User reviews

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.

Apologies to Deadwood for any comparison. If you're just going to wave a western in front of a camera, a viewer has to ask the valid question - what's the point? Apparently all involved with this enterprise thought that superficial pretense could carry the day and ridin' around 'n ominous music would convey all ya need to know about some sort of story. The casting was positively ludicrous. Every one of the twenties something pampered southern Cal principles here looked fresh out of a shower and the makeup trailer, and I'm telling you, dentistry in the late 1800s must have been pretty cutting edge with all those pearly whites on display. A very lame and uninteresting production that wasn't even worthy of having Val Kilmer snoringly narrate the tale with innumerable pregnant pauses, but maybe having Timothy Olyphant and John Hawkes lookalikes was supposed to make up for all it's low budget deficiencies. A real poser. Bleh.

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.

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.

I seldom write reviews...However...On this occasion I felt the "Western genre" fans needed a heads up on this title. Westerns are rare these days and having always liked the genre...I thought I'd give this a try...having my appetite whetted again with the likes of "Deadwood" or even 3:10 to Yuma. Oh my! What a total and utter disappointment. To use a British term... What a lot of utter tosh! I sat through it thinking "it''s got to get better or have some saving grace"....it didn't on either count... now all that valuable time I wasted when I could have been doing something useful like picking my feet is gone forever. This movie went straight to DVD...can see why...but don't know why they even bothered. It was made with the same panache and imagination as Bonanza in the 60's. The story was predictable in the extreme and the acting and dialogue was embarrassing to watch. The costumes were laughable as well as very clean and I was left feeling that the movie was either made as a prank or for a bet. I cannot believe somebody actually sank money into making it. I guess Val Kilmer was there to give it some credibility..........he didn't! I would rank this as about as bad as a western gets...in fact off the top of my head I cannot recall one that was worse than this offering This ranks high on my list of all time movie garbage. So please if you're thinking of actually paying money for this, do yourself a real big favour and ...DON'T! Do something useful with the cash instead like having a few beers or giving to the homeless...because if you do buy it....well you have been warned!

How not to make a western... looks like a video made for television. Too many tight lens / moving camera shots. A western should be shot on film with wide angle lenses and SMOOTH camera moves.

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.

Overall I enjoyed the movie, there were a few rough acting spots....But the story was good and believable.

What bothered me was the setting. If you are making a movie about Dodge City, or Western Kansas, please be aware that it is FLAT. The foot hills, green fields, vistas, etc., are all beautiful in this movie. However, there isn't a single hill in Western Kansas, it is as flat as a piece of paper, and dirty, dry and brown. With scenery this mismatched it was a little hard to believe the movie was supposed to be set in Dodge City and surrounding counties.

Other than the poor location shoot choice, and some awkward acting at times -- Overall, I enjoyed the movie. It's worth a watch.

I've seen Westerns for many many years and this is by far the worst ever. Makes one wonder where the supposed 3M budget went because it certainly didn't go to the actors. Watching Val Kilmer struggle in this one, brought up how difficult it must be for actors that are past their prime and are willing to do grade F movies for a buck. The actors that they found to surround Kilmer must have been extras that they gave double scale pay to pretend they had talent. I kept watching trusting that at some point the movie would pick up and get better but as the minutes ticked by, I found myself getting more disappointed that I'd wasted more time on something that wasn't going anywhere fast. I've literally seen better movies done by high school and college students. Save your $$$ and pass this pathetic excuse of a movie by.

For those who never once tried to understand the actor and the man that was Val Kilmer, this film seems mundane, droll, and a complete waste of time and money, especially for an actor whose acting can be stellar and superior to the majority of his peers. Those criticisms address a shallow perception of a man and actor who was so deep and put his entire being into every part that he played, into every character he portrayed, making every aspect of it all part of a much larger entity - the body of work that was his life's vision and goal. Val Kilmer wasn't an actor. Val Kilmer was an artist. Those who recognized that found it a joy to be involved in a project with him. His detractors speak loudly. Those who praise his achievements and accomplishments speak with humility as they honor the genius that was Val Kilmer.

Besides his body of work as an actor, Kilmer's paintings, poetry, and stories are also part of the man who absorbed every experience of his life with passion and integrity, and with an intensity that apparently only those who truly appreciate life as it imitates art and art as it imitates life and both as they are absorbed by the genius that very few had.

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

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.

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.

