Doc Holliday

First, Zembrod's impersonation of Val Kilmer in Tombstone should have been left to Kilmer rather that Zembrod. Kilmer did a much better job. Next, "So Fun and Spot On" were I think, not part of the vernacular of the old west. Now, I believe, I counted 5 times when somebody was shot by a bullet from a gun that was facing up to the sky. Good trick. I will say this for Zembrod, his impersonation of a dentist was better than that oh Doc Holiday. As for Wyat Earp, PLEASE, Have Mercey, I hope I have made my point. The only good thing about it is that I did not have to pay to see it. Had I done so, I would have stopped watching movies. Watch at your own risk.

I didn't necessarily see Zembrod's Holiday as a copy of Val Kilmer. For me I saw more Dennis Quaid than Val. In fact when I first saw him and heard him speak Quaid immediately came to mind. Also had I saw a movie still of Zembrod at any point in this picture I would bet somebody's farm, not mine Lol, that it was Quaid. As far is his accent goes it reminds me more of Douglas Fowley from The Life and Times of Wyatt Earp TV show in the late '50s than VK's. Sure, it could have been better because all portrayals are now stacked up against Kilmer's. For the most part I like "almost" all Holiday portrayals over the decades, including this one, even though a number of scripts took liberties on real events and people.

This movie is all over the place, unfortunately. I love a historical-based Western where possible, but this one really falls short of its potential. The plot is weak, the pacing is terrible, score is much to be desired for such an epic tale. The thing everyone wants to point out is the depiction of Doc Holiday, which I honestly, am not that offended by, since no one can match Val Kilmer's version of the character in Tombstone. However, the portrayal of Holiday is clearly heavily based on Kilmer's performance, and especially these days, following Val's recent passing, very mediocre and weak. Wyatt Earp's presence is very absent for much of the film and you don't feel the weight of his importance much at all. The villains are poorly written tbh as well.

The overall story has so much potential, but poorly executed. The gunfight's are very clunky and impressively impotent. Probably one of the worst Western's I've ever seen.

I ran across this randomly I'd never heard of it. I figured.... why not? It wasn't good. Historically inaccurate, slow, and pretty goofy. The acting was ok nothing to write home about. Seemed like a made for TV movie that wasn't made for a good network. Maybe a USA network Saturday morning kind of movie.

Why oh why do low budget director do this to themselves? I understand that sometimes a person doesn't have money and that doesn't stop them from wanting to make something to put their names on and that's fine. But why this? Why take already established characters that have been portrayed better in better movies and make something this bland with them? You've already doomed your film to failure unless you have one heck of a talent which writer and director Brett Bentman doesn't seem to have. Tombstone this is not. Derrick Redford is no Kurt Russell and Tom Zembrod as the leading man certainly can't live up to Val Kilmer. Again, better versions of these characters and stories already exist with better storytellers and actors and the low budget here doesn't help to elevate. The camera work is a little more advanced than you would expect from something with this budget but its probably the only positive aspect to be mentioned. Even if the creators had told an original story I doubt it would have been much given what this is, but at least we wouldn't have had anything else to compare it to. Skip this and watch Tombstone or any other movie featuring these characters instead.