Since you've actually seen Wyatt Earp, why don't you offer some thoughts on it?
I probably should've just made this a Wyatt Earp thread.
I think it would have been remembered more fondly if Tombstone hadn't existed.
It was a long movie, with long periods where not a whole lot happened, plot-wise. It felt like it was stuck in the doldrums for 15 or 20 minutes at a time.
Costner was good enough, Quaid was pretty good. But while this may have been a more accurate and honest portrayal of Earp the human being...it just didn't make for a terribly interesting man for that length of time. I wasn't cheering for him like I cheered for Kurt Russell...
I think what set Tombstone apart the most was its supporting characters. Each and every one of Biehn, Boothe, Elliott, Paxton, Stephen Lang were memorable, unique and colorful. Then there were memorable minor characters like Priestley, Zane...shit, even Frank Stallone and pre-fame Billy Bob Thornton in his fat hick dummy stage.
Wyatt Earp also had a pretty stellar supporting cast in the same or similar roles - Jeff Fahey, Mark Harmon, Bill Pullman, Michael Madsen, Tom Sizemore... Yet they all made no impression. If you ask me to recommend a performance from any of those actors, I won't name Wyatt Earp, and that's if I even remember they were in it.
In Tombstone, the difference between Wyatt, Virgil and Morgan Earp is clear and striking. Morgan is innocent and admires his brothers, Virgil is battle-worn, weary and pragmatic. Wyatt is the guy who will only be pushed so far. In Wyatt Earp, I can't really tell you what one brother is all about, compared to the others.
Tombstone also had the much better score.
Wyatt Earp mostly felt like one of those epic biographies that gets bogged down in sections of the life that aren't particularly interesting or dramatic. Alexander is one that seemed to have similar length and pacing.