Tombstone (1993)
6/10
Good, but not THAT good.
15 February 2021
Warning: Spoilers
I rewatched Tombstone for maybe the fourth time last night, while this is certainly not a bad film it is not what other people make it out to be. The majority of reviews on here comment on Val Kilmer's performance and I can't decry him of that, it really is superb (and I think was the inspiration for Leonardo DiCaprio's performance in Django: Unchained) furthermore Sam Elliot's portrayal of Virgil Earp is by far the most interesting of the Earp brothers and solidifies his position as one of the greatest western actors in history. This film is also one of the most accurate portrayals of western life in the 1880s and any history buff will be thrilled with this depiction.

However, I find the love sub plot tedious and somewhat unnecessary but I understand why they put it in the movie, it makes it accessible to a wider audience and admittedly it does make the Wyatt's failing marriage subplot slightly more interesting. Overall I find this film deeply unsatisfying, the shootouts feel over-choreographed, bloodless and a little boring and everyone is able to fire 500 shots before reloading (I know this is common in movies, but in westerns its never been so overt).

My least favourite aspect of this film though is its ability to make me cringe. Starting with the mirroring of the 3 couples in the glass moving on to the awful 'latin scene' and theatre show and ending with I think we can all agree is one of the worst slow motion "no"s in history.

To conclude, this film is worth a watch but mainly for Kilmer and Elliot the rest of the cast is fairly boring with the exception of powers booth, the story is average at best given that they had one of the most interesting sources of history to work with and the shootouts are underwhelming.
11 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed