Skip to main content

Come on, boys. We don't want any trouble in here. Not in any language.


(SPOILERS) Tombstone seemed impressively cast at the time, but it’s even more so in retrospect, given the way so many of its supporting faces have only become better known. I’d hesitate to call it star-packed, but it comes armed with that general ambience (in fairness, Wyatt Earp too is heaving with recognisable names, but largely to inertly self-important effect). Tombstone’s also a movie that bears witness to the way a fraught production may very occasionally deliver the goods despite everything, and one successful enough to cement the western’s early ’90s renaissance.

One that would rather be cut short, following Dances with Wolves, Unforgiven, Young Guns II: Blaze of Glory, Back to the Future Part III, City Slickers, The Last of the Mohicans and er Quigley Down Under, by a rash of failures (City Slickers II: The Legend of Curly’s Gold, Bad Girls, Wild Bill, The Quick and the Dead and most damagingly Wyatt Earp – you can just about throw Wild Wild West on the heap while you’re about it). Of all of the decade’s efforts, this is probably the western with the brightest afterlife, thanks to a keen understanding of the genre feeding into a retelling of the Gunfight at the OK Corral that knows to furnish the material with a succession of crowd-pleasing set pieces and characterisations.

Kurt Russell is commonly cited as not only the star, but also Tombstone’s ghost director, responsible for exiting writer Kevin Jarre from dual duties and bringing in George P Cosmatos (perhaps not the most obvious choice for purveying quality, but Russell surely chatted to his Tango & Cash cohort Sly – Rambo: First Blood Part II and Cobra – who likely vouched that Cosmatos would be sufficiently malleable to service Kurt’s demands). Val Kilmer, Doc Holliday to Russell’s Wyatt Earp, has suggested as much in support of Kurt’s allusions. Michael Biehn, the movie’s Johnny Ringo, attested that Cosmatos had no idea about nor affinity for the material (he was “crude and clueless”), and it’s been said he clashed with cinematographer William Fraker.

Jarre was axed from the director’s chair after four weeks, and Russell has said he might one day go back and put together the original conception of “a Western Godfather”. But don’t hold your breath. He threw out twenty pages (including a significant portion of his Earp material), and Biehn opined that much of the depth and nuance of villainous gang the Cowboys was lost too (how they had their own reasons and grievances, and how Earp was a criminal). But a historically accurate – and one needs quotation marks for the phrase, as the unvarnished itself may be varnished – document wouldn’t necessarily spell box office, not when printing the legend tends to be a recipe for success. Earp’s version may well be a consequence of his promoting himself in Hollywood (which was reputedly when the gunfight rose to prominence) and the rep of his wife Josephine (Dana Delaney in the movie), whereas he was actually a pimp and no kind of hero in real life, but who’s going to make that version? Maybe Disney again, as they’re fond of turning their roster of villains into heroes right now (Cruella being the latest).

Biehn said Kurt “didn’t direct me” but affirms his responsibility for the picture too. Russell had said “I’ll do it, but I don’t want to put my name on it”, and it was pretty much his baby in terms of nursing Tombstone to the screen after Costner cast it aside in favour of his own take (Kev also tried to sabotage Russell’s version, a dirty move Kurt says he respected). In Jarre’s conception, Willem Dafoe was Doc (he’d have been great, really dangerous), but it came down, as these things often do, to clout. At one point, the idea of Richard Gere as Earp (with Russell as Doc) was floated as a means to sell the deal. We dodged a bullet there.

By the sound of it, Biehn doesn’t exactly begrudge The Val and Kurt Show, recognising it was a recipe for the picture’s success, but he does regret what the picture lost in the process. It’s certainly true that Robert Burke (the same year’s Robocop 3) is a non-entity, and John Corbett likewise. But Biehn’s Ringo, Powers Boothe’s Curly Bill Brocious and Thomas Hayden Church’s Billy Clanton all make their presences felt. Biehn’s very much in cold-eyed Coffey (The Abyss) mode, just without the nervy paranoia, and it’s curious to see him in a movie like this – a rarity – where he is, effectively the star villain.

Then you’ve got Cameron’s replacement darling villain Stephen Lang as Ike Clanton (playing older as a drunken hayseed), but he’s more rage and cowardice than threat. Boothe summons that genuinely unpredictable ferocity he has (also on display in Deadwood) as Curly Bill, while Hayden Church may be less than rounded, but he has a few strong moments (most notably when Doc is playing “fucking Chopin”). That’s all you can hope for in this kind of fare: moments. There’s surely a great revisionist Tombstone western TV series to be made (or was, as revisionist would now mean woke-ing-it-up rather than telling the less salubrious side of Earp), but in a movie, the more you allow it to sprawl, the more likely you are to lose its inner tension.

