|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Jul 8, 2017 3:55:43 GMT
If you are really fond of True Grit (1969) (and even if you are not) it's more than safe to take a look at True Grit (2010).I am always a bit apprehensive about watching the latest version of a film I have really enjoyed but, imo, the newer one also does a great job of telling the story and does it justice without embarrassing itself in comparison with the older film. There are enough similarities between the films to get an occasional feeling of deja vu and enough differences to feel "hey, cool new take on the story!" What actual violence there was, was quick and not really too graphic. There was zero cussing ! ZERO ! That in itself was amazing. Ok, the "fill your hands , you s.o.a.b." line was still there, but that does not count. Seeing Strother Martin being somewhat cloned by Dakin Matthews as the horse trader was fascinating. The "new" music is a enjoyable without being intrusive. For some reason, one of the local channels played both versions back-to-back all day on Father's Day. Apparently they felt that nothing says "Father's Day quite like True Grit."  If you've put off seeing Jeff Bridge's Rooster Cogburn, it's worth a look and maybe two. It was fun in the 'old fashioned Westerns fun way', and that's my story and I'm sticking to it. |
|
|
|
Post by bravomailer on Jul 8, 2017 4:06:02 GMT
Never liked the original True Grit. Just a routine oater. John Wayne well after his prime. In fact I was never able to sit through it until I set my mind to it after seeing the Coens' remake.
Hathaway shows Mattie as a happy young girl after the ordeal. Just part of growing up. The Coens show her quite differently and ask how in the world could audiences think a young person who'd seen so much violence not be warped.
I rank the 2010 True Grit as one of the finest westerns ever made.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikef6 on Jul 8, 2017 4:20:14 GMT
Here was my initial reaction to the new "Grit." I haven't changed my position.
I shouldn’t have watched this remake to start with but I talked myself into it with the old how-can-you-judge-it-if-you-haven’t-seen-it nonsense. Yes, it is a remake. There were the usual protestations of “going back to the original novel,” but the 1969 classic was very close to the novel to begin with. The new movie couldn’t get much closer. I predicted from the trailers that this would be almost a shot-for-shot remake and that is what is turned out to be. The father’s death, Mattie trading with Stonehill, crossing the river on Little Blackie, Rooster’s story about his marriage and son, taking the two outlaws at the cabin, Mattie meeting Chaney at the river…I could go on. Henry Hathaway, John Wayne and Kim Darby had already been there. The Coens just don’t bring anything new. Sure, Haille Steinfeld was very good and Matt Damon was beyond excellent, giving LeBoeuf a proud dignity (poor Glenn Campbell). But the usually fine Jeff Bridges could not find a character so let an ugly beard and gravelly whiskey voice do his acting for him. To me (I understand I am a minority of one), this “True Grit” is exactly what people mean when they talk about unnecessary remakes. It makes me think that the Coen Bros are running out of inspiration and personal creativity. After all, this isn't the first remake of a classic movie they have undertaken.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jonesy1 on Jul 8, 2017 9:32:10 GMT
I have to say that I enjoyed them both equally.
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Jul 8, 2017 14:04:25 GMT
I much prefer the remake.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lebowskidoo 🦞 on Jul 8, 2017 15:44:29 GMT
I read the book back before the remake was released, then I watched the original and remake back-to-back. The remake seemed more realistic in many ways, the original was so "Hollywoodized" to me, but that might just be that Wayne is now an icon but back then he was a living, breathing person. Some things left out of the 1969 version were in the 2010 version, that doesn't make it better or worse, but having read the book, you notice these things. I liked them both. This thread has reminded me I never did get around to seeing the sequel, Rooster Cogburn, with Wayne and Katharine Hepburn.
|
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Jul 8, 2017 18:12:22 GMT
I failed to mention a character who appeared briefly (VERY Briefly) in the 2010 True Grit. Listed in the cast as "Bear Man " played by Ed Corbin he is indeed a wonder to behold and to hear. Ed's delivery is just what one would imagine a "Bear Man", who no doubt rarely sees human beings or speaks out loud, to sound like. ! It was little changes like this aided the story telling and struck me as very special that made this new adaptation such a pleasure for me without deviation all that much from the original.  |
|
|
|
Post by petrolino on Jul 8, 2017 19:44:43 GMT
I have the remake on dvd, just not got round to watching it yet.
