I was really looking forward to seeing a movie about Wild Bill Hickock with a top cast and proper budget. I wasn't necessarily disappointed by this film, but felt it could have been done differently.
I think one of the difficulties with a film of this nature is that you are building up to an ending which everyone is aware of and there are only a few ways you can build up the background to the climax. In a film such as 'Wyatt Earp' for example, everyone knows the gunfight at the OK Corrall is coming, so the film builds up the background for you as best it can pretty much chronologically.
The angle with this film is that the background is set with a series of flashbacks, which don't entirely work and become slightly tedious. It would have been easier to watch them as a chronological story, but you feel sympathy with Walter Hill for wanting to mix it up a little.
Ultimately, it comes out as a slightly rushed mish-mash. The flashbacks are not long enough to really set the scene for you, whereas the early part of the film which goes from 1867 through to 1875 is a bit garbled and doesn't make complete sense until later. There are also very brief references to Hickock's time in the army, which could and probably should have been expanded on. I didn't really understand this as the film is only an hour and a half long and could have done with another half hour.
With regard to the actual content, Bridges is superb and imposing as Hickcok, and I personally liked the choice of Arquette as Jack McCall (considering I'm not a fan of his generally). Much of it is fiction or exaggerated fact, but that is par for the course with Westerns and if we're honest with ourselves that type of romanticism is what draws us to the genre.
All this notwithstanding, it is an easy watch and by no means as demanding as 'Wyatt Earp' or even 'Young Guns'. The scenes where Bridges is in full flow are quite excellent and recall all the great Western leads. I would very much recommend this film to all fans of Hickock or Westerns generally, as it certainly has its entertaining moments, even if the presentation is not all it could be.
I think one of the difficulties with a film of this nature is that you are building up to an ending which everyone is aware of and there are only a few ways you can build up the background to the climax. In a film such as 'Wyatt Earp' for example, everyone knows the gunfight at the OK Corrall is coming, so the film builds up the background for you as best it can pretty much chronologically.
The angle with this film is that the background is set with a series of flashbacks, which don't entirely work and become slightly tedious. It would have been easier to watch them as a chronological story, but you feel sympathy with Walter Hill for wanting to mix it up a little.
Ultimately, it comes out as a slightly rushed mish-mash. The flashbacks are not long enough to really set the scene for you, whereas the early part of the film which goes from 1867 through to 1875 is a bit garbled and doesn't make complete sense until later. There are also very brief references to Hickock's time in the army, which could and probably should have been expanded on. I didn't really understand this as the film is only an hour and a half long and could have done with another half hour.
With regard to the actual content, Bridges is superb and imposing as Hickcok, and I personally liked the choice of Arquette as Jack McCall (considering I'm not a fan of his generally). Much of it is fiction or exaggerated fact, but that is par for the course with Westerns and if we're honest with ourselves that type of romanticism is what draws us to the genre.
All this notwithstanding, it is an easy watch and by no means as demanding as 'Wyatt Earp' or even 'Young Guns'. The scenes where Bridges is in full flow are quite excellent and recall all the great Western leads. I would very much recommend this film to all fans of Hickock or Westerns generally, as it certainly has its entertaining moments, even if the presentation is not all it could be.