Doc Holliday

It felt like the person who prorated Doc Holiday was a cosplayer pretending to be Val Kilmer's Doc Holiday. The writing was a mess, everyone's performance is just down right silly, and the action was dull enough to put everyone asleep. Also wasn't Holiday supposed to be a great gun slinger? Because I've lost count on how many times he has missed a shot against the two main villains in the end. This was definitely a low budget film that didn't really the viewers anything new about Doc Holiday. Oh and drink every time that someone mentions that Doc holiday is a dentist. You'll be drunk by the end of the movie.

You're better off watching Tombstone again for the millionth time.

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.

This is not a terrible movie, but could have been better. The biggest problem is that the actor playing Doc is not playing Doc, he's playing Val Kilmer playing Doc. Not sure if this was the actors decision or the directors, but it was the wrong decision. The story is ok, a little slow at times but all in all not bad, the score is pretty cool and the drab scenery fits in well with the story line. It's important to remember that this is not a remake of tombstone, but a prequel and the way it ends, leading right up to the start of Tombstone is also pretty cool. Again, not terrible but not great either. 5/10.

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.

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.