Wyatt Earp's Revenge is a Western film about the legendary lawman Wyatt Earp
sitting down having an interview with a reporter in Los Angeles
and talks about his first ride to find the person who killed his first love.
The film was released on March 6, 2012 in the United States.
The movie is based on the legendary Old West lawman.
The film will be produced by Jeff Schenck and Barry Barnholtz and directed by Michael Feifer.
This by all accounts looks like another one to miss!!
Wooden acting, poor scripting, poor cinematography,
are just a few points made by critics!
If this is the case I am sad that Val Kilmer who stole Tombstone
from Kurt Russell, should have even considered this movie!
I hope I am wrong!!
User Review
QuoteDisplay MoreWorst Western Ever,
7 March 2012
1/10
Author: mag6581 from Australia
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.