A vingança de Wyatt Earp

Apologies to Deadwood for any comparison. If you're just going to wave a western in front of a camera, a viewer has to ask the valid question - what's the point? Apparently all involved with this enterprise thought that superficial pretense could carry the day and ridin' around 'n ominous music would convey all ya need to know about some sort of story. The casting was positively ludicrous. Every one of the twenties something pampered southern Cal principles here looked fresh out of a shower and the makeup trailer, and I'm telling you, dentistry in the late 1800s must have been pretty cutting edge with all those pearly whites on display. A very lame and uninteresting production that wasn't even worthy of having Val Kilmer snoringly narrate the tale with innumerable pregnant pauses, but maybe having Timothy Olyphant and John Hawkes lookalikes was supposed to make up for all it's low budget deficiencies. A real poser. Bleh.

Overall I enjoyed the movie, there were a few rough acting spots....But the story was good and believable.

What bothered me was the setting. If you are making a movie about Dodge City, or Western Kansas, please be aware that it is FLAT. The foot hills, green fields, vistas, etc., are all beautiful in this movie. However, there isn't a single hill in Western Kansas, it is as flat as a piece of paper, and dirty, dry and brown. With scenery this mismatched it was a little hard to believe the movie was supposed to be set in Dodge City and surrounding counties.

Other than the poor location shoot choice, and some awkward acting at times -- Overall, I enjoyed the movie. It's worth a watch.

Wow. This movie was a turkey. I've been collecting every film ever done on Wyatt Earp, and each one in its on way has a greatness to it. Until now.

Truthfully, I only bought 'Revenge' to complete the collection. Why? This video has turkey sign all over it:

1) It was made after 'Wyatt Earp' and 'Tombstone'. Those movies set the bar so high one would have to wonder why anyone would bother remaking the Earp story for quite a long time.

2) It has Val Kilmer playing Wyatt Earp. 'nuff said.

3) The title alone casts suspicion.

Once into the movie you notice all the things the other reviewers have commented on. Nice looking costumes... but they look like they just came off the rack. The titles stated the movie was based on a real event. Key word there is "based on", if even that much is true. I also didn't like the way they handled the rape of the prairie wife. The whole scene with that family was stretched to the point that the story turned into a (bad) horror flick. But maybe I'm just a sissy.

What to watch instead of this gobbler? ANY other Wyatt Earp film. Even the 1983 made-for-TV Earp flick with Marie Osmond, 'I Married Wyatt Earp', is better than this. Far better. Far far better.

As I write this review a new Earp film is in production starring Harrison Ford as Wyatt. Hmmm. Gotta go. I think I have a turkey in the oven to check on.

The basic motif to see it is Val Kilmer. In fact, he is the only one. Yes, the story is a too simple sketch and the portrait of events is far to be inspired . All remains conventional, in service, not in brilliant manner, of easy cliches and the film gives not something real useful as memory. So, a film about Wyatt Earp. Posible, not the worst one.

I can't say I've seen as poorly a written film in a long time. The plot and scenes were laughable. There were too many flubs like the fight scene with the holster that is empty, then full, then empty again. The sound of the guns sounded like cap pistols not full size guns of the time.

The acting was better than a made for TV movie but the writing took away from that entirely.

The scenery was nice and some of the costumes were interesting to examine if you can pause and rewind.

I much prefer, if I'm to watch a low budget Western, a Clint Eastwood Spaghetti Western.

Don't watch it unless you feel the need to write a review on it here.