Hulk.

Review #2039: Hulk.

Cast: 

Eric Bana (Bruce Banner), Jennifer Connelly (Betty Ross), Sam Elliott (Thaddeus Ross), Josh Lucas (Talbot), Nick Nolte (David Banner), Cara Buono (Edith Banner), Kevin Rankin (Harper), and Celia Weston (Mrs. Krensler) Directed by Ang Lee (#1525 - Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and #1564 - Life of Pi)

Review: 

"[The Hulk represents] the true self we are all hiding in the dark. When the audience sees it they will be dealing with their own Hulk, the unknown, the truthful self we try to cover up."

In the spring of 1962, the first issue of The Incredible Hulk was published by Marvel Comics. As created by artist Jack Kirby and Stan Lee; both were inspired by different things, with Kirby having witnessed a mother lift a car off her trapped child and Lee being influenced by Frankenstein and Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. The result was a character in Bruce Banner, scientist and man who turns into a large green monster when subjected to emotional stress (like anger). In 1977, the character was first adapted to live-action television, as devised by Kenneth Johnson that had Bill Bixby as Banner and Lou Ferrigno as the Hulk, which ran from 1977 to 1982 with a handful of television movies (1988-90) that has served as the iconic interpretation of the character in some eyes. Production for a film about the Hulk ran for a decade, as organized by Avi Arad and Gale Anne Hurd, who produced the film for Universal Pictures. A handful of writers came and went (stay with me on this), starting with Michael France, which then led to John Turman, then back to France again, then back to Turman, then re-writes by writers not given credit in the final result like Zak Penn, J. J. Abrams, Scott Alexander and Larry Karaszewski, then to Jonathan Hensleigh to try to write and direct, then back to France, then to Michael Tolkin and David Hayter, then to James Schamus (a frequent partner with Lee in writing and producing), and I think you get the point. Schamus, France, and Turman were given credit for the screenplay while Schamus was listed as the sole writer of story. At the helm as director would be Ang Lee, fresh off the success of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2000) who once told his star in Eric Bana that he was shooting the film as if it was a Greek tragedy (which would be in contrast to the Hulk aspects created by Industrial Light & Magic). While the film was a modest success with audiences, the next Hulk film would instead be a "reboot", which had Edward Norton as the star that resulted in The Incredible Hulk (2008).

Maybe the timing just wasn't right for a mega-popular Hulk film. Schamus has been quoted as stating his fears about the potential of the film when it came time for the release of Spider-Man (2002) and the idea of the Marvel brand becoming a genre of itself. Honestly, I'm more surprised that he didn't take into account that Hulk was the third of three features released in 2003 that were based on Marvel characters, following in the wake of Daredevil and X2 (no points to which film is the better of those three). Of course, the real progenitor of making Marvel films goes first with Blade (1998), but that's another argument entirely (and yes, one shouldn't forget Blade is something I will argue in perpetuity); hell, it wasn't long after that Batman Begins (2005) came to give audiences a refined origin story to a familiar comic character. Honestly, the one film that I was reminded of when it came to certain techniques used to reach for a comic atmosphere was Dick Tracy (1990), although obviously the split-screen technique and psychodrama involving "the green monster in us" aren't exactly a clear match for the latter's attempt at style. The 138-minute runtime signifies two things: a movie that is somehow a bit too long and yet seems a bit lacking in the expectations department. It is a quality feature, because how could it not be with that level of casting and commitment, but it doesn't thread the needle on making its title character any more interesting than mild melodrama. Bana actually does make a quality presence to balance out this tragedy of man and beast, one who is vulnerable to the world in emotional distance in all of the facets that matter in viewing drama. He doesn't wash away from our mind when it comes to pass to actually see the motion capture Hulk (as voiced by Lee). Your milage may vary on how much of it you need to really see, but one thing I can say is that it certainly looks "interesting" when compared from day vs. night, which translates to "fine, just don't show me the Hulk fighting dogs again". I wish I could say Connelly and Elliott make the best of such mild roles, but that would be window-dressing for folks that are trying to sleepwalk through mildly involving dialogue. You could almost put anyone there and it might be the same result in mild lingering drama. Lucas at least seems venal enough to merit a ridiculous end-fate. It probably speaks something about expectations when the most interesting supporting presence is seeing Nolte chew all the scenery possible in power-mad haggard beardman of traumatic chaos. Oh sure, the climax is going to be a CG-muddle, but the buildup to Nolte deciding, yes, he can just chew on this little wire, is at least something to give me a smile (oh hell, you can play the angle of a man wanting to see his "real son", but the underlying curiosity of seeing Nolte engage in the role is always apparent, abuse or not). At any rate, the film is okay. Whether it is thought of as ahead of its time or a missed opportunity, it can be certainly be said that it is the perpetual misfit, one that is fated to stand out in its distinct stylings from other features of its time that cannot be tied down so easily as being any one thing. Being an average misfit isn't always a bad thing, so take that for what it is worth.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

A Star is Born (2018).

