DVD Review HTF REVIEW: Wyatt Earp - Two Disc Special Edition (HIGHLY RECOMMENDED). (2 Viewers)

[John Hodson]

Surprisngly, Warners look to be cramming the R2 release on to one disc according to DVD Times. Surely the transfer will suffer?

R2-equipped Western fans can also take note that Warners may also be releasing Shalako with a better tranfer than the MGM R1 (we'll see) and if that R2 of 3 Godfathers doesn't turn up in next year's promised John Ford R1 Box Set I'll eat my stetson...

---
So many films, so little time...

 

[Michael Martin]

I'll have to rent this one at least - I've only seen it once, and appreciated the depth of backstory it brought to Earp (as opposed to Tombstone, which really focuses on a short time period). I like Tombstone better, but think Kasdan's Earp is underrated and a solid film.

 

[oscar_merkx]

I have not seen this yet, just might give this a chance

 

[Jeff Adams]

I too like Tombstone better, in fact it is one of my favorite movies of all time.
But if you want a lot of background, depth and character development, then Wyatt Earp is an outstanding movie.
I am definitely buying this one. It has been awhile since I have seen it so I can't wait to watch it again.

 

[MikeGale]

For those interested in Wyatt Earp, I highly recommend the recent Fox Studio Classics DVD "My Darling Clementine," directed by John Ford and starring Henry Fonda as Earp. It's not historically accurate, but it's a great film. The commentary track includes plenty of history because one of the participants is Earp's grandson who is quite knowledgeable. And, at 97 minutes, it certainly won't put you to sleep! Not quite as good, but also worth a look, is "Gunfight At The OK Corral," starring Kirk Douglas as Earp and Burt Lancaster as Doc Holliday, directed by John Sturges.

 

[John Hodson]

Glen Wyatt Earp III is not Earp's grandson but a distant relative, a descendent of one of his cousins (and appears in Tombstone BTW). My Darling Clementine is my favourite retelling of the Earp legend.

---
So many films, so little time...

 

[Matt_P]

Nice review, Herb.

Here's my take on dOc;

http://www.digitallyobsessed.com/sho...w.php3?ID=5998

 

[Harold Wazzu]

I just watched this movie and was very impressed.

Many similarities to Tombstone but also very different.

I forgot how well I liked the music score of this movie until I watched it again, really added to the movie IMO.

 

[David Coleman]

Agreed!! I really think this is James Newton Howard's finest score!

 

[Chad Ferguson]

I've just started watching the movie and noticed this horid mark on it at the 17:17 mark disc one. Can anyone tell me what happened to the film print here?
Thanks

 

[JoshB]

I just saw this film and was extremely impressed. A very underrated and overlooked film in many areas, from the performances (Dennis Quaid's Doc is perhaps his best performance he's given and thats saying quite a bit). Costner was also very good at portraying Earp in all is complexities, and the supporting cast was marvelous as well.

What also struck me about the film and what caught my attention off the bat was the cinematography (which was nominated for an Oscar, the film's only one). This is among the best looking westerns I have ever seen, and its right up there with Dances with Wolves. It perfectly captures the breathtaking beauty and grandeur of the West and can only be appreciated in widescreen.

I also found James Newton Howard's score to work very well within the film. I often here it used in trailers for many films (ironically, it was used in the trailer for Costner's last film, Open Range which is another fantastic film) and it was another highlight of the film.

The sound as well is another aspect I liked. Available in just DD 5.1, I found it to be a very aggressive mix. It's not Open Range by any means, but it will not disappoint.

The DVD is a pretty standard effort. It does lack the extended version, although we do get those scenes as "lifted scenes" in the bonus material. The lack of a commentary, since I would have expected Costner or his producer Jim Wilson to add their thoughts to the film. I've only had a chance to see the theatrical trailer on the second disc, which I have to admit is one of the best I've seen in a long time. It's in widescreen and in very good shape, but what caught me most was how few words are spoken in it, and it uses Ennio Morricone's marvelous and beautiful score to Once Upon a Time in the West. I would hold off on viewing it until after seeing the film, because it does give some things away in the film, that is unless you already knew they were going to happen.

I see many comparing this to Tombstone, but while that is more or less about the Earp's battling it out with the Clantons or the "cowboys" as they were called and using the O.K. Corral gunfight as its highpoint, this film uses it but does not devote its how time to it, but rather explores Earp's life, which I really enjoyed. I think Tombstone is still a great film, but I find it to be a little too glossy and with too much Hollywood style to make it a truly great western. I think the casting hurt it some (Bill Paxton is a fine actor, but doesn't fit in a western all too well). It's great for the shootouts as well as Kurt Russell and especially Val Kilmer's performances (and of course Sam Eliiot in any western, or film for that matter does not hurt), but I think Costner and Quaid played the parts perfectly and make the better Earp and Doc respectively. If I had to decide between the two, I would side with Wyatt Earp, but Tombstone is a close second.

The film's runtime may be a problem to some (it clocks in at 3 hours and ten minutes) but I didn't see any of it wasted. Kasdan I think fell short of making what could have been a truly memorable western epic, but the film certainly finds its audience in many aspects.

I've gained much more appreciation for Costner after viewing some of his film;s recently. I've always foudn him to be a compelling actor, and while his directing track record is is often criticized, he has made some pretty great films. I think the first one I saw with him in it was The Untouchables. While he was terrific in it, you have to admit Sean Connery owned that movie. A few others I think of are Field of Dreams (soon to be released in a much needed 2-Disc set) which I think is the perfect definition of a mdern classic. Then came Dances with Wolves. Dubbed Kevin's Gate before its release (in light of Michael Cimino's Heaven's Gate failure) DWW pretty much shocked everyone when it turned out to be every bit as good as they heard.

