Kilmer shines, the movie doesn't

Rating: 5/10 (3 November 2005)

Tombstone suffers from the weight of its cast. Including all that star power costs money, and in order to ensure a good ROI on such films you can count on the producers to gut the script of any intriguing or complex character development. The good guys will be good and the bad guys will be bad. The only morally gray area in the film is Wyatt Earp's extra-marital affair with Dana Delany's character and even that apparent stain on his reputation is rendered acceptable by portraying his wife as a self-absorbed drug addict.
The only interesting aspect of the movie is Val Kilmer's performance as Doc Holliday. He steals every scene he's in and his sardonic delivery of lines works perfectly because he knows, as well as the audience does, that he can back it up with his pistol if need be.
The rest of the acting is ho-hum. Michael Biehn does an admirable job as the evil sharpshooter Johnny Ringo but he's not given enough opportunities. In my opinion the movie would've benefited from more Holliday/Ringo scenes. Their interactions were far more interesting than the pitiful clash between Wyatt and Curly Bill. In fact the final duel between Wyatt and CB just might be one of the most anti-climactic scenes in cinematic history. I've had more emotional moments brushing my teeth.
And poor Kurt Russell demonstrates his inability to be a real leading man. His attempts at manifesting his internal struggles (pacified retiree vs. ruthless lawman and committed husband vs. adulterer) never quite hit the mark. It's clear that he's better suited to roles such as Big Trouble in Little China and Tango and Cash in which he's asked to do nothing more than look tough and kick ass.
Tombstone is worth watching just to see Kilmer's performance, but calling this "one of the greatest westerns ever made" is a bit of a stretch. Of the recent western revival films, Unforgiven was much better.