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 Amnorix:
His acting is ALWAYS horrible. There was enough good stuff going on around him to save the movie, however, at least IMHO.
I actually enjoy his movies but yes, he's not the best pure actor. However, you usually finds a way to keep me entertained. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Amnorix:
IMHO baseball movies are boring, as a rule. Field of Dreams didn't totally suck, but it's not on my top 10 list, my top 100 list, or my top 1000 list.
You're a Red Sox fan, aren't you?
I just can't imagine anybody who likes baseball not liking those two movies. Bull Durham is regarded by pretty much everybody as one of the greatest sports movies of all time. [Reply]
Loved the part where Harris and his partner ride up the hill to see what those two ranch hands were doing. After he finished his coffee first. LOL [Reply]
Originally Posted by frazod:
You're a Red Sox fan, aren't you?
I just can't imagine anybody who likes baseball not liking those two movies. Bull Durham is regarded by pretty much everybody as one of the greatest sports movies of all time.
eh, a pretty passive Red Sox fan. I rarely watch a full game these days. I find it fairly boring unless I'm there in person. I'll watch playoff games, etc., but I don't see more than a couple full games a year on TV.
And I'm sorry to say I've never seen Bull Durham. :-) [Reply]
Originally Posted by Amnorix:
The two (Tombstone and Wyatt Earp) came out at about the same time. If I remember right they wanted Costner in Tombstone and he refused, or something like that. In any event, it was a rivalry between two studios or whatever for the Wyatt Earp movies t hey were putting out.
Wyatt Earp was a big budget flop, while Tombstone was a cheap massive hit. Of course, Kilmer stole Tombstone from Russell in every conceivable way.
Your pretty much right.
Tombstone came out around Christmas 93 and was basically dumped. Nobody thought much of it, and it became this sleeper word of mouth hit.
Wyatt Earp came out that following summer and was supposed to be a big hit and flopped.
Costner was still a big star at that time. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Amnorix:
eh, a pretty passive Red Sox fan. I rarely watch a full game these days. I find it fairly boring unless I'm there in person. I'll watch playoff games, etc., but I don't see more than a couple full games a year on TV.
And I'm sorry to say I've never seen Bull Durham. :-)
You really should watch it - it's a great film. Funny more than anything. [Reply]
I was disappointed in Appaloosa. If memory serves, it was a project directed by Ed Harris, as well. If so, I think he did a poor job of getting a performance out of himself. The movie almost worked, but Harris wasn't solid. In fact, it was difficult to pin down exactly where he was trying to go with the character. Too bad, because the premise was good and the supporting cast was excellent.
All in all, I got the feeling that it was a low budget film and they started running out of money early. Not enough takes on location and time in post.