I can't help but compare every Western I watch to Unforgiven, partially because I've broken that film down in every context imaginable. By that measure, Wyatt Earp's Revenge is the worst western I've ever seen, and I've seen hundreds of them.

In terms of character development and portrayal, there are no opportunities to warm to any of the characters, nor nothing that makes them inherently likable. The act for which Wyatt Earp supposedly wishes to avenge solicits no emotion from the actor who plays him, and the victim of said act is not a priest or a child nor anyone else for whom the audience would care about without extensive back-story. Nor is any back-story offered after the event that might trigger any remorse for the victim in retrospect.

The acting is wooden and horrible. Where actors are meant to look introspective and brooding, they just look bored, or as if they forgot their lines. Dialogue is forced and clichéd, and there is no relevant emotion portrayed in tone. The actors appearance is largely anachronistic, and their behavior nonsensical.

The script is vacuous and terrible. You could cut half the scenes and the outcome would not change. You could tighten up the pacing by cutting half of the remaining scenes, and it would take nothing away from the final product, except that you would see the sum of it in 22 minutes instead of an hour and a half. The cinematography is boring and uninspired -- almost as if it was shot 'by the numbers', and the unending use of 'dramatic' music serves to do nothing but point out how terrible the film is, as if a sit-com with a laugh-track that activates every five seconds.

I must assume that this is a 'first movie' by a fledgling production company following the advice of 'just get that first film in the can'. It's good advice, but it doesn't necessarily mean people should spend their time watching it just for the sake of it. Leave this film as a demonstration of basic competency by a fledgling production company in search of investors, and instead go watch _any_ of the internet archive's public domain westerns instead.

It will be a much better use of your time.

1/10

So the tale of Wyatt Earp gets a 21st century makeover. Perhaps best described as Wyatt Earp: The Early Years, this movie details an adventure in the life of the young (late 20-something) Wyatt, and is narrated by an older Wyatt (Val Kilmer - who did a fine job of playing Wyatt's sidekick Doc Holliday in Tombestone waaay back in 1993) Featuring a cast of young guns including Shawn Roberts as Wyatt and Matt Dallas as Bat Masterson the film is good clean fun set against the backdrop of the violent west. Playing out like a modern version of the B-western oaters that used to be a cinema staple, it'll be a hard hearted viewer indeed that can't find something positive to say about this flick. True, it looks low budget and appears to have come from a different era of comic books and B-movies, but that's part of the joy. Everyone involved seems to be having a blast from country star Trace Adkins to dastardly bad guy Daniel Booko as Adkins wayward son. Other noteworthy performances include David O'Donnell, Levi Fiehler and a brief but memorable performance from Brian Groh as Confederate Jones, which leaves you longing for the bit part character to get his own movie. While not in the same league as My Darling Clementine, Gunfight at the OK Coral or even 1990s efforts Tombestone and the Wyatt Earp, the yarn is sufficiently entertaining to make you glad they bothered to make it. One is just left longing for some appearances by old time western stars such as Harry Dean Stanton and LQ Jones in these modern day oaters.

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.

The basic motif to see it is Val Kilmer. In fact, he is the only one. Yes, the story is a too simple sketch and the portrait of events is far to be inspired . All remains conventional, in service, not in brilliant manner, of easy cliches and the film gives not something real useful as memory. So, a film about Wyatt Earp. Posible, not the worst one.

This is a prequel to Tombstone, a quest by Wyatt Earp and his friends including Bat Masterson to avenge the killing of his first love Dora Hand an actress. Because the characters are real you feel for them as opposed to some fictitious Western. Also because it's a true story you don't have to question the story. Shoot outs are not too over the top and they are more realistic and exciting because of that. The Kennedy brothers who are the villains are quite well drawn villains as they sadistically shoot and kill innocent people along the way.

Val Kilmer who is a bit plump now just plays the older Wyatt Earp in the 20th century giving an interview if a San Francisco hotel to a journalist. The younger cast is led by Resident Evil's Shawn Roberts and Matt Dallas of Kyle XY. There also is an appearance by Doc Holliday played by Wilson Bethel. American Idol's Diana de Garmo plays Dora. It is interesting to see other characters besides the ones everyone knows from the OK Corrall story. This movie is a well acted true story that would be entertaining to anyone who liked Tombstone.

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.)

Watched for free on Amazon prime. But even though it was free, it still cost me an hour and a half of my life ill never get back! Absolutely terrible! I don't understand how Val Kilmer could be in this horrific movie that is supposed to be a western. 98% of the acting is terrible and jumbled. Even the scenery is wrong.