gorilazed I like westerns and do so even more if they're based on real events. So when I saw the title containing one of the most iconic characters of American Western History I just dropped my remote sank my butt in the couch and prepared to enjoy the show. Never have I been so wrong. Where to start...???Acting: Val Kilmer was probably the "biggest" name of the cast and, although he portrays the main character, he literally spends the whole film sitting on a couch and telling his story. Basically he's a narrator. Maybe for the general public that's not a bad thing but personally I miss the old Val Kilmer which had bigger roles in his films. The most important thing for someone playing the narrator is definitely their voice. Kilmer wasn't that bad in this aspect but I think he was lacking a kind of "cowboy accent". Personally I was thinking why didn't they just pick the guy that narrates The Big Lebowski (he's also the one that plays the cowboy in the first Ghost Rider), he has voice and the accent. Concerning the rest of the acting it was to stiff most if not all the time. Even the fight scenes, I mean Earp just stands there when Spike launches himself over him. It wasn't even a decent jump it was kind of a poorly choreographed ballet jump. If you want to knock someone down just cannonball the hell out of him. Still on the same fight, Spike had to guns pointed at Earp and, when he decided to shoot, both guns were out of bullets. Facepalm moment.Make up: as I've read in previous review, it actually seemed they had better hygienic habits than we have nowadays. Constantly on dirt and riding their horses but always clean. Just like their teeth, why the hell can't I have their cowboy teeth. But this is actually something recurring in almost every movie nowadays. God forbid the main characters from having dental issues.Historical accuracy: Jesus Christ, where to begin: -Wyatt Earp wasn't the one in charge of the posse to capture Spike. It was actually Charlie Bassett. Earp was one of his deputies. -Everone seemed to know and fear Earp when in truth, during this manhunt he wasn't yet that well known. -Earp had no relationship with the actress Dora. -In the movie old Earp said he never wanted to kill and that he never killed someone for revenge. In truth there was something called "Earps Vendetta Ride" (GOOGLE IT). -Spike's father said Earp couldn't be bought with money but if Earp was as famous as they made him seem in the film he would know that Earp was also a famous gambler.(Of course this doesn't mean he would have been a sell out. I'm just saying he probably wouldn't refuse an offer so quickly). In the end, only the character names were accurate. They might as well have just put Jesse James in the film and say it was Earp that killed him. This movie, in my opinion, is just an excuse to enhance Earps greatness using lies to do so.Yes Earp was a great icon in American Western history but there wasn't the need for so many lies to make him sound great. Just check his biography and you'll find plenty of decent material to make a decent movie about this man.Overall a give it a 4/10. I was facepalming throughout the whole movie so I don't think I've seen enough to give it a lower score.

Coastal Cruiser ([email protected]) 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.

opensorce69 The direction and (with the exception of Mr Kilmer) the acting in this movie are so badly done it honestly felt like a fan fiction. While it was interesting and even entertaining to see Val Kilmer play Wyatt Earp, there is nothing else even remotely redeeming about this movie.There were many places where the filmmakers tried desperately to pay homage to the 1993 movie Tombstone. Even going as far as having characters from both movies say similar lines and using Michael Sherayko, the actor who played Texas Jack Vermillion in Tombstone, in a small role. However, it fails miserably.I would rank this one right up there with Showgirls, Highlander:The Source and Bloodrayne:Third Reich.

adicerni 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.