Okay, I'm a "natural fan" of the western genre, enjoying the likes of Silverado, the Spaghetti westerns, Pale Rider, The Magnificent Seven, and Unforgiven. After seeing all of these, I finally got a chance to sit down and watch "Tombstone".
The Story: It was a decent, typical tale of an ordinary man, Wyatt Earp (Kurt Russel) and his family including his opium addicted wife, and two brothers Virgil (Sam Elliot) and Morgan (Bill Paxton) decide to live a leisure and peaceful life in the west. But when a band of thieves and ruthless murderers called "the cowboys" lurk in the town and go about their business "scott free" of the law, the three brothers and their friend Doc Holliday (Val Kilmer) decide to bring "law and order".
Now, it sounds all good, but the way the film delivered it was at most the pace of a snail. There was plenty of character development, and intermittent brief tales of each individual, but the entire first hour is made up of this, with only one gun battle in the start, occasional fist fights and one or two, here-and-there murders. The film did not even feel like a western, more like a soap opera as the "good guys" and "bad guys" deal with their delusions of obsessive gambling and alcohol intakes, and their lust for using their testosterone. When the first hour ends, the REAL story kicks in with the famous "shootout at the OK Carrol".
Henceforth comes the gun battles and merciless killing. The action though did not have the exciting camera angles that Sergio Leone had in "The Good, Bad, and the Ugly", nor did it have an uplifting score as "The Magnificent Seven". The action sequences were very stiff and bland, lacking creativity and thrills. Even the "Ok Corral" sequence was a bit dull and long lasting, in which only three guys were killed in, when it looked like a dozen or so were shot. The violence in this film was brutal and cold-blooded like Spielberg's Schindler's List. Perhaps the director wanted to make a more realistic look at the film (since it was based on a true story), but even by that time, I was numb from sleepiness. Unforgiven did not have as much action, but it flew by! What's up with that?
The acting: It was very good. Val Kilmer gave quite a performance as Doc Holliday, with his one-liner clichés, deep philosophy of life, and armed with his two pistols. Kurt Russel was also very decent as the hero who is drawn between what to do right, and what to do for himself. He performed a very ambivalent character. The other actors were great too, even the villains who were both laughable and insane.
Overall: The film had good characters and a decent story, but it lacked the pace. With this movie, do not expect much action till the second half of the film. Critics call this the "last great western", but that's one fat lie. When I mean it lacked the "western soul" I mean it lacked the the thrilling action, the music, and the adventurous pace and story. Because of this, it did not feel like a western, at least to me. This is possible, since I'm old-fashioned when it comes to a western film (good vs. bad, saving the damsel in distress stuff). Basically, it does not follow "the traditional western." It is an okay film, but it lacks the speed and proper soul of a western. I had to give it some credit since it was based off of true events. 3/5
The Story: It was a decent, typical tale of an ordinary man, Wyatt Earp (Kurt Russel) and his family including his opium addicted wife, and two brothers Virgil (Sam Elliot) and Morgan (Bill Paxton) decide to live a leisure and peaceful life in the west. But when a band of thieves and ruthless murderers called "the cowboys" lurk in the town and go about their business "scott free" of the law, the three brothers and their friend Doc Holliday (Val Kilmer) decide to bring "law and order".
Now, it sounds all good, but the way the film delivered it was at most the pace of a snail. There was plenty of character development, and intermittent brief tales of each individual, but the entire first hour is made up of this, with only one gun battle in the start, occasional fist fights and one or two, here-and-there murders. The film did not even feel like a western, more like a soap opera as the "good guys" and "bad guys" deal with their delusions of obsessive gambling and alcohol intakes, and their lust for using their testosterone. When the first hour ends, the REAL story kicks in with the famous "shootout at the OK Carrol".
Henceforth comes the gun battles and merciless killing. The action though did not have the exciting camera angles that Sergio Leone had in "The Good, Bad, and the Ugly", nor did it have an uplifting score as "The Magnificent Seven". The action sequences were very stiff and bland, lacking creativity and thrills. Even the "Ok Corral" sequence was a bit dull and long lasting, in which only three guys were killed in, when it looked like a dozen or so were shot. The violence in this film was brutal and cold-blooded like Spielberg's Schindler's List. Perhaps the director wanted to make a more realistic look at the film (since it was based on a true story), but even by that time, I was numb from sleepiness. Unforgiven did not have as much action, but it flew by! What's up with that?
The acting: It was very good. Val Kilmer gave quite a performance as Doc Holliday, with his one-liner clichés, deep philosophy of life, and armed with his two pistols. Kurt Russel was also very decent as the hero who is drawn between what to do right, and what to do for himself. He performed a very ambivalent character. The other actors were great too, even the villains who were both laughable and insane.
Overall: The film had good characters and a decent story, but it lacked the pace. With this movie, do not expect much action till the second half of the film. Critics call this the "last great western", but that's one fat lie. When I mean it lacked the "western soul" I mean it lacked the the thrilling action, the music, and the adventurous pace and story. Because of this, it did not feel like a western, at least to me. This is possible, since I'm old-fashioned when it comes to a western film (good vs. bad, saving the damsel in distress stuff). Basically, it does not follow "the traditional western." It is an okay film, but it lacks the speed and proper soul of a western. I had to give it some credit since it was based off of true events. 3/5