The best western ever made. Stellar performances from a great ensemble cast. One of my top 10 favorite films ever.

A+

You think it's better than the masterpiece The Good, the Bad and the Ugly?

By far.

a great western. one of the best in the last 15 years

A-

This movie had potential but didn't live up to it. Too many long boring stretches in the middle while the ending felt rushed and unresolved. It also needed more humor and better editing. The costumes didn't seem right, the movie placed too much emphasis on style instead of grit. A worthy attempt that didn't quite work. The movie is only really memorable for Kilmer's great supporting work.

C

OMG its truely the best western ever and Im not usually a big fan of the era. The performance that truely defined the movie was Val Kilmer's Doc Holiday. Theres alot of people in the ensemble cast including Dana Delaney, Thomas Haden Church, Kurt Rusell and Dermot Mulroney or is it Dylan Mcdurmot who cares.

A
9.3/10

"I'm your Huckleberry!" One of the best films ever, one of the best casts ever, one of the best scripts ever and one of the best perfromances ever...

A+++

I agree with Archie Gates that the only really memorable thing is Val Kilmer's performance. But what a performance it is. The rest is good, but I don't know if we'd be talking much about this movie if it weren't for Val Kilmer.

Saying that, though, I love this movie.

****

What are you spokesperson for the academy.

I love this movie, the best western of the 90s, much better than unforgiven and definitely much better than Costner's Wyatt earp. 92 we had Unforgiven, 93 we had Tombstone and 94 we had maverick, a good retouching of westerns in my opinion.

This is the best western ever imo. True Kilmer steals the entire show, but the rest of the cast is still excellent.


"You gonna do something, or just stand there and bleed?"

A

Tombstone is friggin awesome! I haven't seen many westerns, but this one is the best out of the ones I have. I love the way the movie is shot, it's in a real classy western way. The screenplay is strong of course, with tons of quotable lines, and sequences that just strike you. Performances are all good, with Val Kilmer's being truly scary as Doc Holladay. The first scene where you see him, and he's looking at the camera with his snarl, is masterful. Russell was also good, at the beginning I'd thought he'd be the weak link because he looked kinda stupid with the stache, but by the end he had me convinced. My only criticism is that in the second half some of the nonstop bloodspilling and gunplay was a bit much. The scene with Holladay and Ringo is brilliant, but the one at the river was slightly over the top.

Fantastic movie all the same.

I just watched Wyatt Earp, man this film really sucked coming right after this, with less memorable performances, darker style, and slower pacing. Thats how you dont make a Wyatt Earp movie with Kevin Costner.

You need a tough badass to play Wyatt Earp that still has a sensitive side. Kurt Russell may be on many peoples lists as a B class actor, but he was great this entire film, and held all these pros together perfectly. This is almost like an Oceans Eleven filled with B listers. In fact Wyatt Earp had a pretty good cast too, but Tombstone was just performed better.

Kurt Russell
Sam Elliot
Powers Booth
Val Kilmer
Micheal Beihn
Bill Paxtion
Charleton Heston
Billy Zane
Future actors Thomas Haden Church and a very fat Billy Bob Thorton.

Nothing beats when they are walking to the Ok Corale, and that random house is on fire, lol, its the best lead up to a fight ever.

Yeah, like I said at the beginning I thought Russell was going to be weak, but once he started getting angry, he kicked ass.

"From now on if I see a red sash, I kill the man wearing it! The law is coming, and hells coming with it! You hear!"

One of the best westerns ever, a really fun film.


Does anyone else also think like me that Kilmer was snubbed bigtime for an oscar?

Yes, it was one the biggest nom snubs I've ever heard of, up there with Memento not getting a screenplay nod.

Yes he was snubbed of a nomination at least. He was the only good thing in the film, to me.

He should have been nominated, and if he would have won, I'd be thrilled, but with Tommy Lee Jones winning that year for Fugitive, i have no problem with that.

I wouldnt feel too bad, that is the same year Shawshank was completely snubbed as well. 93 was definitely disappointing. Ford should have been nominated for the Fugitive, Kilmer for Supporting, and Shawshank should have gotten picture and screenplay at least, not to mention Freeman and Robbins.

Actually Shawshank came out in 94, and it got 7 noms including Picture, and Actor for Freeman. No director though, and no wins.

Yep, Shawshank came out on the year of Death with Pulp and Forrest.

Touche, Got my years mixed up, thats right he was Gumped out. They were two very tough years back to back.

Well, looks like I'll be the one to say it. With the exception of Val Kilmer, Tombstone is a terrible movie. Kilmer makes the movie watchable. He's so good here actually, that he feels like he's in an entirely different and more interesting movie here.

With that in mind, the first half of the movie is actually kind of good. The scenes with the four of them are good and I liked the setup between the two rivals. There's a scene in particular at the saloon between Ringo and Holliday that is damn good. Then around the time where the two brothers get shot and Earp has his little hissy fit in the rain, the film goes to shit and it becomes unintentionally funny. What insulted me most though about the second half is that we want to see Earp get bloody revenge. We do, it's just so disjointed. Scenes feel out of place, especially the one at the river. That to me felt like the first ending - and more on that scene: for a film that wasn't relatively bloody (there's blood but not a lot) up to that point, we're now treated to some realistic violence? A man's stomach explodes. It was hilarious. And at the same time it feels anti-climatic. As I said, since that guy was the leader of the cowboys, why is he killed with 30 minutes left in the film? This section of the film feels like the editor just mixed some strands of film together and hope they mixed. It felt you could've edited different scenes around and it still would've made just as much sense.

Then there's the showdown between Holliday and Ringo. It was okay, but we didn't need Holliday to make him feel it. That was just stupid.

Another big problem I had with the film is the love story between Earp and Josephine. It's not bad. The problem is that it's just not needed at all. For a somewhat long film to begin with, this just doesn't help. And the last scene of the film with the two of them dancing in the snow feels completely out of place. Just like with Holliday's character, it feels like it should be in a completely different film. And did anyone else love the film's last line?

"Wyatt Earp died in Los Angeles in 1929. Among the pallbearers at his funeral were early western movie stars William S. Hostrom and Tom Hicks. And Tom Hicks wept."

I'm most likely missing the point here, but what the fuck does Tom Hicks weeping have to do with anything?

*1/2

Well not to really get technical, but its based on a true story and Earp's story of walking towards the cowboy leader and him missing him and getting blown away is true, in fact legendary. Then weeks later, Ringo was still the head of the cowboy troop and needed to be dismantled, and holiday did that.

I should've made this a little more clear, but since I was writing this just as I was going to sleep, that probably would've been impossible. My problem isn't with the scenes or how they chronologically occur (I think I did say that, but I take that back). The scene at the river is somewhat cool until Earp yells awkwardly. My problem is how the film transitions from one scene to another. It's poorly edited and it felt like there were some transition and filler scenes were cut out that needed to be in there.