Wyatt Earp's Revenge (2012)

Yesterday I was watching an old movie clip where the critic Pauline Kael discusses auteur theory, where she mentions a film does not depend only on the director but on many factors one of the most important, the story. Michael Feifer, who directed this film did not do a good job, neither did most of the actors, with the exception of Val Kilmer, Daniel Booko (Spike Kenedy) and some of the supporting actors. But obviously they were tight on the budget, so much so that sometimes it looks like a TV movie of the fifties. But they have a good story, and that carries the film. I was curious to know about the Buntline colts that were offered to Bat Masterson and Wyatt Earp, and the story behind it , and this film tells it ,fair and square.

There are so many goofs in this sad rubbish that I am quite at a loss to know where to begin. What about the opening scene when the young reporter (who turns out to be the kid who's father is boringly killed by the boring killer) starts talking to the old Kilmer Earp, who just stares off into space for two minutes like he has forgotten his stupid lines and then snaps out of it all of a sudden (with no explanation) and starts babbling. Little does the viewer know that the nasty, uncouth Earp is going to turn into a little mound of sugar at the end of this "movie". We are introduced to one of the (boring) characters with a (for no reason) slow motion fight scene, which, I might add is Apaullingly done. The fight is between one of the main characters and someone I call "Mr Shampoo" as for all the grease and grime that covers his body and clothes, he made sure to wash and condition his hair before filming so that his hair flows around in slow, dramatic... boring motion. I was expecting him to say "because Im worth it" but the idiot never said a word. I suspect this that particular useless actor was the brother of the director. If not I can't work out why he didn't end up on the cutting room floor. At least I had a laugh when after getting punched, he turns and leaps onto a pile of what look like pillows on the floor. I did laugh at that bit. What about the unrealistic gunfights with the guns that sound like wet squibs? What about the boring bad guy father of the evil dude with a funny name....? Er was it Mougli or Mimi or mumikins or something like that... Oh I don't know. But all the way through it they are building up to this bad dad type and then when you finally meet him, the scariest thing about him is his uncool beard! Sheesh! There's the brother of the bad guy who just gets shot every five minutes but never actually gets round to dying, the silly punch ups, and the irritating Mexican gentleman who only cackled instead of speaking. Does the word "racism" mean anything to anyone? And what a stylish ending... Wyatt Earp bashes the evil dudes head in with a rock? ohhhh Im impressed! And then the evil dude, boringly does not die... and then he does... also boringly. Oh and the music... Oh dear! There are some films in which the music stands out for its excellence: The godfather, the Good the bad and the ugly, Jaws, Cape Fear and Pulp fiction to name but a few. Generally speaking however, the music is an element that shouldn't be noticed in a movie. it should add to the dramatic build up of the scene. I'll tell you how the (boring) sound editors of this movie did it: They opened the sound editing software and went to the file called "western soundtracks" and they scrolled down to the subfile called "total cheese" and they double clicked. In that folder they found backing music with memorable titles such as "drunken maniac slapping a broken banjo with a fish" and "Off key western saloon piano played by total beginner at frenetic speed" and even "What it would sound like if a classically trained pianist were totally coked up and forced at gunpoint to play the piano, blindfolded and with his knees... sped up really fast" and other gems. The mad person in charge of the soundtrack thought all of this was the coolest and didn't hesitate to pop it all in at every part of the movie that the alcoholic director of this nonsense would let him. The result being a totally distracting and really bad soundtrack. Hmmm now have I left anything out? Well yes. Every single scene in this waste of time is like torture. i went to the toilet after watching this and realised that the act of going to the toilet was much more intellectually stimulating that this picture. I hope the losers that made this movie never work again. Look at the filmographies of the director and you see that he makes million of TV movies at the same time. He has no interest in quality and deserves to be unemployed. Did this movie make any money? I hope it made a terrible loss. If I can have any influence on the universe let it be this: Don't watch this movie! Don't waste your money on this total incompetence. Now just a little message for Val Kilmer: Mate! You are the best actor in this flick but the movie is baaaaaaaaaaaaaaad. Most of us thought you would never get your credibility back after "The Saint" but we were actually starting to forgive and forget and then what did you do? Val... What were you thinking? This movie! Now I realise it just took you one afternoon and that the money probably wasn't bad for an afternoons work but come on. Nobody will take you seriously if you do garbage like this. Now a message for the director: You didn't have to bother with Val Kilmer. Just get any old nerd with no personality and pop a hat and five kilo moustache on him. Call him Val Killmar and no one will notice. You could have saved money there.You didn't take advantage of Val Kilmer at all. You could have used him but no... You took the cheaper option didn't you? Apart from that one more thing: You deserve unemployment. To the producers... well kinda the same. I hope you never work again. The actors: You guys are just starting out so I can forgive you. You guys were not too bad except the shampoo guy and the cackling Mexican who were terrible. I'm not sure I have made myself clear.

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.

Straight-to-video is justified, considering the low budget. However, as Earp movies go, this was more than watchable. A fairly well-structured narrative. But definitely more for those, like myself, who are fascinated with the subject matter.Val Kilmer plays an aging Wyatt Earp giving an interview to a newspaper reporter about his involvement in the investigation of the murder of actress Dora Hand in Dodge City, which is a genuine historical event (though to what degree the real Earp's involvement actually was depends on which historian's account you may be reading). Kilmer's work is probably the most memorable element of this film, very moving, making Earp down-to-earth and realistic. The actor playing the reporter does a fine job as well (not sure who he is, but he bears a striking resemblance to Patrick Dempsey).The actors playing the young Earp, Bat Masterson, Charlie Bassett, Spike Kenedy, etc. are also fine, though the script doesn't give them much to work with as far as deep character development. The actor playing Doc Holliday (in one scene only) is very memorable. His expressions ('daisy', etc.) may seem like they're borrowed from Kilmer's Doc from "Tombstone", but they're actually historically validated as being genuine southern expressions, and many books attribute them to Holliday. This might be the first on-screen Doc since Victor Mature NOT to have a mustache, though (for what that observation's worth).My gripes are: a. The music score didn't seem to fit very well. That's very often a crutch with movies; the use of the music can often damage the 'mood' of a film which would be better served having no music at all. b. When Bat Masterson is introduced, he's involved in a fist-fight which employs some use of slow-motion which doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever. c. The film looks too 'neat'. A grittier, darker look would have infinitely improved the experience.A nice thing about this film is the use of almost 'forgotten' lawmen, such as Charlie Bassett and Bill Tilghman, who have gotten very few portrayals in film.Overall, not a complete waste of time. Again, more for those interested in Earp history. I appreciated the references to the "Buntline Special" revolver, the historicity of which has been debated for quite some time.