User reviews

This movie has been kicking around on cable TV lately and I've put off watching it because I expected it to be another very stretched version of a buddy cop movie. The story seems made for it. Experienced old real-life marshal Wyatt Earp teaches callus young phony cowboy Tom Mix how to solve a crime. "Dragnet" on a 1920s back lot. But it wasn't that way at all.

It's true enough that Earp (Garner) hung around Hollywood at the time, or maybe a bit earlier. We don't really get to know much about his past. But although Mix (Willis) drove expensive cars and wore flashy suits and big hats, he wasn't a phony. He'd been a real cowboy too, was a great rider, fought in the Spanish-American war, and could take care of himself. Instead of the expected clash between the master and the tyro, we get two guys who pretty much hit it off with one another right away, and show mutual respect.

It's an interesting friendship.

But then the movie turns darker. A murder takes place. There are fist fights (mostly comic) and several shootouts (done seriously). Willis is kind of cocky. Garner displays the laconic off-hand dignity he showed in "Murphy's Romance," or whatever it was. He's an icon here, with that black outfit and mustache. He's never been a flashy actor, but invariably a competent one. Off-screen he's come up with some dandy spontaneous comments about how the social world of Hollywood and the rest of the country is structured. He's got my vote. Willis isn't bad either.

The rest of the cast does yeoman work but no one has roles that are as interesting as those of the two leads. And the murder story fails to grip the viewer, at least this viewer. I didn't really find myself caring who did it, although it was clear from the beginning who the villains were. There was an exception, though, the British actress playing Garner's former lover. She's simply outstanding in a supporting part, and provides a great example of how to be beautiful without being "beautiful."

I wish the film didn't seem kind of -- I suppose lost is the word. It meanders between comedy, drama, and warmth, without seeming to know just what it wants to do. This isn't a total failure on Edwards' part. It holds together as a story but the characters bounce off one another. Henry Mancini, who wrote many scores for Edwards' films, shows his versatility here.

The score is quiet and unobtrusive (except for one or two brass bands that seem to follow Tom Mix around) and is punctuated by contemporary recordings, including one by Duke Ellington. The photography is first rate. It must be getting hard to find locations that look like Southern California looked in the 1920s before the irruption of humans and their artifacts.

It's worth watching. But I don't know where that title came from. "Sunset." What is the sun setting on? Not Earp. He's old but not doddering, and he can shoot and make love even at the "risk of permanent damage." It's not setting on Hollywood, which would continue to book for another two generations or so. I suppose we'll settle for its being one of those generic titles that could mean anything. "Another Dawn." "Guns of Darkness." "On the Edge." "Sunset." "The Muppets Conquer the Mustang Ranch."

"Sunset" is the blackest of black comedies. I was surprised to learn from watching it on TV last night what a really fun movie it is, given the uniformly bad reviews it received. Pay no attention to the critics, this is good stuff. Bruce Willis, as Tom Mix, and James Garner, as Wyatt Earp, have never been better at their laid-back charm-boy schtick. The plot, while complex and often violent, is not to be taken seriously -- or better still, not to be thought about at all. In this connection, just remember what the movie itself tells you, "It's all true, give or take a lie or two." In addition to Willis's and Garner's stellar performances, Kathleen Quinlan, as Mix's long suffering girl friend, is a hoot. The mood of time and place -- 1929 Hollywood -- is perfectly captured: interesting costumes, great looking vintage cars, the last gasp of the Jazz Age just before the Depression. Highly recommended, 7 out of 10.

Blake Edwards' "Sunset" has the misfortune of following a series of films that are among his all time best: "10", "S.O.B.", "Trail of the Pink Panther" (a surprisingly cohesive film considering the circumstances; see my review for more details), "Victor/Victoria", "The Man Who Loved Women" (an underrated film), "Micki and Maude", "A Fine Mess" and the remarkable "That's Life!" By comparison, "Sunset" is a weak film.

But it is a good Blake Edwards film and good Edwards ("Blind Date", "Curse of the Pink Panther") is much better than horrible Edwards ("Switch", "Bring Your Smile Along", "Justin Case"). "Sunset" is Edwards' attempt at a risky genre, film noir, which if handled wrong, gives us films such as "Palmetto". When handled right, the results can be very entertaining.