There are areas here that do lose it. Anything involving the romance subplot feels shoehorned in inappropriately, in concert with a rather pathetic attempt to justify Earp and Josephine’s liaison based on Mattie’s (Dana Wheeler-Nicholson) laudanum addiction. It doesn’t help that there’s no chemistry between Russell and Delany (whom I mostly recall for bondage comedy bomb Exit to Eden). There’s also one too many (actually, two too many, since there are two) pursuit montages. But when it comes to it, the key moments – the gunfight, Wyatt’s creek charge, Doc’s showdown with Johnny Ringo, having apparently been on his deathbed – Tombstone plays like dynamite.

And its main weapon is Kilmer. Today, there’s surely little doubt his performance would get a Best Supporting Actor Oscar nod (Tommy Lee Jones won for The Fugitive, another crowd pleaser, but a more workhorse one). It’s the best part Johnny Depp never played, and the likes of this, True Romance and Heat are indicative that Kilmer was unwise to listen to his – agent, presumably – when it came to chasing the starry role likes of Batman and Simon Templar.

If shearing away others’ spotlights is down to Val’s Holliday – as Biehn thinks – then fair enough. Accuracy is sacrificed for iconography. That’s generally the way the movies go down, and work best. Certainly here. His almost every line is a gem (“very cosmopolitan” is his take on Tombstone; “I have two guns, one for each of yer” on seeing double while drunk; “Maybe poker’s just not your game. I know, let’s have a spelling contest!” on playing a moron; “Yes, it’s true you are a good woman. Then again, you may be the antichrist”; and of course, “I’m your huckleberry”). Even when he’s not speaking, his desiccated presence requires all eyes on him. Or one, with the sly winking at Church that ignites the gunfight.

Bill Paxton delivers serviceable Paxton support (he was always most satisfying when allowed to let loose a little, though). Sam Elliott has that cowboy thing going on. Chuck Heston cameos (his role was larger, and Biehn at least had a whole scene with him). Jason Priestley portrays Billy Breakenridge as perhaps infatuated by Billy Zane’s thespian. A chunky Billy Bob Thornton is terrified out of the saloon by Earp (“You gonna do something, or just stand there and bleed?”) Paula Malcomson, way before Deadwood, is Allie Earp (as opposed to Ee-Urp!). Joanna Pacula is Big Nose Kate. Michael Rooker is a good guy. Terry O’Quinn is the mayor. Bob Mitchum offers narration (he was supposed to appear too, until injury prevented it).

Tombstone is essentially what you’d expect an effective updating of the western to be, without gimmicks (“Brat Pack”) or customary Clint gravitas. That they don’t happen very often testifies, though, to how deceptively difficult they are to pull off well. After Tombstone, the next good ‘un was probably Costner’s more serious-minded Open Range. You can marvel at Kurt and Val’s peak star wattage here too. Kurt has recalled how the following year’s Stargate saw him being offered big bucks (up until Soldier nixed all that permanently), while Val, difficult or not, was still in demand pretty much until the end of the decade, after which most decided he just wasn’t worth the bother. Tombstone’s definitely worth the bother. I’m not sure the real director’s cut (there’s a director’s cut out there, but I’ve yet to see it) will be as satisfying, but it would definitely be tantalising, given how much good stuff there is in what we’ve got.


Popular posts from this blog

Maybe the dingo ate your baby.

Seinfeld 2.9: The Stranded The Premise George and Elaine are stranded at a party in Long Island, with a disgruntled hostess.

I think I’m Pablo Picasso!

Venom: Let There Be Carnage (2021) (SPOILERS) I get the impression that, whatever it is stalwart Venom fans want from a Venom movie, this iteration isn’t it. The highlight here for me is absolutely the wacky, love-hate, buddy-movie antics of Tom Hardy and his symbiote alter. That was the best part of the original, before it locked into plot “progression” and teetered towards a climax where one CGI monster with gnarly teeth had at another CGI monster with gnarly teeth. And so it is for Venom: Let There Be Carnage . But cutting quicker to the chase.

These are not soda cans you asked me to get for you.

The Devil’s Own (1997) (SPOILERS) Naturally, a Hollywood movie taking the Troubles as a backdrop is sure to encounter difficulties. It’s the push-pull of wanting to make a big meaningful statement about something weighty, sobering and significant in the real world and bottling it when it comes to the messy intricacies of the same. So inevitably, the results invariably tend to the facile and trite. I’m entirely sure The Devil’s Own would have floundered even if Harrison Ford hadn’t come on board and demanded rewrites, but as it is, the finished movie packs a lot of talent to largely redundant end.

Are you, by any chance, in a trance now, Mr Morrison?

