I enjoyed the movie overall. A little over-the-top, but still a good flick.
What I loved:
Val Kilmer's acting. I've never seen him act better. Good stuff.
When they first went after the Cowboys, and Earp (I think) jumped through the fucking window, and then killed all the Cowboys there. That was fucking sweet.
The things that really bothered me were:
The wasted shooting on horseback, especially when you couldn't see that they were shooting at anyone. Does this happen in most Westerns?
Kurt Russel's mustache. That was just ridiculous.
The end of the movie, where Wyatt doesn't have to worry about money ever again because his bitch's family is rich, and he's perfectly OK with just mooching and getting room service from her moneys. [Reply]
Originally Posted by frazod:
Sorry. I sometimes forget you're only a pretend idiot.
good stuff either way. People should check out wyatt earp though. Some of my hill billy (sorry in advance) cowboy friends like that one more than the "bubble gum" tombstone [Reply]
Originally Posted by frazod:
You know, I finally watched the whole thing on TV, and it got better right after the spot where I walked out. It was still way too slow, but better than I thought initially.
Whoever edited that movie should be slapped. Hard. It was about 45 minutes too long.
Just watched it the other night,it was definitely a little too long but I really liked it,maybe it was the whole living here in St Joe and all but I thought it was damn good. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Nzoner:
Just watched it the other night,it was definitely a little too long but I really liked it,maybe it was the whole living here in St Joe and all but I thought it was damn good.
A decent editor could have made it a masterpiece. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Amnorix:
It's boring. And I'm not fan of Costner so it started out with a strike against it already.
Dancing with Wolves was ok, but I've seen it exactly once, with no interest in a repeat performance. I feel the same about Wyatt Earp (I think that was the name of the movie).
And it's not like I can't appareciate a decent character study. The Searchers and The Shootist fall into that category also.
Maybe it's just Kevin Costner. Other than the Untouchables, I struggle to find a movie of his that I say more than "eh" to.
his acting in untouchables was horrendous, his worst performance imo [Reply]
I would just like to go on record as saying that "Dances With Wolves" was awesome. I am no huge Costner fan, but that was his best movie besides the one where he played the serial killer who owned a box manufacturing company and had an alternate personality played by the guy who was the cynical tabloid journalist in that movie about the guy who had wings played by the guy who was also in that movie where he was from New York and danced all the time.
Originally Posted by Amnorix:
It's boring. And I'm not fan of Costner so it started out with a strike against it already.
Dancing with Wolves was ok, but I've seen it exactly once, with no interest in a repeat performance. I feel the same about Wyatt Earp (I think that was the name of the movie).
And it's not like I can't appareciate a decent character study. The Searchers and The Shootist fall into that category also.
Maybe it's just Kevin Costner. Other than the Untouchables, I struggle to find a movie of his that I say more than "eh" to.
What! You didn't like teh Postman?
I keed! I keed!
Originally Posted by Amnorix:
Maybe it's just Kevin Costner. Other than the Untouchables, I struggle to find a movie of his that I say more than "eh" to.
Originally Posted by blaise:
Tin Cup and No Way Out weren't bad flicks.
Tin Cup was OK, but I detest golf. And since I actually served on a ship in the Navy, the stuporific rescue scene alone was enough to ruin No Way Out. That's got the be the dumbest goddamn scene ever consigned to film. [Reply]