"Sunset" is indeed very entertaining. It has laughs, but they're not important here. The atmosphere is what's important here and Edwards drenches us in it. And his casting of James Garner and Bruce Willis is inspired and right. They work wonderfully together and it is a testament to Garner and Willis as actors that they are so utterly believable as Wyatt Earp and Tom Mix, respectively. The bigger surprise here is Willis, who has a fresh faced charm that he doesn't show all that much anymore. I had forgotten what a solid actor he really is beneath that cliched "ACTION STAR" persona.

What prevents "Sunset" from approaching greatness is that Edwards is weighed down by the plot. He wants to create a complex mystery and he achieves that. But after getting to know such rich and likable characters, I really wish he had just forgotten about the plot and focus on them. All of his very best films are about character. Look at the list in the beginning. Each and every one of those films has characters we care about and he wisely forgets about resolving the plot. He observes and that's how he gets our attention (and laughs where appropriate). I only wished he had remembered. Luckily, his next film "Skin Deep" remembered that.

I still recommend "Sunset", if only for the charm of Willis and Garner and that wonderful atmosphere. This isn't a great film, but you just can't resist smiling at the end.

*** out of 4 stars

A very interesting premise ends up with a rather tame execution here, however the cast is full of talent, and they help to pull the film through. The best performance of the film is delivered by James Garner as Wyatt Earp. Although, no thanks to a poor makeup job, Garner does not look or act like he is approaching eighty years of age, Garner still portrays the charisma that one would expect from Earp very well. Of interest also is Mariel Hemingway, who is quite good as needing woman. The main problem with the film is that the mystery is rather dull, and its implementation into the plot comes at the cost of sacrificing room for further character development. Blake's directing work is slightly heavy-handed here, full of silly spectacles and violence that add little flavour to the film - and his work directing the film won him a Razzie award. It is not half bad as a film overall though. Garner and the rest of the cast, which includes Malcolm McDowell, help make some interesting segments when on screen, and Henry Mancini's music is as good as ever.

I appreciate Sunset the film because it gave the man who I consider the best big screen Wyatt Earp, James Garner, a chance to reprise the role.

Garner played Earp back in the mid sixties in John Sturges's Hour of the Gun. That film took the unusual plot line of beginning with the famous Gunfight at the OK Corral and showing the aftermath from that event. It was a pretty grim western, and Garner was not playing his usual likable con artist.

It took twenty years from Hour of the Gun to Sunset, but it was over 40 years in real life from the OK Corral fight until the events of Sunset that take place in Hollywood in and around the first Academy Award dinner in 1928. Wyatt Earp was in fact in Hollywood and did in fact know Tom Mix. Earp died in 1929 at the age 80 and Garner is one of the liveliest 80 year olds ever on screen.

Blake Edwards must have hated Charles Chaplin because Malcolm McDowell as Alfie Alperin, the Happy Hobo and villain of the film is one loathsome creep. No doubt Chaplin's character is used as the basis for McDowell's. The famous Thomas Ince shooting on board a yacht is also worked into the plot. Topping all that the first Academy Award dinner had a triple homicide in the lobby.

Bruce Willis as Tom Mix stars as Wyatt Earp in a film about the OK Corral and of course with Wyatt still being alive, Garner is brought in as a technical adviser. The two of them get involved in a lovely web of intrigue during end of the silent era that starts with the murder of a bordello madam who had a lot of blackmail information concerning the mighty of Tinseltown. Wyatt Earp discovers a few personal facts about himself he didn't know also.

Patricia Hodge is McDowell's long suffering wife and Jennifer Edwards is his equally loathsome sister. Another pair that Willis and Garner have to deal with are Richard Bradford as a corrupt LA detective and M. Emmet Walsh as the studio cop who do a lot of McDowell's dirty work.

Sunset is entertaining enough, not a great film for either Willis or Garner. And it does capture the ambiance of old Hollywood, give or take a lie or two.