Review #1583: A Star is Born.

Cast: 

Lady Gaga (Ally Maine), Bradley Cooper (Jackson "Jack" Maine), Sam Elliott (Bobby Maine), Andrew Dice Clay (Lorenzo), Rafi Gavron (Rez Gavron), Anthony Ramos (Ramon), Dave Chappelle (George "Noodles" Stone), Greg Grunberg (Phil), Shangela Laquifa Wadley (Bar Emcee), Willam Belli (Emerald), Ron Rifkin (Carl), Rebecca Field (Gail), with Michael Harney (Wolfie), and Lukas Nelson & Promise of the Real. Directed by Bradley Cooper.

Review: 
"I always knew, goddamn it, I’m gonna have to at some point put it out there, directorial debut. And then I was like, when am I gonna have the guts to do it? And I also knew I could only direct something that I had a point of view about. And I always wanted to tell a love story. I thought, there’s nothing better for me cinematically to able to tell a love story, like a real love story, a broken love story."

Here we are again, seeing the old become new with prominent faces behind it to headline a new take on the traditional stardom story. One starts with the director, who also served as director, co-producer, co-writer (with Eric Roth and Will Fetters), and singer. Bradley Cooper wanted to become an actor when he was introduced to films like The Elephant Man (1980), which he later starred in a Broadway adaptation of. The Philadelphia native studied at Villanova University before transferring and graduating from Georgetown University with studies in English. He trained in acting with the Actors Studio and got into acting on television in 1999 and film soon after. Regular work and some recognition came with the TV series Alias and Wedding Crashers (2005), but it was his starring role with The Hangover (2009), which had two subsequent sequels with him as star alongside films like Silver Linings Playbook (2012) that helped him find prominence as a lead. But of course there are two stars to nearly every film, so enter Lady Gaga. Encouraged as a child to be a "cultured young woman", she learned music from a very young age such as the piano while also doing high school stage productions. She also studied method acting at the Lee Strasberg Theatre and Film Institute and Collaborative Arts Project 21, although she dropped out of the latter school to focus on music. Her album The Fame (2008) was her first success, and she has moved on to further success with her music that range from electronic to dance to pop; this is only her second film role (not counting a handful of appearances as herself in documentaries), having had her first prominent television role in American Horror Story: Hotel (2015). 

The strange thing is that I forgot to do this film when it originally came out. Even though I had seen the first two films of the same name, I honestly did not think to do this film because it was quite a busy time to do other stuff (that, and it felt better to cover the other film...which took nearly two years to do). So, why not a quick little rundown of each of the three films: The original film was released in 1937 with a story by William A. Wellman and Robert Carson (with several other writers contributing and direction by Wellman). It is the only one to not have any songs (since it isn't a musical) - as a whole, it was a pretty good movie, tender in its setup between stars Janet Gaynor and Fredric March that was noted for having similar aspects to What Price Hollywood? (1932) alongside inspiration from the marriage of Barbara Stanwyck and Frank Fay. The 1954 remake (written by Moss Hart) was a grand classic with Judy Garland and James Mason as the key stars, dynamic in its music with well-timed direction from George Cukor. The 1976 version (written by John Gregory Dunne, Joan Didion, and Frank Pierson), starring Barbra Streisand & Kris Kristofferson and directed by Frank Pierson, was a monumentally cheesy affair, an ego-trip involving Streisand that can't sell romance nor as a rock star. It shouldn't be a surprise that there had been plans by Warner Brothers to do another A Star is Born for years, with ideas of casting stars being as early as 2000 that looked for directors such as Clint Eastwood and musicians such as Beyoncé; Cooper expressed interest in doing the film despite close friends warning him. 

