Movies Rate: Tombstone (1993) New Review

[Jack Reacheround]

I wouldn't go that far. Watch Shane and the Searchers, at least, before making that claim.

It’s the best. Old movies suck.

Though I did really enjoy Once Upon a Time in the West. But Tombstone has the benefit of being based on real people and events, however loosely.

 

[Streeter]

Only a few westerns better honestly.

 

[Starman]

It’s the best. Old movies suck.

Ok, zoomer.

 

[GoodBadHBK]

My Rating: 8/10



Edit: I just watched this again and here's my take...



The first half is pretty close to a 10/10 for me, it's a really high 9/10. It's excellent. But it falls apart for me in the 2nd half as soon as the women gets shot at and Sam Elliot get wounded. Bill Paxton leaves pissed off into the storm coming off like he's going for revenge. NOPE. The very next scene he's shooting pool and then 2 seconds later he gets shot which then kills him. Wtf is that stupid shit lol it made 0 sense. I also HATED Michael Rooker turning face and switching sides just because they shot at the women. Michael Rooker is the perfect actor for a villain. They should not have made him switch over.



When Sam Elliot and the women leave on the train the rest of the film should have just been Kurt Russell and Val Kilmer only going after the gang. Clint Eastwood/Lee Van Cleef would have killed the entire gang. Paul Newman/Robert Redford would have went down shooting. Kurt and Val should have had a better ending to this film. Even Docs death was anticlimactic. He's playing cards and tells Kurt Russell to leave and then he dies. He deserved a better ending imo



NO NO NO NOO NOOO NOOO wasted the death of a really good villain. Kurt walking into the open where all of the bad guys miss every single shot at him is one thing I will always hate in movies especially this one.



I also hated the love angle between Kurt and the actress. The ending itself was so corny/cheesy/lame/sappy romantic ending that should never take place in a western.



I love the first half and I strongly dislike the 2nd half.



First half high 9/10

Second half high 6 low 7/10



Overall 8/10 it's a great movie that should have been a masterpiece but it isn't. For me I will gladly watch the first hour and then Im turning it off.

 

[Thrawn33]

My Rating: 8/10



Edit: I just watched this again and here's my take...



The first half is pretty close to a 10/10 for me, it's a really high 9/10. It's excellent. But it falls apart for me in the 2nd half as soon as the women gets shot at and Sam Elliot get wounded. Bill Paxton leaves pissed off into the storm coming off like he's going for revenge. NOPE. The very next scene he's shooting pool and then 2 seconds later he gets shot which then kills him. Wtf is that stupid shit lol it made 0 sense. I also HATED Michael Rooker turning face and switching sides just because they shot at the women. Michael Rooker is the perfect actor for a villain. They should not have made him switch over.



When Sam Elliot and the women leave on the train the rest of the film should have just been Kurt Russell and Val Kilmer only going after the gang. Clint Eastwood/Lee Van Cleef would have killed the entire gang. Paul Newman/Robert Redford would have went down shooting. Kurt and Val should have had a better ending to this film. Even Docs death was anticlimactic. He's playing cards and tells Kurt Russell to leave and then he dies. He deserved a better ending imo



NO NO NO NOO NOOO NOOO wasted the death of a really good villain. Kurt walking into the open where all of the bad guys miss every single shot at him is one thing I will always hate in movies especially this one.



I also hated the love angle between Kurt and the actress. The ending itself was so corny/cheesy/lame/sappy romantic ending that should never take place in a western.



I love the first half and I strongly dislike the 2nd half.



First half high 9/10

Second half high 6 low 7/10



Overall 8/10 it's a great movie that should have been a masterpiece but it isn't. For me I will gladly watch the first hour and then Im turning it off.

I thought I read or saw on a documentary that the "Noooo!" scene reportedly did happen. But I agree it came off pretty shitty.

Also agree it starts to slide when Virgil leaves, but we did get the "Hells Coming With Me!!!" and Docs duel with Ringo to keep it good.

 

[Fury]

I just watched this a few days ago for the first time in a long time. 9 out of 10, flawed masterpiece. I wouldn't argue 8 but I don't think it can be a 10.