Just a few others I think of are JFK, which is without a doubt a masterpiece of filmmaking (I recently bought the new 2-Disc set to replace my 2-Disc snapper), 13 Days is a gripping film as well (I only found Costner's Boston accent to be slightly distracing). Robin Hood, which was made not long after DWW was a pretty decent film, and somehow managed to make millions at the box office. I think it's Costner's goofiest performace I've seen, but its a fun film nonetheless, aided of course my a terrific supporting cast with Morgan Freemen and Alan Rickman as the best Sheriff ever to play that part. Costner redeemed himself recently after a few failures with Open Range, a first rate western that he directed and starred in that I thought was one of 2003's best and most underrated film. A must see that western and nonwestern fans alike can enjoy. These are just a few of Costner's film's that I enjoy, and I think that he is still a very capable actor and director.

I would highly recommend this film to any western fan and would also easily recommend it as a blind buy. I often don't buy a DVD blind, but that last time I did take a chance was with another western, Open Range. The DVD itself may not have all the features we might expect, nor the extended version of the film, but the film's cinematography is gorgeously captured on DVD, and the sound is top notch as well. It's worth buying for Costner and Dennis Quaid's performances alone, as well as for the stunning cinematography and Howard's excellent score.

 

[Ron-P]

I forgot just how good this film is. The transfer, although a bit soft at times, is excellent as is the dd track with some great use of surrounds. Acting by all is good, nothing great, but the cinematography is simply stunning, beautifully shot film. I really enjoyed the pacing of the film this time around vr the theatrical run I saw back in 94 and the back story is nice as well.

I still find myself comparing the Doc Holiday's from this and Tombstone. Although Dennis Quaid gives an admirable attempt he cannot do the character justice after Val Kilmer.


I noticed that mark as well but have no idea what it is or how it missed getting cleaned up.

 

[Bob Cashill]

For the record: The extended cut of WYATT EARP is (or was) also available on VHS, LTXed.

 

[Justin Bauer]

I agree with Josh on my take of this movie.

I just remember seeing the trailer for it in the theater and have prople groan that another Wyatt Earp movie was coming out and that it would not be able to top Tombstone.

I was blown away with this movie when I first rented it as a teen about 10 years ago and it has always been one of my top 10 favorite films.

I invested into a LD player and the extended LD of Wyatt Earp because there was no DVD. I am just thrilled to finally have this DVD in my hands to add to my western collection.

 

[David Coleman]

I have to make a quick comment on the 5.1. I think the backgrounds sounds and the effects are great but strangely to me the music is mostly front based. Very suprised so little of the music mixed into the surrounds. I had to at time strain to hear the music in the surrounds. However, like I said the sound effects were excellent for time period!

I've always preferred this film over TOMBSTONE though I like both. Doc without a doubt is Kilmer's best performance but I can't say it's better than Quaid's!

I just prefer the lyrical sweep of WYATT EARP better as I got to know the man and why we was how he was which gave more weight to gunfight and the fued.

 

[Frank@N]

I haven't seen either movie recently, I already own Tombstone DC but haven't watched it yet.

Would anyone care to describe Tombstone as more 'action' and WE to be more 'drama'?

I separate my flicks by genre, so I could justify the redundant content if the movies hit different marks.

 

[Robert Crawford]

While "Tombstone" might be a more entertaining film, mainly due to Kilmer's flamboyant portrayal of Doc Holliday, I believe "Wyatt Earp" is a superior film overall with better writing, acting, cinematography and of course, more historically accurate.

By the way, yesterday, I watched "Hour of the Gun" another excellent film about the Earp/Clanton feud.





Crawdaddy

 

[Robert Crawford]

The film "Wyatt Earp" is more of a biographical film about Earp's life while "Tombstone" is an inaccurate snap shot of Earp/Clanton feud with the Earps arrival in Tombstone just before the gunfight at the O.K. Corral and the aftermath of revenge killings.

 

[JoshB]

I agree. Tombstone is more of a two hour version (though not accurately depicted) of the O.K Corral build up, gunfight, and aftermath. Kilmer's performance and even Russell's are the film's daving grace. The rest is nothing you couldn't find in most standard westerns, with the stock villains and supporting characters. I found the female element to be stronger in Earp than in Tombstone, because we get more dialogue from the other Earp wives and learn a little more about there struggle with the husbands not only in Tombstone but from before. Although not Earp's strongest aspect, it is more developed than Tombstone which was hurt some by the weak acting and portrayal.

Tombstone is more action (I will admit the O.K. Corral shootout is very exciting and well executed) but it does feel Hollywoodized. Earp is more dramatic and falls short of being an epic, although there are many elements that classify it as such (it's runtime, actors, cinematography, etc). Not sure how much this helps, it's just my take on it.

I would recommend both film highly, but would do so differetly based on what you look for in your westerns. Both have stand out performances from the leads, both have a high budget look to them that shows off extremely well in the sets, costumes, and cinematography (Earp's is phenomenal in this aspect). Either way, you can' go wrong with watching either film.

 

[JonZ]

Ive always liked this film as well.I never really compared it to Tombstone(which I also like),theyre just different. Ive never onwed it,but whenever I stumbled across it while it was on cable, I would watch it.

I wasnt sure if I needed this DVD but you guys have convinced me I need more westerns in my collection anyway.