For me, it's the supporting actors that make this interesting . Emmet walsh was so good in what's up doc, and joe dallesandro has his own history in warhol films. Mcdowell was probably best known for clockwork orange. In the story, tom mix and wyatt earp meet up in hollywood, on a movie set. When a moidah takes place, they decide to work together to solve it. Fun info in the trivia and goofs sections. While the story is mostly fictional, it does have some elements of truth scattered throughout. Mix and earp really did know each other. And parts of the story itself seem similar to the alleged shooting incident aboard hearst's yacht in 1924. The story is so serious... it's more of a dramatic murder mystery than a comedy. But it seems to want to be both, which would be a typical blake edwards film. Like victor victoria. Which also starred james garner. With a similar song and dance number at the center. According to wikipedia, even siskel and ebert had trouble describing the film. Keep an eye out for jennifer edwards, daughter of the director, as victoria. This felt like an odd role for willis. He also did "die hard" in 1988, and that seemed a better match. Clearly, the best way to get nominated for an oscar is to make a film about the oscars! This was nominated for best costumes. A couple razzies too... hemingway was nominated worst supporting, and blake edwards "won" for worst director! TCM doesn't seem to show this one. It's entertaining, but a little disjointed. Kind of banks on the friendship betwen mix and earp as the glue holding everything together.

Writer-director Blake Edwards helmed this disappointingly flaccid fictional murder mystery featuring true-life players. Miscast Bruce Willis is entirely inappropriate as silent screen cowboy Tom Mix, here befriending James Garner's Wyatt Earp while solving a baffling Hollywood murder. Edwards' screenplay, from an original treatment by Rod Amateau, has a fun set-up, and Garner is certainly game, so why isn't this a galloping romp with suspenseful underpinnings? It could be due to Edwards' lackluster direction, or the mostly uninterested supporting players, or the ham-handed attempts at nostalgia. Too bad; this scenario, with Mix and Earp in Lotus Land, had promise. Unfortunately, "Sunset" fades fast. *1/2 from ****

I was shocked to read the reviews of this. My husband is a very serious movie buff -- a TV newsman, now retired after 40+ years in the business. I'm a writer (we never retire, we just get older). And both of us love this movie. In fact, when we started switching over to DVD, it was among the first movies we bought.

For me, the essence of a great movie is THE SCRIPT! I love words. I love wit. I love intelligent dialogue. And this movie has tons of wit, great dialogue, memorable lines (give or take a lie or two) and excellent chemistry between Willis and Garner. I liked Willis as Tom Mix, although I am not otherwise much of a Bruce Willis fan (except that I loved "Moonlighting" ... ) I thought he gave a much more subtle and textured performance than he has done in most of his movies. And of course, I've liked Garner since I was a girl watching Maverick on TV.

Black Edwards' movies are not everyone's cup of tea, I guess. I love most of them, and minimally, enjoy the rest. His movies are always intelligent: the wit biting, the dialogue sharp with some extraordinary monologues. For the Blake Edwards fans out there, is there a better monologue than William Holden's speech, which in many ways, was his own obituary -- in S.O.B. (another of Black Edwards' great films that hardly anyone seems to appreciate).

Okay. I'm finished. I think "Sunset" is a very fine movie. If what you are looking for are car chases, piles of corpses, slapstick, sex, and special effects, this is NOT your movie. If your love of movies includes a love of words, good acting, and sharp humor, this is a good'un.

In this odd, uneven period piece, Wyatt Earp comes to Hollywood as a technical advisor in a silent film about his life. While he's in town, and just before the first Academy Awards ceremony in 1929, he gets drawn into a murder involving old friends and new enemies. If that premise sounds good to you, be aware that there are so many flaws, it might disappoint.

