Is to Earp films what T-bone steak is to Steakums...

Rating: Null/10 (18 November 2003)

"Tombstone" is a memorable film which is best viewed in the extended version. While most scenes restored in already released films are a gimmick to get you to part with more cash, the restored scenes in Tombstone should never have been cut in the first place, as they tie up loose ends which marred the original theatrical release, and kept it from true greatness.
Then there is the other Wyatt Earp film of the season. (What was it with Costner? Wyatt Earp wasn't the first time he tried to beat a premised film to market. First there was the competing "Robin Hoods" of 1991. Costner was so arrogant that he did not even attempt an English accent. Totally unwatchable rubbish.)
Comparing Tombstone to Costner's "Wyatt Earp" is like comparing fresh hens eggs to that powdered stuff the army serves up... you can roll Tombstone around in your mouth, exploring its every texture, or you can watch Costner play Costner while you gulp down the reconstituted mess, which, they tell you, "is just as filling." Yes, it will keep you alive, but something essential is missing.
Length doth not an epic make.
Tombstone has the epic feel. Tombstone has "scope". A finely choreographed testosterone slaughter-fest. Its dusty streets and wooden walks are brought to life in exquisite expectation, where Russell and Kilmer stride, larger than life, dueling and dwarfing worthy adversaries.
There is a timeless feel to the film; a hyper-reality, which makes all other "Earp" films pale in comparison.