Which had the better performances - Tombstone or Wyatt Earp ?
-
newfrontier45 — 9 years ago(April 27, 2016 07:05 PM)
While I think Tombstone is an infinitely better movie overall, I actually liked Costner's darker portrayal of Earp a little more than Russell.
I also thought Dennis Quaid did a fantastic job as Holliday but is overshadowed by Kilmer's version.
I despise Michael Madsen. He has no talent, always plays a version of the same, fake, wannabe badass. To me, he cheapens anything he's cast in. Sam Elliot, on the other hand, is a real actor who was born for westerns and is a huge boon to any he stars in.
Morgan's character in Wyatt Earp was campy and stupid. Paxton's was much better.
Further, Dana Delaney nailed her role but her Wyatt Earp counterpart was completely forgettable.
Tombstone also had A LOT more effort put into guns, leather and costumes. Wyatt Earp used the same ole Hollywood buscadero crap that would be right at home on the set of any campy B western. -
newfrontier45 — 9 years ago(April 27, 2016 07:20 PM)
While I think Tombstone is an infinitely better movie overall, I actually liked Costner's darker portrayal of Earp a little more than Russell.
I also thought Dennis Quaid did a fantastic job as Holliday but is overshadowed by Kilmer's version.
I despise Michael Madsen. He has no talent, always plays a version of the same, fake, wannabe badass. To me, he cheapens anything he's cast in. Sam Elliot, on the other hand, is a real actor who was born for westerns and is a huge boon to any he stars in.
Morgan's character in Wyatt Earp was campy and stupid. Paxton's was much better.
Further, Dana Delaney nailed her role but her Wyatt Earp counterpart was completely forgettable.
Tombstone also had A LOT more effort put into guns, leather and costumes. Wyatt Earp used the same ole Hollywood buscadero crap that would be right at home on the set of any campy B western. -
cabbageboy316 — 9 years ago(October 26, 2016 09:42 AM)
I think Wyatt Earp (the film) just tried to take in too much ground. Most people going in don't care THAT much about Earp's life story, his dad, first wife, whatever. I might be interested in his time in Dodge City but that could be its own film rather than the few minutes spent here.
This is just plain fact: WE is a boring film. It has no real dramatic tension in it. And quite honestly the biggest death knell on that film is its horrible, forgettable villains. I mean does anyone even remember anything about The Cowboys in that film? I can't recall anything Curly Bill even did in it, whereas Powers Boothe was awesome in Tombstone. Michael Biehn was awesome as Ringo, whereas I can't recall the character at all in WE.
Tombstone as film entertainment jumps out and grabs the viewer. I will say I found it odd when I first saw it since I expected it to end with the OK Corral, but that happens kinda midway through. In reality there was far more to the story, which I later understood.
As far as Quaid vs. Kilmer, I think most people probably prefer Kilmer. I know I do. Quaid's performance is to be admired I guess, since he went to great pains to look and act as much like the real Doc as possible. But Kilmer was infinitely more quotable and entertaining.
In the end I don't think there is much debate about these two films. Tombstone was always better and in 1993/94 the public certainly responded to it more than Wyatt Earp. Tombstone embellished that era onscreen.Wyatt Earp embalmed it. -
cathaven97 — 9 years ago(October 27, 2016 06:38 PM)
This is just plain fact: WE is a boring film. It has no real dramatic tension in it. And quite honestly the biggest death knell on that film is its horrible, forgettable villains. I mean does anyone even remember anything about The Cowboys in that film? I can't recall anything Curly Bill even did in it, whereas Powers Boothe was awesome in Tombstone. Michael Biehn was awesome as Ringo, whereas I can't recall the character at all in WE.
Yes to all of the above!
Quaid's performance is to be admired I guess, since he went to great pains to look and act as much like the real Doc as possible.
From what I've read and heard I can't agree. Doc was more refined than Quaid portrayed him and also was not that skeletal in Tombstone. He also never hit Kate, which Quaid's Doc does. -
A_Real_Hip_Dude — 9 years ago(October 27, 2016 11:18 PM)
Yes, I get a little tired of the praise for Quaid as Holliday when he was clearly not doing him justice in his representation. He gave a great performance, it just wasn't a great performance of Doc Holliday.
"I am on intimate terms with the desert" -
cathaven97 — 9 years ago(October 28, 2016 07:36 AM)
(Quaid) gave a great performance, it just wasn't a great performance of Doc Holliday.
Yeah, I meant to say exactly that. It wasn't his fault they made him say things like, "Do you believe in friendship, Wyatt Earp?" -
bobbiekaye69 — 9 years ago(October 28, 2016 01:55 PM)
From what I've read, during Doc's time in Tombstone, he was as healthy as he'd been in 10 years. The climate had really done him well. He still coughed, but he wasn't showing the debilitating effects of the tuberculosis.
Quaid's raspy voice didn't sound right, and he certainly didn't match the genteel, gentlemanly behavior that I attribute to the good dentist.
And lines like "Do you believe in friendship, Wyatt Earp?" were really pretty bad.
I intend to live forever.
So far, so good. -
A_Real_Hip_Dude — 9 years ago(October 28, 2016 06:47 PM)
All good points. I thought Quaid better personified the Leadville time. If not prefectly, then atleast more aptly than he portayed his Dodge and Tombstone time.
And I dont mean to criticize any individual for expressing the thought, its really more the conventional view that Quaid was an amazing Doc Holliday, in spite of him missing the mark due to the errors you guys pointed out so well.
"I am on intimate terms with the desert" -
cathaven97 — 9 years ago(October 28, 2016 07:20 PM)
And I dont mean to criticize any individual for expressing the thought, its really more the conventional view that Quaid was an amazing Doc Holliday, in spite of him missing the mark due to the errors you guys pointed out so well.
Hey, if everyone had the same opinion, we wouldn't have need for any message boards!
I'm of the opinion that some people think Quaid was better maybe because he was well, I don't want to say "hammy", but maybe it was, compared to Val Kilmer's subtleties and understated wit. More is not always better. No reflection on Dennis Quaid's talent. I've always liked him.
From what I've read, during Doc's time in Tombstone, he was as healthy as he'd been in 10 years. The climate had really done him well. He still coughed, but he wasn't showing the debilitating effects of the tuberculosis.
That's my understanding as well. He was slender, but not near-cadaverous as Quaid was.