What we have is a romance between country rock and pop, which seems more fermented in attempts at honesty within addiction and fame that may rank it just as good as the 1954 version if not better. Gaga does well with trying to hew down-to-earth quality in terms of find confidence within dazzling chemistry with Cooper that is enjoyable to see her journey through soulful singing that includes an easy favorite performance with "Shallow" that keeps the line between celebrity and vulnerable at the right distance. Cooper simply makes a welcome debut in directing, one that seems like a personal film for him (as he also struggled with alcohol addiction early in his career), and all that training of singing and music-playing seems to have paid off greatly - he grits his way towards struggle and self-assured damage with the right sense of conviction needed to make a worthy pair come alive with star-crossed romance. Elliott carries his traditional resonant presence and voice with efficiency, easily believable to see interact with Cooper with resolved and unresolved ends of brotherly conflict and love. Clay (a stand-up comedian with various turns in acting - both comedic and drama) proves equally as useful in homespun warmness, useful for what is needed in his scenes with Gaga without becoming sopped in sentimentality. Gavron, Ramos, and Chappelle round out the cast well enough in the edges with what is needed, whether in ambition or devotion. As a whole, it makes a worthwhile 136 minutes in how it makes a fine-tuning on the original structure from before that seems fresh enough to seem necessary while having interesting presence and an engaging soundtrack full of songs (which Cooper and Gaga did live, by the request of the latter) that are pretty enjoyable in earnest grit with a mixture of pop and country rock. It is a welcome remake that contains some grounded performances alongside music and story to make a mostly worthwhile experience with a winning duo at the helm to carry it along.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Mask (1985)

Review #1475: Mask.

Cast: 
Cher (Florence "Rusty" Dennis), Sam Elliott (Gar), Eric Stoltz (Roy L. "Rocky" Dennis), Estelle Getty (Evelyn Steinberg), Richard Dysart (Abe Steinberg), Laura Dern (Diana Adams), Micole Mercurio (Babe), Harry Carey, Jr (Red), Dennis Burkley (Dozer), Barry Tubb (Dewey), Lawrence Monoson (Ben), and Ben Piazza (Mr. Simms) Directed by Peter Bogdanovich (#1000 - The Last Picture Show)

Review:
"Directing is really creating an atmosphere, a particular kind of atmosphere and usually one that is very peculiar to the director. It doesn't necessarily have to be. Some directors have no personality and it shows. But one way or another, what the actors are doing or the crews are doing, they're trying to please the director."

Peter Bogdanovich has had a long and varied life, with plenty of it spent in some way around film, a subject he loved starting in his youth. He studied acting at the Stella Adler Conservatory in his twenties before taking up work at the Musuem of Modern Art as a film programmer. He wrote his first book at the age of 22 in The Cinema of Orson Welles, the first of numerous books about seminal directors of cinema (which later included another book about his friend Welles along with an appearance in The Other Side of the Wind), with further works involving Howard Hawks, John Ford (which he did a documentary of years later), and Allan Dwan. He later desired to make his own films (inspired by the directors he loved along with the French critics-turned-directors like Francois Truffaut), and an encounter with Roger Corman led to his first work with The Wild Angels (1966). 1968 was the year of his first directorial efforts, with Corman having him shoot footage for a English-dubbed version of Planeta Bur that became Voyage to the Planet of the Prehistoric Women (which he did not take credit for). His first true directorial debut came with Targets (1968), as Corman had two days of Boris Karloff to use (Bogdanovich would also have a small part in the film while writing the script with help by Samuel Fuller). The 1970s were both his rise and fall from prominence: The Last Picture Show (1971), What's Up, Doc? (1972), and Paper Moon (1973) each recieved tremendous praise and attention, while Daisy Miller (1974), At Long Last Love (1975), Nickelodeon (1976), and Saint Jack (1979) recieved middling-to-negative notice. By the time of Mask (1985), he had already filed for bankruptcy, having self-distributed They All Laughed (1981) to financial failure (the story of that film and its stars is best for another time). His career has lessened in recent years, but he has kept himself busy within films (which also included work in television and documentaries) alongside acting, teaching directing at the University of North Carolina School of the Arts, and a podcast about his life released this year.

