Skip to main content

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

Tombstone
(1993)

(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

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

Do you know that the leading cause of death for beavers is falling trees?

The Interpreter (2005) Sydney Pollack’s final film returns to the conspiracy genre that served him well in both the 1970s ( Three Days of the Condor ) and the 1990s ( The Firm ). It also marks a return to Africa, but in a decidedly less romantic fashion than his 1985 Oscar winner. Unfortunately the result is a tepid, clichéd affair in which only the technical flourishes of its director have any merit. The film’s main claim to fame is that Universal received permission to film inside the United Nations headquarters. Accordingly, Pollack is predictably unquestioning in its admiration and respect for the organisation. It is no doubt also the reason that liberal crusader Sean Penn attached himself to what is otherwise a highly generic and non-Penn type of role. When it comes down to it, the argument rehearsed here of diplomacy over violent resolution is as banal as they come. That the UN is infallible moral arbiter of this process is never in any doubt. The cynicism