch, and enjoy.  With Wyatt Earp, you will learn a little more history, but you can’t expect much in terms of grande entertainment.  Essentially, Wyatt Earp is not a crowd pleasing film, and certainly not as well done as it could have been.  So it shouldn't have come as a surprise that Wyatt Earp bombed at the box-office and received mixed critical reviews.  That happened because Wyatt Earp was simply unsatisfying, when it should have been immensely admirable.  


            What Wyatt Earp wants to be is the epic western for the ages.  For all of it's misgivings and drawbacks, it can't accomplish that.  Kasdan makes Wyatt Earp appear grande, epic and long on the outside, but on the inside, there is little depth given into the characters, the scenes are long and lack excitement, and the movie in it's entirety feels like a snoozefest over a historical picture.  Wyatt Earp is not a bad movie.  It's just a movie that's unengaging when it didn't want to be, engaging when it didn't need to be and elongated when it needed to have been shortened.

              One interesting note is that Wyatt Earp could have been better made as a TV miniseries.  Now there might be something worth while.  

                                         ** ½ /5