Let's start at the beginning: If you look up your history, you'll find out that Wyatt Earp was eighty years old in 1929, but James Garner, who portrayed him in Sunset, was only sixty and looked even younger. Not only does he participate in action scenes and operate a gun with a remarkably steady hand, but he also has an intimate romance with Mariel Hemingway, stated in the film to be twenty-six. If Wyatt Earp was going to be portrayed as a virile middle-aged man, and Blake Edwards really wanted his setting to involve silent movies, why wasn't the year bumped up? Instead of 1929, it could have been 1914. Silent westerns were still made, and Wyatt Earp would have been sixty-five. The only reason for the film to be set in 1929 was to include the first Academy Awards ceremony. You'd think that a movie deliberately set at that event would have more of a focus on the movie stars of the time, or at least show the ceremony. There are cameos of Douglas Fairbanks, John Gilbert, Oliver Hardy, and James Cagney, but they were so brief I only knew they were represented because of the closing credits. James Cagney didn't make a movie until 1930, so I don't know why he was included. The ceremony itself wasn't even shown; studio producer Malcom McDowell leaves after his opening speech, and the camera follows him.

With Bruce Willis still in his "too cool for school" phase, his attitude as a dumb, cocky movie star gets old really quickly. James Garner doesn't really do much either, and Malcom McDowell is just a regular ol' bad guy. The women don't bring anything to the table, either, so the audience is left with a rather empty party. If you like movies about old Hollywood, you've got plenty of others to choose from. The only good part about this movie is Henry Mancini's music.

Caught this for the first time late night Sept., 2006. It was a very cool, foggy San Francisco night. I loved it! The critics missed the point altogether on this one. An older Ebert probably would have given it more than two stars. Garner was great, as usual, in his cool understated character. One critic said Bruce Willis was not movie star material. WRONG! The porn star Joe Dallesandro as "Dutch" was one of several funny, kinky sidebars. Yes, Chandler could have written it and drank to its health. Oh oh! scolded for less than ten lines---so, the cold, impersonal wind swept down trashy Market Street where the very rich and the very poor rubbed shoulders nonchalantly. Ah! the irony of it all.

After watching the move I did some research on Tom Mix & Wyatt Earp. This movie was set in early 1929 during the academy awards (March?). Wyatt died Jan. 13 1929 at the age of 80. You do the math. Tom Mix was still a force in Hollywood. Tom's career was sliding with the advent of talkies. Tom & Wyatt did know each other & Tom was a pallbearer at Wyatt Earp's funeral in 1929. So some truth and a lot of fiction. I liked the brothel as history does say that there was one that used girls that resembled Hollywood stars of the day. So there was some truth to that part. I think the movie deserves better than 2 1/2 stars that it gets on the movie guide.

There's a lot of good stuff in "Sunset" but for some reason it doesn't work as well as it should. The movie looks great. The costumes are top-notch. The performances are very good. I've seen "Sunset" a few times now. It's definitely worth watching. It's just not one of Hall of Fame writer/director Blake Edwards' best.

This should have been a classic. All the elements are there. Old Hollywood, a gruesome crime, an unlikely paring of unlikely heroes, a nuanced multi-faceted villain. This should have been another Sunset Boulevard, Chinatown, Hollywood Confidential with humor and heart. It never found it's footing. The suspense parts have no danger, the comedic parts aren't funny, the action sequences aren't exciting and there's no emotional resolution. With watching for the premise alone and the imagining of how good the movie could have been.

While not actually awful, "Sunset" (1988) is unexpectedly bad considering what it has going for it. Bruce Willis plays Tom Mix and James Garner plays Wyatt Earp; in truth they just play themselves (their standard characters) and because they are both very likable and have decent chemistry together the film has a strong foundation. Writer/director Blake Edwards gets his chance to make a film about old Hollywood movie-making, a project he was passionate about and worked hard to pull off. So it should work yet it doesn't even come close.

It's a crime thriller with comic and buddy picture elements set in 1929 Hollywood. With the sound era just dawning, Tom Mix is making a picture about the gunfight at the OK corral. An aging Wyatt Earp is hired as technical adviser on the film and the two become pals off the set. They stumble on a murder and work to solve a mystery involving a corrupt studio chief and his wife, sister, and son. His sister is nicely played by Jennifer Edwards who is best known for her title role in the controversial "Heidi" remake that interrupted the Jets-Raiders game back in 1968. Edwards gives the only really convincing performance. On the other extreme is an appearance by Mariel Hemingway that is so bad it might have been what inspired model Kathy Ireland to give acting a try.