I agree with most all of goodbadhbk's recent assessment but I think I don't knock it down as much for the the second half because the first half is so fucking great

 

[LEWIS540]

Didn’t know whether it wanted to be Young Guns or Unforgiven.

Kinda like Saving Private Ryan, it didn’t settle on a consistent tone, imo.

Still, great fun.

7.64

 

[GoodBadHBK]

Didn’t know whether it wanted to be Young Guns or Unforgiven.

Kinda like Saving Private Ryan, it didn’t settle on a consistent tone, imo.

Still, great fun.

7.64

I was watching a documentary on how bad making this movie was because of the director. Apparently every one hated him on set.

Michael Biehn was very vocal about it in this interview

 

[Spam On Rye]

7.5/10. Great fun and endlessly quotable but wouldn't put it in the class of a masterpiece, say like My Darling Clementine. That being said, Biehn as Ringo is overlooked imo and people forget but Russell pretty much directed the film. The only bad choice is the slow mo in the water scene but love the apocalyptic dialogue.

 

[Pittie Petey]

My Rating: 8/10



Edit: I just watched this again and here's my take...



The first half is pretty close to a 10/10 for me, it's a really high 9/10. It's excellent. But it falls apart for me in the 2nd half as soon as the women gets shot at and Sam Elliot get wounded. Bill Paxton leaves pissed off into the storm coming off like he's going for revenge. NOPE. The very next scene he's shooting pool and then 2 seconds later he gets shot which then kills him. Wtf is that stupid shit lol it made 0 sense. I also HATED Michael Rooker turning face and switching sides just because they shot at the women. Michael Rooker is the perfect actor for a villain. They should not have made him switch over.



When Sam Elliot and the women leave on the train the rest of the film should have just been Kurt Russell and Val Kilmer only going after the gang. Clint Eastwood/Lee Van Cleef would have killed the entire gang. Paul Newman/Robert Redford would have went down shooting. Kurt and Val should have had a better ending to this film. Even Docs death was anticlimactic. He's playing cards and tells Kurt Russell to leave and then he dies. He deserved a better ending imo



NO NO NO NOO NOOO NOOO wasted the death of a really good villain. Kurt walking into the open where all of the bad guys miss every single shot at him is one thing I will always hate in movies especially this one.



I also hated the love angle between Kurt and the actress. The ending itself was so corny/cheesy/lame/sappy romantic ending that should never take place in a western.



I love the first half and I strongly dislike the 2nd half.



First half high 9/10

Second half high 6 low 7/10



Overall 8/10 it's a great movie that should have been a masterpiece but it isn't. For me I will gladly watch the first hour and then Im turning it off.

Yea, this is another one like Full Metal Jacket or that dumpster fire The Godfather, where people rate it as a masterpiece because they forget how badly things get off track after awhile

 

[GoodBadHBK]

Biehn as Ringo is overlooked imo

Agreed. I thought he was the second best performance.

The only bad choice is the slow mo in the water scene

I thought the love angle was dumb too. His only issue with his wife was she became an alcoholic, I dont think thats a strong enough reason to leave your wife for another woman. He sends her off with Virgil and then what, never sees her again? Lol why? Because she drank too much? Lol what?

I thought being attracted/flirting was where it should have stayed because them getting together didn't make sense from the perspective they never had any issues in the movie except her drinking. The ending with them in the snowfall could work for a romance but not a western. If anything they should have had Val return to the town where his wife and brother were to end it.

 

[Pittie Petey]

Agreed. I thought he was the second best performance.



I thought the love angle was dumb too. His only issue with his wife was she became an alcoholic, I dont think thats a strong enough reason to leave your wife for another woman. He sends her off with Virgil and then what, never sees her again? Lol why? Because she drank too much? Lol what?

I thought being attracted/flirting was where it should have stayed because them getting together didn't make sense from the perspective they never had any issues in the movie except her drinking. The ending with them in the snowfall could work for a romance but not a western. If anything they should have had Val return to the town where his wife and brother were to end it.

