Val Kilmer RIP

[Deberg_1990]

Originally Posted by Frazod

I never have an issue watching either one. But I completely agree with your assessment. They are very different films for covering much of the same ground, but when actual people/events are portrayed, I tend to prefer stories that stick closer to the truth.

Tombstone is a straight up action movie, while Wyatt Earp is a far more accurate character study. Wyatt and Doc were not nice, likeable guys. Kostner's cranky, sullen Earp is far more grounded in reality. Wyatt simply lived long enough to create his own legend while hobnobbing with early Hollywood western stars. And while everybody (including me) loves Kilmer's Doc, Quaid plays him as he was - a bitter, angry, terminally ill alcoholic. Quaid even looks the part - people calling Kilmer "skinny" didn't make him thin.

The main area where Wyatt Earp suffers is the lack of a strong villain - there simply aren't any. Curly Bill is nothing more than a background character and Johnny Ringo is only seen when Doc shoots him and doesn't even have a line a dialogue. Obviously Boothe, Biehn and Lang put Tombstone way over the top in the antagonist department. Tombstone in general has a far superior supporting cast.

Tombstone is more pulpy and fun.

Wyatt Warp is more downbeat.


They are both entertaining in their own way.