He was inspired to do the film because of his late partner's fascination with The Elephant Man with the similarity of alienation whether beautiful or ugly. There is two versions of the film, with the key difference being in music along with a few additional scenes. The Director's Cut (which I viewed) includes the music of Bruce Springsteen, which was noted as the favorite of Rocky Dennis, and the singer had wanted the music in the film, but catalogue disputes led to the usage of Bob Seger instead (Bogdanovich later sued the studio over this as a breach of contract). The film is based on the brief life of Roy Dennis (1961-1978), who lived with craniodiaphyseal dysplasia, in which calcium builds up in the skull that affects facial features and life expectancy. Wracked with a disease that gradually made him legally blind alongside headaches and troubles, Dennis nevertheless tried to live a normal life with family and school. The film was written by Anna Hamilton Phelan, which took certain liberties with the life of Dennis and his mother (born Florence Tullis), who described the film as a "fairly tale" while liking Cher's depiction of her. It isn't hard to see why one could like this film, since it proves quite interesting in its honesty and care for its depiction of its main subject without needing to wallow in melodramatic cliches. Stoltz, wearing award-winning makeup Michael Westmore and Zoltan Elek, is immeadiately someone we follow along with no need to focus on what he looks like but instead by how we judge others without such a task: through what we hear and see in his actions through the film, whether that involves trying to make the best of his life within school or with the people that accept him for who he is, which Stoltz handles with charm. Cher proves to be an interesting presence, expressive and provocative whenever in view for us with others or up close that makes an organic performance. Elliott shows up from time to time as a collected presence of coolness, proving a worthwhile time without having to say much beyond that distinct voice. The others in the cast make their moments count, such as a bright Dern in one of her first breakthrough roles, or Getty and Dysart in their distinct difference when interacting with Stoltz and Cher, or the warm rough presences of Carey Jr and Burkley. The film utilizes its two hours wisely, making its key moments count with dignity in warmth or tension without suffocation, whereas a lesser director would have turned it into something to cry incessantly at without grace. On the whole, it is a bittersweet achievement of entertainment, one that pulls plenty of emotion for its subject with balance and a game cast to serve as a fair achievement for its director and for its decade as a whole.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Ghost Rider (2007).

Review #1261: Ghost Rider.

Cast: 
Nicolas Cage (Johnny Blaze / Ghost Rider), Eva Mendes (Roxanne Simpson), Wes Bentley (Blackheart / Legion), Sam Elliott (Carter Slade / Caretaker), Donal Logue (Mack), Peter Fonda (Mephistopheles), Brett Cullen (Barton Blaze), David Roberts (Captain Jack Dolan), Laurence Breuls (Gressil), Daniel Frederiksen (Wallow), and Mathew Wilkinson (Abigor) Directed by Mark Steven Johnson (#443 - Daredevil)

Review: 
What can you really say about something like this? If you've seen one superhero film, does it mean you've really seen them all? With the case of a film like this based on a Marvel comic character of the same name (created by Roy Thomas, Gary Friedrich, Mike Ploog that made its first appearance in 1972 - an oddly appropriate decade for a character like this), I really did have a curiosity to see exactly what was going to happen with a film about a guy who turns into a leather-clad flaming skeleton on a bike because he sold his soul to a certain individual. The execution, needless to say, does not exactly come off well enough to make this a solid winner. It seems to strive for a over-the-top kind of action glitz that films like Blade (1998) did with its outlandish premise, but it flails around with awkwardness that is more akin to other comic book films of its ilk like Fantastic Four (2005) or even Johnson's previous work with Daredevil. In going for a supernatural kind of comic book film with tinges of a Western and Horror, the resulting concoction is much like being told a long and winding story by someone hanging around your friends that you accidentally started: ridiculous and messy while having you learning what a waste of time looks like. Is there really a way to make a movie about a bounty hunter for the wicked seem involving? Perhaps there is a way, but this is really not the best way to make it happen. If I don't care about the stakes of what is going on with its main mystical plot or what is being fought for (some sort of evil contract that can't fall into the wrong hands because...reasons), then what chance does the cast have in making this stuff come alive?

Cage, who evidently lobbied hard to portray this character, surely does seem like he wants to bring eccentric charm to a Evel Knievel/growly skull man kind of guy. He does seem hammy, but at least he seems like he really wants to be there, even if he can't quite show much chemistry with Mendes, who seems as interested in this material in the same way one is interested in looking at the painter paint one side of the wall. Nobody has a completely terrible performance, but nobody really pulls off a show-stopper kind of fun time either. If only one could say much about Bentley and his adversarial role more than a sentence: his character is an undeveloped joke that is too laughably terrible to be taken seriously as a threat, with Bentley looking more and more like he picked the wrong film in each scene. Elliott is likely the one actor who comes off without much ridicule, in part because one feels the need to see him in more scenes besides being the deliverer of exposition (whether through his rich voice or not) who leaves before the climax can start (complete with a sequence with him on a horse and Cage on a bike that ends with him leaving). There is a certain curiosity to seeing Fonda on screen, wondering how he would play a man of the darkness, which is quickly extinguished by the fact that you don't see him enough. If one wanted to use an analogy, he is essentially three pieces short of a whole devil's food cake, if it were made out of some sort of weird cardboard. The film ultimately feels flabby with where it wants to really go with its story (also done by Johnson) and tone. The action sequences seem more something you have to struggle to take seriously, especially when it comes to its climax, where the stakes have never felt so mild. Maybe this could have been a tongue-in-cheek film, or a self-serious one that really wanted to be supernatural with some action thrown in. Instead, you get a film that doesn't really please anyone unless you need to kill two hours (110 minutes for the original cut and 123 for the extended cut because of course there is more) and don't have one of the other comic book films laying around. What kind of sentence can really close such a mediocre piece of dreck like this. Honestly, I have just six words: Ghost Rider is a flaming disaster.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Gettysburg (1993).