The studio chief (played by Malcolm McDowell) is a kind of demented Charlie Chaplin; apparently Blake thought Chaplin was the only early Hollywood producer anyone in the target audience would recognize. But the characterization is incredibly lame and in the end nothing about the guy adds up.

Along those same lines the story is hopelessly contrived and generally moronic; more characteristic of a bad 1980's made-for-TV movie than a theatrical feature film. At one point Willis and Garner go to a club that specializes in girls who look like famous actresses, an ill-advised idea given that 1988 and later viewers have no idea who the sexy Hollywood personalities of that era actually were. Edwards is reduced to using Greta Garbo and Mae West as his examples; Garbo was just breaking into American cinema and West was three years away from making her first picture.

Contributing to the made-for-television feel is an extremely artificial production design on about the authenticity level of television's "The Time Tunnel".

So expect to enjoy the buddy picture antics of Willis and Garner but don't expect to be able to suspend disbelief long enough to get into the story or care anything about any of the characters.

Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.

This is one of those movies I'll watch anytime it's on. It's entertaining, and I always enjoy Bruce Willis and James Garner. Having said that, the timeline of this movie is impossible. It takes place in 1929, during the month of May. That's when the first Academy Awards were held. Wyatt Earp died in January of that year, so he was already dead by this time. If you can ignore that big blunder, then you can enjoy the movie. I'm really surprised that Blake Edwards didn't consider these important dates when he decided to make this movie, or that someone else involved didn't mention this. Then again, maybe Mr. Edwards didn't give a hoot about the details.

After reading the other user comments I felt a need to write about this wonderful film. Sunset is a fictionized account of the meeting of two famous cowboys, Marshal Wyatt Eurp and Western film star Tom Mix. This is the second time that James Garner played Wyatt Eurp as he played the part in John Sturges' under-rated film, "Hour Of the Gun" which told the story of what happened after the famous Gunfight at The O.K. Corral. Though in that film Garner played him very downbeat, and here he is his usual likeable cowboy.

Eurp and Mix (played by Bruce Willis in his second staring film)getting involved in an complicated mystery involving a Studio head played by Malcom McDowell (playing a sort of evil Charlie Chaplin). It's not only the wonderful chemistry between th two stars that makes the film enjoyable, but it's all the situations that they go thru.

Also a high point in the film is the score by master composer Henry Mancini. Mancini has score most of Director Blake Edwards films, since they first teamed up on the TV show Peter Gunn. Here Mancini shows why he was such a great composer, adaptable to any film genre, his western theme is as good as anything done by Elmer Bernstein and Dimitri Tiomkin, two of the highly regarded composers of western movies.

While parts of the film are a little uneven, and Director Edward should have not casted his daughter Jennifer Edwards in such a crucial role. She was totally miscast as McDowell's sister. She worked much better in Edwards "S.O.B". and "That's Life" and even more in a film not directed by her dad, called "The Perfect Match".

The main reason to watch this film is that it's fun and it's fun watching two legends getting together, I mean both Garner and Willis as well as the real men they portray, Erup and Mix, and remember like the film says, "it's all true give or take a lie or two.

With the Pink Panther franchise mostly behind him - he made one more after this, and it was apparently terrible - Blake Edwards looked at old Hollywood with "Sunset", depicting Wyatt Earp and Tom Mix collaborating to solve a murder. It vacillates between zany comedy and authentic mystery, but managed to hold me attention the whole time. I do agree with a previous reviewer that the movie faltered in its depiction of a character based on Charlie Chaplin. Otherwise, it's a nice, silly way to spend two hours. James Garner was probably used to playing this sort of role, but I suspect that it was a different turn for Bruce Willis. Either way, they play their roles to a tee. A fun movie the whole way through, with Academy Award-nominated costume design. Also starring Malcolm McDowell, Mariel Hemingway, M. Emmet Walsh, and a young Dermot Mulroney.

It's too bad Bryce Willis was cast in this film. Malcolm McDowell is a far better actor than he (Willis) could ever hope to be. McDowell's performance in Stanley Kubrick's "A Clockwork Orange" (1971) is an absolute tour de force. James Garner was superbly talented as well. Skip this garbage.