WATCH YOUR FAVORITE
MOVIES & TV SERIES ONLINE
TRY FREE TRIAL
Home > Drama >

Wyatt Earp's Revenge

Watch Wyatt Earp's Revenge For Free

Wyatt Earp's Revenge

Wyatt Earp is approached by a journalist for an interview about how he became a famous sheriff. Earp told the story of how he was a fearless U.S. Marshall. If 27-year old Wyatt Earp comes out that his first girlfriend Dora Hand was murdered. Together with his friend Doc Holliday, Bat Masterson, Bill Tilghman and Charlie Bassett he goes hunting for the perpetrator ...

... more
Release : 2012
Rating : 4.5
Studio : Hybrid,  Feifer Worldwide, 
Crew : Art Direction,  Production Design, 
Cast : Val Kilmer Shawn Roberts Matt Dallas Daniel Booko Scott Whyte
Genre : Drama Western

Cast List

Reviews

Micitype
2018/08/30

Pretty Good

More
Jacomedi
2018/08/30

A Surprisingly Unforgettable Movie!

More
Brainsbell
2018/08/30

The story-telling is good with flashbacks.The film is both funny and heartbreaking. You smile in a scene and get a soulcrushing revelation in the next.

More
Zandra
2018/08/30

The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

More
dfwesley
2018/01/23

Disappointing to say the least. I had troubles with this one right from the start. Val Kilmer looked like his face was swollen from a tooth ache. His moustache was almost laughable. Surely there were other choices. Was his hat to be worn throughout the entire interview? After all, they were inside. The whole bunch of Earp's companions had to be brought into it and they were. Do Holliday appeared to be a half crazed sadist loving to inflict pain. The screaming of his patients, both dental and medical, were memorable. Extracting bullets from bellies seemed no more difficult than removing a tooth from the mouth. Romantic flashbacks and frequent gun play didn't help this baby. Nothing could.

More
Wizard-8
2014/08/30

I first learned of this movie when finding a DVD copy of it in my local Wal-Mart's $5 DVD bin. Now, I love westerns, and I was tempted to buy it since it was a western and cheap. But then I remembered that Val Kilmer in recent years has said yes to numerous junky projects. So I ultimately decided not to buy it. But today I watched it after it appeared on a movie TV channel, and boy, am I glad I didn't buy it all those months ago. To begin with, the movie is a cheat. Though Val Kilmer's name is trumpeted, in fact he only has about seven to ten minutes of footage in the entire movie. Which is just as well, because the combination of his uninspired acting plus his strangely puffy face doesn't exactly make him interesting to observe. Actually, the rest of the cast is pretty awful as well. They give "modern" performances despite the bulk of the movie taking place in the 1800s, and none of their characters come across in a compelling way. The surroundings are shabby as well - there's not that much action, with the movie mostly being conversations, none of which sounds very interesting. And the movie looks real cheap, from the unconvincing sets to unspectacular countryside. Whether you are a Kilmer fan and/or a western fan, more likely than not you'll find this movie to be really poor and not worth any attention.

More
stevenhenry_69
2012/03/10

I seldom write reviews...However...On this occasion I felt the "Western genre" fans needed a heads up on this title. Westerns are rare these days and having always liked the genre...I thought I'd give this a try...having my appetite whetted again with the likes of "Deadwood" or even 3:10 to Yuma. Oh my! What a total and utter disappointment. To use a British term... What a lot of utter tosh! I sat through it thinking "it''s got to get better or have some saving grace"....it didn't on either count... now all that valuable time I wasted when I could have been doing something useful like picking my feet is gone forever. This movie went straight to DVD...can see why...but don't know why they even bothered. It was made with the same panache and imagination as Bonanza in the 60's. The story was predictable in the extreme and the acting and dialogue was embarrassing to watch. The costumes were laughable as well as very clean and I was left feeling that the movie was either made as a prank or for a bet. I cannot believe somebody actually sank money into making it. I guess Val Kilmer was there to give it some credibility..........he didn't! I would rank this as about as bad as a western gets...in fact off the top of my head I cannot recall one that was worse than this offering This ranks high on my list of all time movie garbage. So please if you're thinking of actually paying money for this, do yourself a real big favour and ...DON'T! Do something useful with the cash instead like having a few beers or giving to the homeless...because if you do buy it....well you have been warned!

More
Melody Ayres-Griffiths
2012/03/07

I can't help but compare every Western I watch to Unforgiven, partially because I've broken that film down in every context imaginable. By that measure, Wyatt Earp's Revenge is the worst western I've ever seen, and I've seen hundreds of them.In terms of character development and portrayal, there are no opportunities to warm to any of the characters, nor nothing that makes them inherently likable. The act for which Wyatt Earp supposedly wishes to avenge solicits no emotion from the actor who plays him, and the victim of said act is not a priest or a child nor anyone else for whom the audience would care about without extensive back-story. Nor is any back-story offered after the event that might trigger any remorse for the victim in retrospect.The acting is wooden and horrible. Where actors are meant to look introspective and brooding, they just look bored, or as if they forgot their lines. Dialogue is forced and clichéd, and there is no relevant emotion portrayed in tone. The actors appearance is largely anachronistic, and their behavior nonsensical.The script is vacuous and terrible. You could cut half the scenes and the outcome would not change. You could tighten up the pacing by cutting half of the remaining scenes, and it would take nothing away from the final product, except that you would see the sum of it in 22 minutes instead of an hour and a half. The cinematography is boring and uninspired -- almost as if it was shot 'by the numbers', and the unending use of 'dramatic' music serves to do nothing but point out how terrible the film is, as if a sit-com with a laugh-track that activates every five seconds.I must assume that this is a 'first movie' by a fledgling production company following the advice of 'just get that first film in the can'. It's good advice, but it doesn't necessarily mean people should spend their time watching it just for the sake of it. Leave this film as a demonstration of basic competency by a fledgling production company in search of investors, and instead go watch _any_ of the internet archive's public domain westerns instead.It will be a much better use of your time.1/10

More
Watch Instant, Get Started Now Watch Instant, Get Started Now