...and that's the way it really happened.
- Tom Mix: "How many men you killed?"
- Wyatt Earp: "How many cars you got?"
- Mix: "About sixteen."
- Earp: "You got more cars."

Did you know that, in the early days of cinema (circa late 1920s), fabled frontier marshall Wyatt Earp came to Hollywood to act as a cowboy movie consultant, but that he ended up solving a murder mystery? And with a little help from legendary silent western film star Tom Mix? Dudes, hunker down and sip a rusty cuppa nostalgia, and let this movie tell you all about it.

SUNSET, when released in 1988, didn't do diddly in the box office. The film critics pretty much unanimously took a stinky squat over it. Me, I've always liked it. Even now, after repeated viewings, I still enjoy the thrill and onrush of nostalgia at seeing two larger-than-life characters meeting up and running roughshod over vintage Tinseltown. That Wyatt Earp was actually a Hollywood technical advisor is true. That Earp and Mix were friends also seems to be true. But that they became tangled up in a murder case, well, that just may be stretching a good story. But who doesn't enjoy a tall tale or three?

SUNSET is a mixed bag of genres. It's an authentic looking period piece. It's a seamy murder mystery. At times it's a comedy. And, let there be no doubt, it's most surely a western. In fact, traditional elements of the oater abound in this film. The trusty horse. The girl singing in the saloon. The barroom dust-up. The deadly shootouts. At the end, Earp and Mix manage to serve up a heaping of frontier justice and ride off into the sunset.

Writer/director Blake Edwards had originally wanted Robert Duvall to play Tom Mix, but didn't have enough green in the budget. So the part went to Bruce Willis, who back in the late '80s, was still an up-and-coming film actor. So, even though Bruce gets top billing, he actually plays second fiddle to Garner. I don't know if Tom Mix was actually this flashy and stylish in real life - his wardrobe is, whatchamacallit, cowboy sartorial - but Bruce Willis pulls off the role with easy-going panache. But I was actually hoping he'd yell out his patented "Yi-pee-ki-yay, m@^&*$%s!"

But, don't get it twisted, Garner owns the film (and, in fact, gets more camera time than Willis). James Garner is an actor who's handled his weathered years with grace and dignity (he was around 60 when SUNSET came out). And he is perfectly suited for these types of roles (in fact, he's played Earp before, in Hour of the Gun). As the Tombstone marshall, Garner exudes hard-earned experience and steely competence. He's no-nonsense and straight-talking, and I found it wholly believable that even the self-absorbed lords and ladies of Hollywood would pause before effing with him. A fish out of water, but a self-assured fish, Earp's restrained but amused reactions to his strange surroundings are worth waiting for. More than anyone else, James Garner lends the film its substance and credibility. I love this guy to death, man.

It's not a perfect film. In fact, I'm curious to see how closely Blake Edwards adapted this film from Rod Amateau's original mystery novel. As Earp and Mix rubbed elbows with the glamourous glitterati and navigated thru Tinseltown's dirty underbelly, and even as they crossed paths with crooked cops, hoods with names like "Dutch," and even one sadistic movie producer, I couldn't help but wish, fleetingly, that Blake Edwards had dreamed on a larger cinematic scope. SUNSET, regretfully, is a picture of which vision isn't compromised whenever presented on the telly in a full screen format. To me, that's sad. As it is, the film's modest scale, its pedestrian mystery, and the sometimes plodding pace serve to bring the film down a notch or two.

Another flaw is that the climax lacks that action-packed oomph. A showdown with the bad guys at the Academy Awards, and Wyatt Earp doesn't even slap leather. Then follow that up at the pier with Tom Mix's weak brawl with the evil clown. I expected more from these two dudes of action. As a fan of sagebrush shoot-em-ups, I did feel let down.

