Doesn't deserve all the accolades

Rating: 3/10 (27 December 2014)

In re-visiting this film recently, I've come to the conclusion that there are really no great Westerns post-1980! The most notable 80s Western is probably Silverado (from 85), which while being somewhat entertaining, is entirely too long with too many somber, interchangeable characters. And, yes, I'm counting 'Unforgiven(from 92)' in the list of dull post- 1980s Westerns with it's pompous sense of self-importance and array of forgettable characterizations. Also, there is the ambitious yet monumentally monotonous 'Wyatt Earp(from 94)', which somehow manages to go LOWER than both Silverado and Unforgiven in terms of underperforming. It's an ironic twist because Silverado and Wyatt Earp both feature Kevin Costner and Costner basically stole Silverado as a minor character giving the liveliest, most engaging performance while being the polar opposite in Wyatt Earp, a super-serious, somber, eternally sad lawman.
This film that I'm reviewing TOMBSTONE (1993) is the polar opposite of those 3 movies. Instead of "lack of", there is "too much of". Too many characters who blatantly over-act and shout their lines. Scenes punctuated with overdramatic, pumped-up music that's supposed to engage and move the viewer, but instead sounds extremely annoying. Too simplistic, unreal sounding dialog that comes across as laughable upon close scrutiny.
'Tombstone' stars the usually reliable Kurt Russell as the infamous lawman Wyatt Earp, who arrives in the lawless frontier town circa 1880 via train along with his brothers Virgil (played by vet Sam Elliott, probably my 3rd fave performance in the movie; will get to the other 2 later) and Morgan (played by comical character actor Bill Paxton in a rather bad performance), their respective wives, including Wyatt's common-law wife Maddie (earnestly played by Dana Wheeler-Nicholson).
Upon arrival, Wyatt and his clan meet up with his longtime associate Doc Holliday (Val Kilmer in a performance deserved of an Oscar nomination). So we've come to my BEST performance in this otherwise lacking film. Kilmer really rises to the occasion delivering an energetic, career-defining performance. But sadly, virtually no one else in the film is even HALF as good as Kilmer. Unlike the rest of the cast, Kilmer balances out the bombast with empathy, compelling the viewer to root and feel for his character. It may not be the most accurate portrayal of the famed dentist-turned-gunfighter, but it certainly is one of the most entertaining.
The other significant group in the large ensemble are the actors playing 'The Cowboys', the nemeses of the Earp clan and Holliday. The Cowboys are played by Michael Biehn (as Johnny Ringo, my 2nd favorite performance), Powers Boothe (as leader Curly Bill Brosius), Stephen Lang (as Ike Clanton), Thomas Haden Church (as Billy Clanton), and Michael Rooker (as McMasters), in addition to several other character actors. Except for Ringo, these characters are all too 1-dimensional as villains with absolutely no layers. They're hateable, but not relatable, again Biehn's solid portrayal of the educated, contemplative Ringo being the exception, which is another problem I had: Ringo disappears for huge chunks of this movie yet I feel he was the most important member of the Cowboys.
Additionally, there's a terrible tacked-on "love story" between Wyatt and town newcomer Josie (played by Dana Delany), a travelling acting troupe performer. Josie is supposedly the femme fatale role in this movie, but it's hardly believable that Wyatt would be so enamored with a rather plain-looking woman who's about as sexy as a root canal! The acting troupe includes an effeminate actor (played by Billy Zane, getting in early practice for his over-the-top villainous role in 'Titanic'). Like most of the actors in this movie, Zane thought this was a Broadway play! Then there are odd characters like Jason Priestley's who literally just occupy space and give nothing to the proceedings. And I didn't buy for a second Russell as a tough lawman. Too many characters folded against him and I didn't find him intimidating in the least.
The acting in this movie isn't very good, but the script has to take a lot of the blame. Much of the dialog is extremely odd, the tone of the film meanders clumsily among elements of comedy, melodrama, and existentialism. It takes itself WAY too seriously to even be taken serious by the viewer. In actuality, I used to think this film was re-watchable, but lately, I see that it's good for maybe only a couple of viewings. The revenge angle is nice because it's always fun to see truly bad guys get their comeuppance, but the characterizations are so poor, you don't really care by the end of the movie. You just want to get to the end!