The First Ride of Wyatt Earp

I'll tell you what I liked about the movie, because what's not to like has been pretty well covered. Old Wyatt Earp says, "You have to understand the War Between the States. The war formed us, made us who we are. After killing your own cousins, your own brothers, killing strangers meant nothing. Lawless times followed those long dark years." It's not a new thought, but it's well developed. Out in the countryside the movie presents people who describe themselves as Christian, as if Christianity were driven to take refuge away from the cities and the evil would have to burn itself out before Christianity could return. A parallel could be drawn with modern times in which Christian values seem to be retreating from the great American cities. Along with this idea, we have a bit of the observation that we heard in A Few Good Men, and before that in The Caine Mutiny, about how the kind of warriors we look down upon are the ones who protect our innocence. Val Kilmer hams it up a little, but some behavior that looks unforgivably strange on his part at the beginning is explained at the end. Another pivotal role is played by Diana Degarmo. If you can't believe she is a unique 19th- century stage performer whom men fall head over heels in love with-- even a sober man like Wyatt Earp-- then you don't have a movie here. But she pulls it off. You'd never guess she came off American Idol, although she did. (You'd think the guy playing Bat Masterson did, although he didn't.)

I first learned of this movie when finding a DVD copy of it in my local Wal-Mart's $5 DVD bin. Now, I love westerns, and I was tempted to buy it since it was a western and cheap. But then I remembered that Val Kilmer in recent years has said yes to numerous junky projects. So I ultimately decided not to buy it. But today I watched it after it appeared on a movie TV channel, and boy, am I glad I didn't buy it all those months ago. To begin with, the movie is a cheat. Though Val Kilmer's name is trumpeted, in fact he only has about seven to ten minutes of footage in the entire movie. Which is just as well, because the combination of his uninspired acting plus his strangely puffy face doesn't exactly make him interesting to observe. Actually, the rest of the cast is pretty awful as well. They give "modern" performances despite the bulk of the movie taking place in the 1800s, and none of their characters come across in a compelling way. The surroundings are shabby as well - there's not that much action, with the movie mostly being conversations, none of which sounds very interesting. And the movie looks real cheap, from the unconvincing sets to unspectacular countryside. Whether you are a Kilmer fan and/or a western fan, more likely than not you'll find this movie to be really poor and not worth any attention.

This movie was so terrible i didn't even make it through the first scene. The movie opens showing some rancher randomly hammering on a piece of farm equipment from the mid 1950's. Then once he done hammering he pretends to grab the 1/4 inch steel and bend it with his fingers like he is superman or something. *Enter the dual wielding Wyatt Erp* Yes Wyatt Erp did dual wield in real life (freaking awesome considering they were single action revolvers) however he did not dual wield a little chromed out 1873 colt. He had twin Buntline special's with a freaking 12 inch barrel. After all of this, the guy holding them looked like such a California pretty boy it almost made me sick, never mind the total lack of acting skills. I would not recommend this movie to anyone that has seen Tombstone and thought that it was going to be anything with that kind of quality.

This movie was pathetic in every way. It was an insult to the memory and legend of Wyatt Earp. I am a huge fan of "Tombstone" and Val Kilmer should be very ashamed of this piece of garbage. I like to imagine Kurt Russell calling him up and asking WTF? I now need to watch "Tombstone" again as a sort of eye cleansing after watching this nonsense. I really don't know what else to say about it. The cinematography was bad. The shootout scenes were sorry. People would get shot several times and just would not die. The main villain, who had killed a guy just for asking where he was heading, has his pursuer at gunpoint, and decides to have a conversation with him. This had all the typical clichés and stereotypes you could imagine. Shame! Val Kilmer. Shame!

When someone says "straight to DVD" that invokes a certain "image" about a film, and this movie embodies it perfectly. Small budget, virtually unknown cast, simple story... pretty much everything you'd expect. But that's not to say it doesn't have good points too: Val Kilmer as an elder Wyatt Earp does a fine job and has several genuinely touching moments. Wilson Bethel steals his scenes as Doc Holliday, taking a hilarious and memorable turn as the character Kilmer himself made famous. (And Kilmer as Doc fans will appreciate that Bethel seems to be playing from the former's play-book - down to using Kilmer's more memorable lines.) There are some truly lovely vista shots (as one would expect from any western worth it's salt) and a few honestly funny comedic moments. Down the downside, I do wish Trace Adkins had gotten more scene time and the script could have definitely done with a bit of a cliché overhaul. Overall, I'd say it does a fine job at being exactly what it is - a straight to DVD Western; nothing more and nothing less.

I have a soft spot for westerns, I just can't get enough of them and whilst I admit I picked this movie up primarily because Trace Adkins was in it, it turned out to be a very well made movie considering its budget and straight to video status. Val Kilmer's narration and scenes were well acted and heartfelt and the plot was believable and paced appropriately. The scene with 'Doc' was memorable and wildly entertaining with the actor channeling the amazing version made by, ironically enough, Val Kilmer down to a similar voice and catch phases. I was a little disappointed that more wasn't done with Trace Adkins, although his trademark southern draw due a smile. All in all, an above average movie and I definitely recommend it

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.

For very good reason, copies of this on DVD are selling for around A$2 on eBay. The parts of Val Kilmer retelling the story weren't too bad - it was the parts that showed the story that were just awful. It didn't flow at all and jumped around too much to be able to relate to any of it. There's no other way to describe the acting than shocking. I've seen better acting at school plays than was on show here. I'd love to know how much these people were being paid for their roles. If it's anything significant then I'm downing tools and becoming an actor because while I may not be better than this lot (Kilmer excluded), I couldn't be worse. The actual premise of the story in itself isn't a bad one and having done some research on it is quite an interesting tale. The way it's portrayed in Wyatt Earp's Revenge is just terrible. I wouldn't have been surprised if Rob Schneider popped in for a cameo it was that cringe worthy. Kilmer was good, the rest not even worth bothering with.

When I first saw that Val Kilmer was in this... my first thought was maybe this was a sequel to the awesome Tombstone movie. This has nothing to do with the movie. I thought that was a big mistake because they could have created a connection to that movie... Instead of having Kilmer play an older Earl, he could have revised his role as Doc Holiday instead... In Tombstone, Doc is seen bedridden at the end... They could have had a reporter visit him at the hospital and have Doc talk about his younger days as a dentist and how he became a gunslinger. Now that would have been a great movie ... and it would have work great... even have Russel, Paxton and Elliot make cameo appearances... assuming they didn't ask for too much money to appear. This movie... was OK. It starred the bad guy from the Resident Evil movie (the boss with the sunglasses).. Kilmer wasn't in any of the actual action part of the movie... there were just flashbacks to him narrating the story... but the other guy was the actual star, not Kilmer. As a western movie, it was OK.. better than some other ones I've seen. Low budget, but it's not like you're going to expect hi-tech gadgets displayed by cowbows, right? If you're looking for something to pass the time with... then this would be great movie to watch.

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.