|
|
Post by vegalyra on Jul 9, 2018 20:43:10 GMT
Any opinions?
I finally got around to see the 2010 version and I liked it very much. I'm still a little partial to the Wayne version, but it's an excellent version.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheGoodMan19 on Jul 9, 2018 20:55:45 GMT
Like the 2010 better. I did like the Wayne version. But the Coen Brothers version was much darker. And I thought Hallie Stenfield (sp?) was much, much better that Kim Darby. I would have left irritating Kim down the snake pit. The actors. the cinematography and the ending were the only differences. The dialogue was too similar. It's disconcerting to see a film you have never watched and be able to quote the dialogue.
|
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Jul 9, 2018 21:13:01 GMT
I don't usually care much for re-makes but TRUE GRIT worked.
Watched them as a double feature and actually enjoyed seeing the similarities and was not distracted by the differences.
Hallie worked better partly because she was almost the right age for the role... Kim was a tad too old to be playing what was supposed to be a young teen.
Both versions :recommended !
another good "set" is 3:10 to Yuma , imo .
|
|
maxwellperfect
Junior Member
@maxwellperfect
Posts: 3,966
Likes: 1,683
|
Post by maxwellperfect on Jul 9, 2018 21:15:12 GMT
2010 version is a clear favorite. I don't mind the John Wayne version, but it's very different in some ways.
|
|
|
|
Post by drystyx on Jul 9, 2018 21:27:24 GMT
Because it was almost a carbon copy of the original, the remake was especially good.
In fact, easily and undeniably the best of the Coen movies, which I agree isn't saying much. It's the only Coen movie that a sane person can rate over 4/10, and one of two that can be ranked over 1/10.
I don't have the slightest idea what one poster is thinking when he says one is darker than the other. Both are equal in "dark" attitude. That's the point of the film, the level of darkness. If anything the original is darker. There is absolutely no compassion from characters in the original. There's more in the remake by a smidgeon.
The remake has one good bit which gives a bit of historical accuracy by most accounts to the characters of Frank James and Cole Younger. Cole was supposed to be a bit more amiable, and Frank the creep that the film depicted. That addition was the best part of the remake.
I like the original more because of iconic nature of certain bits, such as the "one eyed fat man", the rough kidding with the Texas Ranger, and Kim Darby's character was just a bit more authentic 19th century than the newer version, though the Coen team did keep to more authenticity of 19th century characters than the idiots who did Tombstone and other such nonsense.
I give 1969 version a 8.3/10 and the 2010 version a 7.6/10
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Jul 9, 2018 21:56:06 GMT
I really didn't care for the John Wayne original. I found Kim Darby and Glen Campbell both annoying.
|
|