The Doors (1991) (SPOILERS) Oliver Stone’s mammoth, mythologising paean to Jim Morrison is as much about seeing himself in the self-styled, self-destructive rebel figurehead, and I suspect it’s this lack of distance that rather quickly leads to The Doors becoming a turgid bore. It’s strange – people are , you know, films equally so – but I’d hitherto considered the epic opus patchy but worthwhile, a take that disintegrated on this viewing. The picture’s populated with all the stars it could possibly wish for, tremendous visuals (courtesy of DP Robert Richardson) and its director operating at the height of his powers, but his vision, or the incoherence thereof, is the movie’s undoing. The Doors is an indulgent, sprawling mess, with no internal glue to hold it together dramatically. “Jim gets fat and dies” isn’t really a riveting narrative through line.

Did you not just hand over a chicken to someone?

The Father (2020) (SPOILERS) I was in no great rush to see The Father , expecting it to be it to be something of an ordeal in the manner of that lavishly overpraised euthanasia-fest Amour. As with the previous Oscars, though, the Best Picture nominee I saw last turned out to be the best of the bunch. In that case, Parasite , its very title beckoning the psychic global warfare sprouting shoots around it, would win the top prize. The Father , in a year of disappointing nominees, had to settle for Best Actor. Ant’s good, naturally, but I was most impressed with the unpandering manner in which Florian Zeller and Christopher Hampton approached material that might easily render one highly unstuck.

So the devil's child will rise from the world of politics.

The Omen (1976) (SPOILERS) The coming of the Antichrist is an evergreen; his incarnation, or the reveal thereof, is always just round the corner, and he can always be definitively identified in any given age through a spot of judiciously subjective interpretation of The Book of Revelation , or Nostradamus. Probably nothing did more for the subject in the current era, in terms of making it part of popular culture, than The Omen . That’s irrespective of the movie’s quality, of course. Which, it has to be admitted, is not on the same level as earlier demonic forebears Rosemary’s Baby and The Exorcist .

Fifty medications didn’t work because I’m really a reincarnated Russian blacksmith?

Infinite (2021) (SPOILERS) It’s as if Mark Wahlberg, his lined visage increasingly resembling a perplexed potato, learned nothing from the blank ignominy of his “performances” in previous big-budget sci-fi spectacles Planet of the Apes and, er, Max Payne . And maybe include The Happening in that too ( Transformers doesn’t count, since even all-round reprobate Shia La Boeuf made no visible dent on their appeal either way). As such, pairing him with the blandest of journeyman action directors on Infinite was never going to seem like a sterling idea, particularly with a concept so far removed from of either’s wheelhouse.

I can do in two weeks what you can only wish to do in twenty years.

Wrath of Man (2021) (SPOILERS) Guy Ritchie’s stripped-down remake of Le Convoyeur (or Cash Truck , also the working title for this movie) feels like an intentional acceleration in the opposite direction to 2019’s return-to-form The Gentleman , his best movie in years. Ritchie seems to want to prove he can make a straight thriller, devoid of his characteristic winks, nods, playfulness and outright broad (read: often extremely crude) sense of humour. Even King Arthur: Legend of the Sword has its fair share of laughs. Wrath of Man is determinedly grim, though, almost Jacobean in its doom-laden trajectory, and Ritchie casts his movie accordingly, opting for more restrained performers, less likely to summon more flamboyant reflexes.

You got any Boom Boom Lemon?

Kate (2021) (SPOILERS) The dying protagonist subgenre is a difficult one to get right. The customary approach is one of world-weary resignation on the part of the poisoned or terminally ill party that sweetens the pill, suggesting they’re being done something of a favour. It’s also a smart idea to give them some sort of motive force, in order to see them through the proceedings before they kark it. Such as a mystery to solve; there’s a good reason D.O.A. is generally seen as a touchstone in fare of this ilk. Kate fumbles on both counts, leaving the viewer with a rather icky poisoning – you don’t want to be too distracted by that sort of thing, not least because suspension of disbelief that the already superheroic protagonist can function at all evaporates – and a lead character with the slenderest of relatability working for her. Most damningly, however, is a revenge plot that’s really rather limp.

Five people make a conspiracy, right?

Snake Eyes (1998) (SPOILERS) The best De Palma movies offer a synthesis of plot and aesthetic, such that the director’s meticulously crafted shots and set pieces are underpinned by a solid foundation. That isn’t to say, however, that there isn’t a sheer pleasure to be had from the simple act of observing, from De Palma movies where there isn’t really a whole lot more than the seduction of sound, image and movement. Snake Eyes has the intention to be both scrupulously written and beautifully composed, coming after a decade when the director was – mostly – exploring his oeuvre more commercially than before, which most often meant working from others’ material. If it ultimately collapses in upon itself, then, it nevertheless delivers a ream of positives in both departments along the way.