Review #1242: Gettysburg.

Cast: 
Tom Berenger (Lieutenant General James Longstreet), Jeff Daniels (Colonel Joshua Chamberlain), Martin Sheen (General Robert E. Lee), Sam Elliott (Brigadier General John Buford), Stephen Lang (Major General George Pickett), Maxwell Caulfield (Colonel Strong Vincent), Kevin Conway (Sergeant Buster Kilrain), C. Thomas Howell (Lieutenant Thomas Chamberlain), Richard Jordan (Brigadier General Lewis A. "Lo" Armistead), James Lancaster (Lieutenant Colonel Arthur Fremantle), Richard Anderson (Major General George Meade), Royce D. Applegate (Brigadier General James L. Kemper), John Diehl (Private Joseph Bucklin), Joshua D. Maurer (Colonel James Clay Rice), Patrick Gorman (Major General John Bell Hood), Cooper Huckabee (Henry Thomas Harrison), and Brian Mallon (Major General Winfield Scott Hancock), with narration by W. Morgan Sheppard. Directed by Ronald F. Maxwell.

Review: 
How does one do proper justice to a film such as this? It is a film that runs at 254 minutes (with 17 additional minutes added for the Director's Cut), making it one of the longest films released by an American studio. The original intent was to broadcast this as a miniseries for TNT, after ABC turned down backing the project earlier in the decade. However, it was felt by network namesake and famed media mogul Ted Turner that the rushes coming in were good enough to release in theaters. The film did indeed get shown on TNT the following year, shown on two nights to a viewership of over 20 million; it did not prove to be a major success at the box office, making back only twelve million on a $20 million budget owing to a limited release of less than 300 theaters at its peak distributed by Turner-owned New Line Cinema and being limited to few screenings per day (due to the length, naturally), but it did prove to be a hit on the video market, with its attention to authenticity ensuring that it would have a place with any history or Civil War buff. This is a film that had been sitting on my shelf for over a decade, and I had wondered exactly how to approach this over the years (alongside the question of exactly how many times my father must have put the film on to watch, with its disc having to be flipped over to experience both parts), but I find that at long last it needs to have its day in the spotlight. One must admire the courage to try and make a film like this, adapted from the 1975 historical novel The Killer Angels by Michael Shaara (awarded the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction for his novel) with adaptation by director/screenwriter Maxwell that used many writings from the book; it is a sprawling spectacle that was filmed on location in Pennsylvania, including scenes recreated on the actual battlefield (allowed by the National Park Service), with plenty of Civil War reenactors to go around to contribute the scale that this movie wishes to show at times through the three-day battle.

What is a film about a battle if not one with a detailed ensemble cast such as this, headlined by Berenger, Daniels, and Sheen most terrifically. Berenger (the first in a line of actors with some sort of big facial hair) shines amiably, having plenty of moments to give credence to such a key role with careful tenacity, which helps carry the first half and chunks of the second well. Daniels plays his side of the coin quite well for himself, showing plenty of humanity and courage that also crucially carries well for the first half. Sheen is just as efficient, blending right in with such a key figure that makes his appearance count without struggle, thoughtful and determined as per the expectation. The rest of the cast make certain they stick out whenever they show on screen, whether it is from the beginning or midway in, acting to the standard one could expect in filling into men long gone but infused into the legend of Gettysburg. People such as Elliott, Conway, Howell, and Huckabee make it count for that first half (the first two hours at least), while others such as Lang, Jordan, and Lancaster accompany what they can in the latter half. It can be easy to see why a project like this was made in the first place, and it does become apparent that this did indeed belong on a movie screen, where the full weight of battle and drama can come out for all to see again and again through the hours.