She wasnt drinking, she was on heroin LoL

I dont think thats why he left her, though, he saw his one true soulmate and instantly fell madly in love and forgot about everything else

I do agree with you that it was a dumb side story that drug down the movie, just like that dang trip to Sicily...

 

[HereticBD]

I thought the love angle was dumb too. His only issue with his wife was she became an alcoholic, I dont think thats a strong enough reason to leave your wife for another woman. He sends her off with Virgil and then what, never sees her again? Lol why? Because she drank too much? Lol what?

Given the production woes, I wouldn't be surprised if the scenes with the wife and mistress were part of a different vision for the story that got hacked to shit in the final product. The movie has a good flow for about 80% of it, and then it has these weird little sequences that seem out of place. Billy Zane's character also seems just kind thrown in there, like he had a bigger role that was cut down. He's got like two scenes, and then he gets killed on the road, and it's all dramatic like I'm supposed to feel some big impact about this random actor dude getting wasted. Jason Priestley's character is another one that seems like he would've had a bigger role if the movie was three hours long.

 

[Spam On Rye]

Agreed. I thought he was the second best performance.



I thought the love angle was dumb too. His only issue with his wife was she became an alcoholic, I dont think thats a strong enough reason to leave your wife for another woman. He sends her off with Virgil and then what, never sees her again? Lol why? Because she drank too much? Lol what?

I thought being attracted/flirting was where it should have stayed because them getting together didn't make sense from the perspective they never had any issues in the movie except her drinking. The ending with them in the snowfall could work for a romance but not a western. If anything they should have had Val return to the town where his wife and brother were to end it.

Honestly I forgot about the laudenum addicted wifey angle. It felt a bit shoehorned in there tbh. I guess the studio wanted something for the ladies too.

 

[GoodBadHBK]

Given the production woes, I wouldn't be surprised if the scenes with the wife and mistress were part of a different vision for the story that got hacked to shit in the final product. The movie has a good flow for about 80% of it, and then it has these weird little sequences that seem out of place. Billy Zane's character also seems just kind thrown in there, like he had a bigger role that was cut down. He's got like two scenes, and then he gets killed on the road, and it's all dramatic like I'm supposed to feel some big impact about this random actor dude getting wasted. Jason Priestley's character is another one that seems like he would've had a bigger role if the movie was three hours long.

Yeah they didn't even show him dying. Same could be said when Paxton runs out after Elliot gets shot and he's looking for revenge but instead he's shooting pool by himself lol

 

[ricc505]

Most westerns and war movies absolutely suffer from half cocked love stories. The truth of the earp story is so muddied and exaggerated, I think the love angle is meant to humanize him and show his flawed side.

Great movie. Could be more cohesive, but a great watch with staying power

 

[GoodBadHBK]

Most westerns and war movies absolutely suffer from half cocked love stories

Ok name some westerns that do that are great movies

 

[ricc505]

I love old movies, many didn't stand up to today's standards. Just random firing off the top of my head
The wild bunch
Once upon a time I'm the West
searchers
True grit, I like both
No name trilogy(pretty sure he's called Joe in one)
Ulzana's raid
Josie Wales was good
I liked the ballad of Buster Scruggs
China 9, Liberty 37, the shooting(I'm a fan of oats)
Not a typical one but bad day at Black Rock.

 

[GoodBadHBK]

I love old movies, many didn't stand up to today's standards. Just random firing off the top of my head
The wild bunch
Once upon a time I'm the West
searchers
True grit, I like both
No name trilogy(pretty sure he's called Joe in one)
Ulzana's raid
Josie Wales was good
I liked the ballad of Buster Scruggs
China 9, Liberty 37, the shooting(I'm a fan of oats)
Not a typical one but bad day at Black Rock.

Once upon a time in the west is the only option you picked that could be a half cocked love story. The rest are not.

 

[ricc505]

Once upon a time in the west is the only option you picked that could be a half cocked love story. The rest are not.

Apologies i misread the question. I'll re think my answer. I'm dealing with a sick uncle and my crazy sister right now and my mind is elsewhere