I watched Wyatt Earp (1994) tonight.
While it is a more accurate portrayal of events, it’s bloody long and a bit dull. It certainly doesn’t have the emotional punch of Tombstone (1993).
Wyatt Earp is revolves more directly around the Earp family, and is less shy of the origins of the brothers’ wives, Lou, Allie, Mady and Beth, as well as Josie, who Wyatt eventually married (he was never married to Mady Blaylock). The feud between the Earps and Mclaury/Clanton brothers is more accurately described. The fight itself is equally accurate, as far as is possible, although Ike Clanton ran away behind the OK Corral according to historical sources whereas the film has him cowering on the steps of the photographer’s studio.
There has obviously been some romantic embellishments: Wyatt’s innocence before the death of his first wife for example; or the relationships between the Earps and their wives; their childhood home etc.
Dennis Quaid makes a good Doc Holliday – even if they did miss out his best quotes “I’m your huckle bearer” and “That’s a hell of a thing for you to say to me” – but I have my reservations about Kevin Costner. He plays every character the same way: overly stoic, dull and wooden.This is why Robin Hood: Prince of Theives is not my favourite Robin Hood film. That honour goes to Robin Hood (1991), starring Patrick Bergin and Uma Thurman. It is cheesy but a damn sight better than Prince of Theives. I really need to get it on DVD but gold dust! If you get a chance to see it, I recommend it, purely for the silliness.
I’m off to bed now, if my hiatus hernia doesn’t keep me up all night. I saw Suffragette today. It was marvelous; I might write more about that tomorrow though.
Good night or Weltrusten (to my Dutch friends)