I will admit that the first half does tend to run a bit better than its second, building its time and characters with a bit more handling than the second half, although the film never has a moment when it all crashes down or feels too out of depth. It is patience and appreciation that carries the tide rather than boredom or confusion. It yearns to cover ground on both sides of the conflict, not devolving itself into one easy corner - it may be about a battle, but it sure makes time to show besides the battle, of these men who have fought other men of their country, a war of freedom and rebellion (or whatever view one has historically) that raged for four years. Despite the war persisting on for two more years after Gettysburg, this proved to be a key fight, and the film makes sure to never lose focus on earning its moments, and the jewel is the execution of the grand battles and accompanying music from Randy Edelman. It isn't a perfect films by any means, and it certainly isn't the easiest one to stick through, but the curious ones at heart who love their history or ones deeply invested in long sweeping spectacles will (and have) find much to appreciate and care for here. Craftsmanship and hard driving work from all involved rule the day here, showing great care and authenticity for such an important event with balance and honor.

Happy Independence Day, folks. I sure hope you enjoyed this unique double-header and I hope you enjoy the 4th and all that comes with it - there are plenty of things to try and cover this month, and a little bit of patriotism helps along the way in getting there. I'll be happy to see where the Independence Day Feature takes me for next year and beyond.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Tombstone.

Review #1177: Tombstone.

Cast: 
Kurt Russell (Wyatt Earp), Val Kilmer (Doc Holliday), Sam Elliott (Virgil Earp), Bill Paxton (Morgan Earp), Powers Boothe ("Curly Bill" Brocius), Michael Biehn (Johnny Ringo), Charlton Heston (Henry Hooker), Jason Priestley (Billy Breakenridge), Jon Tenney (Sheriff Johnny Behan), Stephen Lang (Ike Clanton), Thomas Haden Church (Billy Clanton), Dana Delany (Josephine Marcus), and Paula Malcomson (Allie Earp), with narration by Robert Mitchum. Directed by George P. Cosmatos (#818 - Rambo: First Blood Part II)

Review: 
On October 26, 1881, a shooutout occurred between lawmen and outlaws near the O.K. Corral in Tombstone, Arizona, resulting in three deaths. It later became known as one of the most famous shooutouts of the Wild West, in part due to Stuart Lake's biography Wyatt Earp: Frontier Marshal, written in 1931 that told the tale of one of the participants. Although it is now known as largely fictional by researchers, it served the basis for films such as My Darling Clementine (1946) while helping to elevate Earp into a mythic icon. In any case, Kevin Jarre was slated to write and direct this film to tell the tale of the gunfight alongside the people involved in the shootout. However, a month into production he was fired from the directing chair due to falling behind in the shooting schedule. Cosmatos was hired to replace him, while scriptdoctor John Fasano helped in trimming the story to focus more on the Wyatt-Doc dynamic. It may interest you to know that six months after the release of the film came Wyatt Earp (1994), which starred Kevin Costner that wasn't as successful. The best thing that can be said about this movie is that it has plenty of entertainment value for a Western, having a good balance of action and story to make a solid experience. The ensemble cast is up to the task of making these characters come alive without feeling generic or getting lost in the shuffle. The music from Bruce Broughton (composer of a film previously covered in Silverado) also stands to the task of swift adventure. Russell shines fairly well, being quite capable at giving his role a fair sense of depth that makes him feel more than just a lawman, particularly when conversing with his on-screen brothers (Elliot and Paxton, who are efficient) or with Kilmer. I particularly like the sequence when he deals with an unruly gambler (played by Billy Bob Thornton) without even having to shoot a gun. Kilmer (complete with a Southern drawl) is quite excellent as well, being quite watchable with plenty of charm to go around. Boothe shines well as one of the adversaries the movie presents, but it is Biehn who also proves efficient in making a worthy opponent for the final showdown. The supporting cast is fine, although the movie's key strength relies more on Earp in action than when he is sharing time with either of the women in his life. The film works well before and after the Corral gunfight, keeping interest through its 130 minute runtime with minimal moments of tedium. The film seems to have plenty of craftsmanship and effort done to make something that doesn't feel like a manufactured tale made for a cheap thrill, having a finely told story with plenty of interesting things to go around. It isn't a great Western classic, but it is a well made and well done movie that can work for anyone looking for an old legend put to film.

Happy New Year folks. Hoping 2019 is just as productive as 2018 was.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.