|
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Jul 9, 2017 11:36:42 GMT
petrolinoIf you can, try to watch it as a "stand alone" with no plans to compare, contrast etc. Worked for me ! 
|
|
|
|
Post by mcavanaugh on Jul 9, 2017 11:46:25 GMT
I watched both films back to back some years ago. I prefer the remake which may be due to the fact that I'm not a big fan of John Wayne's. I'm with you there, Julie. I've never liked John Wayne either (he gives new meaning to the term "wooden acting"), and I watch only those films that also feature other actors that I like. The original "True Grit" has Robert Duvall and Strother Martin, two actors whose work I've always enjoyed. When I was in my teens and 20s, I watched a lot of American western films, but I've lost my taste for them over the years, so I haven't seen the more recent version with Jeff Bridges. |
|
|
|
Post by bravomailer on Jul 9, 2017 14:16:19 GMT
I thought Barry Pepper was imitating/paying homage to Robert Duvall's performance as the same character in the original - Ned Pepper.
Quirky that Matt Damon and Barry Pepper were both in Saving Private Ryan. Pepper plays a prayerful sniper in SPR and in True Grit Damon says a brief prayer before he shoots Pepper from long range.
|
|
|
|
Post by taranofprydain on Jul 12, 2017 15:13:20 GMT
I saw the 2010 version first, and then I saw the 1969 version over a year later. I truly did like the John Wayne version, it was a very solid film and both he and Kim Darby were wonderful. And the whole production looked fatastic and was well handled. But, I must admit, I found the 2010 film to be more entrancing. It just quietly sat there and wove a magical spell. Hailee Steinfeld was perfectly cast, and Jeff Bridges did a wonderful new take on the role. Everything just aligned perfectly in the 2010 film. I think that it is the Coen brothers' best film and one of my favorites.
|
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Jul 20, 2017 1:28:15 GMT
I watched the Grits with someone who is not "into" films and they enjoyed both versions. Thought I would share that info for anyone who was a bit reluctant to watch either one for one reason or other.
Having, like many, been a lifelong fan of Wayne (the actor) I never understand the dislike for his acting but therein lies another subject for another thread and another day.
Enjoyed the notes. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by Spike Del Rey on Jul 20, 2017 18:55:58 GMT
I much preferred the remake, not a big fan of Westerns in general and specifically Wayne's with the exception of Rio Bravo.
|
|
|
|
Post by taylorfirst1 on Jul 20, 2017 20:25:09 GMT
I've seen the original many many times over many years. I saw the remake in the theater when it came out. Hailee Steinfeld was very good and I've been a fan of hers ever since. Matt Damon was fine as was most of the rest of the cast. Jeff Bridges, I think went over board and Made Rooster Cogburn too much of a basket case. Also, I could barely understand a word he said. Overall, the remake is a good movie.
The original, however, is far better. It's a real classic. Kim Darby was the worst part of the original. She was just too annoying. But John Wayne, Strother Martin and the rest of the cast were top notch. The film captured the sprawling wild west in glorious technicolor and it was gorgeous. Also, the chemistry between all of the actors was better in the original.
BTW, I've also read the book.
|
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Jul 20, 2017 21:48:01 GMT
taylorfirst1My only real problem with the new version was that Jeff was so darn hard to understand. Good lines and lost in that growly way of talking. No one commented on that wonderful Bear Man character (photo earlier in the thread  )
|
|
|
|
Post by taylorfirst1 on Jul 20, 2017 21:51:41 GMT
The Bear Man was just really strange. I think it added something to the movie, I'm just not sure what.
|
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Jul 20, 2017 21:54:16 GMT
taylorfirst1I don't know what either but he sure made me sit up and take notice ! I wanted to see MORE of that character !
|
|
|
|
Post by london777 on Jul 20, 2017 23:40:05 GMT
I much prefer the later version. I see it as an excellent character-driven drama. I do not generally like westerns and I like John Wayne even less. I have the Coens' version in my collection and will watch it every two or three years. The only Wayne film I ever wanted to watch twice was The Searchers.
|
|
)