Still, SUNSET is very watchable and often entertaining. It offers several highlight set pieces, my top choices being Tom Mix's trick riding and Malcolm McDowell's very nicely executed "act" at the first ever annual Academy Awards. But what I relish best is the easy camaraderie between James Garner and Bruce Willis. This rapport translates well to the screen, as Earp and Mix, being kindred spirits, form a rapid friendship, perhaps on the basis of commonality. Both have over time evolved into creatures of notoriety and, partly, of fabrication. Both wryly acknowledge this and have learned to live with it. As the aging lawman tells the celluloid trick rider: "...you and I, we're a whole lot alike. Part fact, and just enough fiction to sell newspapers."

Dudes, I got love for old movies. Back in '88, SUNSET piqued my interest with its recreation of cinema's golden age era. It became an easy must-see for me when I learned of the irresistible premise and that Garner and Willis would partner up. Notwithstanding all the snideness from the movie critics, this is a film well worth a look. And the movie critics, they can just go squat.

Sunset
Watch Video Here: http://www.amazon.com/review/R1AW2NVM0PJGO

And that's the truth, give or take a lie or two
"Sunset" is one of the best 'odd couple' films I've ever seen. Bruce Willis (Tom Mix) and James Garner (Wyatt Earp) work together beautifully. And the story could be the truth 'give or take a lie or two.' Mix was one of Earp's pallbearers and wept openly at his funeral.

"Sunset's" a funny and heartrending take on Hollywood. You see deadly gunfights acted out with the old gunfighter watching from the wings. You also see cruelty, corruption and sadism in real life that couldn't have taken place in films of that vintage.

My main reason for giving this film less than a 5 is because the video and audio were very poorly dubbed. I'm not entirely sure whether I got a bad press or the whole batch is like this, but it was apparent and distracting from the film itself.

Still, "Sunset" is very worth watching and keeping for your viewing pleasure again.

Big disappointment
Comedy/mystery/western based on the fictional pairing of old west lawman Wyatt Earp (James Garner) and movie star Tom Mix (Bruce Willis) in 1929 Hollywood. Producer, and ex-silent film comedian Alfie Alperin (Malcolm McDowell) convinces Mix to star in a film biography of Earp, and Earp is hired on as a technical advisor. Soon, however, Alperin is revealed to be less of a benevolent studio head than his reputation would lead one to believe, and Mix and Earp find themselves dangerously involved in a burgeoning murder mystery.

Despite its less than sterling rep I was looking forward to watching SUNSET (1988). It reteams Garner with director Blake Edward, with whom he'd collaborated on the wonderful `Victor/Victoria' in 1982. And it has Garner reprising a role he'd played in 1967's `The Hour of the Gun.' I have to admit I'm not much of a fan of Willis, but he doesn't normally drag down a movie. Willis doesn't hurt this movie, either, but neither the good chemistry he has with Garner, nor Garner's charm, can breathe much life into it, either. Maybe `life' is the wrong word. Although this is billed as a comedy, there's not a whole lot to laugh at. McDowell plays a psychopath who gets off on intimidating everyone and especially seems to enjoy beating up women. It's hard to warm up to a comedy with this type of physical violence in it, unless it's Inspector Clouseau engaging in a slapstick fight with his Asian valet. If you have a man beating up a bunch of frail women in a movie I'm probably not going to like it. Here the violence just seems mean, and left a real sour taste in my mouth. If you stick with this movie through the final act you'll discover the murder mystery was a bit of a cheat, too. Mysteries are ALWAYS easy to solve when someone leaves a Letter that pretty much tells you who did what when.

As far as I'm concerned Garner has always been an underrated actor, and he does dominate SUNSET, but even Garner's charm can only carry a movie so far. Willis is likeable, Marial Hemingway appropriately tough/vulnerable as the cathouse proprietress with a secret. Even McDowell is good, even though his character is too realistically depraved for this movie. In fact, the violence embodied and practiced by McDowell's character effectively washes away whatever rosy glow Garner and Willis try to create. If you can overlook or aren't bothered by the nasty stuff SUNSET might work better for you than it did for me. I thought it was a disappointing misfire, and don't recommend it.

Borderline
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.