New true grit vs. old true grit
-
Chaco1942 — 15 years ago(January 14, 2011 08:40 AM)
A recent Hollywood Reporter story made something out of the fact that Jeff Bridges actually rode the horse in the big shootout at the end, while in the earlier version John Wayne was filmed in closeup while riding on a vehicle.
Well, pilgrims, the Duke was 67 years old, had one lung, and was filming at elevations of 9000-10000 feet up in the San Juan mountains of Colorado.while Jeff, at age 60, had both lungs and considerably more eneregy to contribute.
Like I've said before, both versions are quite enjoyable on their own merits. -
csimpkins53 — 15 years ago(January 18, 2011 04:37 PM)
I agree with the points you are making, however I have one correction. The Duke was not 67 when he made True Grit. John Wayne was born on May 26, 1907, therefore he was about 61 when the movie was filmed and about 62 when it was released. Jeff Bridges was born Dec. 4, 1949, therefore he was about 60 when the new True Grit was filmed and about 61 when it was released. John Wayne and Jeff Bridges were very close to the same age when they portrayed Cogburn in their respective "Grit" movies. Your point though concerning The Duke's poor health is certainly correct.
-
MisterGumby — 15 years ago(January 14, 2011 12:12 PM)
I very much agree. I found myself considerably off-put by the ending of the new one. The Duke was right on the money when he talked about the good reasons the screenwriter of the 1969 version had to change the ending.
-
csimpkins53 — 15 years ago(January 17, 2011 10:48 AM)
I agree. I don't like the ending in the 2010 version at all. The 1969 ending was light years better! (Cogburn's discussion with Mattie at her family plot, and Rooster's great jumping of the fence with his new horse)! That's the way to end "True Grit!" I also like the beginning of the 1969 movie much better. The 1969 version has the story of the ponies, the establishing scene of Mattie as bookkeeper, the gold pieces, the father's gun, the theft of said gold pieces and the murder of Mr. Ross acted out by the actors. In the 2010 version all of this is reduced to a very brief and ineffective narration. This is an extremely weak way to begin the movie compared to the 1969 version. However, most everything in-between the beginning and the ending is just fine. My main complaint concerning the "meat" of the movie is that it is sometimes difficult to understand Jeff Bridges' mumbling. Several times during the movie I noticed people all around the theater looking to their seat mate and asking "What did he say?!" My seat mate and I did this as well. More often than not our response to each other was: "I don't know." When the DVD and/or Bluray come out perhaps we will finally understand him by turning on the subtitles! Also, I miss the scene when Cogburn shoots the rat! Another important scene that is missing from the 2010 version is the revealing of J. Noble Daggett! In both versions Mattie goes on and on about what a great lawyer she has in J. Noble Daggett and everyone is suitably intimidated. In the 1969 version Daggett shows up towards the end of the movie and he turns out to be a dorky, wimpy little guy with a high pitched squeaky voice who could not intimidate anyone. Great laugh, What a hoot! The scene with Daggett is sorely missed in the 2010 version.
-
MisterGumby — 15 years ago(January 17, 2011 10:52 AM)
I had the same problems with the speeches! And at least the 1969 version had that funny scene with the rat.
http://www.imdb.com/list/TNxI-Raigt0/
My ever-changing Top 100 Movies -
csimpkins53 — 15 years ago(January 19, 2011 09:20 AM)
Oh yes, the rat! I miss that scene in the new version as well. Also the scene towards the end of the original when "lawyer Daggett" appears. All through the movie (the original as well as the new) Mattie goes on and on about what a great lawyer she has in Daggett. Then, in the original movie, he finally shows up in the end and is portrayed as a wimpy, dorky little guy. What a hoot! This scene is sorely missed in the 2010 version!
-
-
csimpkins53 — 15 years ago(January 19, 2011 10:06 AM)
Oh yes, the rat. I miss that scene in the 2010 version as well. Another thing I miss in the new version is the Lawyer Daggett. In both versions Mattie goes on and on about what a great lawyer she has in "J. Noble Daggett." In the original he shows up towards the end of the movie as a dorky, wimpy little guy with a high-pitched squeaky voice. What a hoot! This scene is sorely missed in the 2010 version!
-
misspaddylee — 15 years ago(January 17, 2011 01:26 PM)
My main complaint concerning the "meat" of the movie is that it is sometimes difficult to understand Jeff Bridges' mumbling. Several times during the movie I noticed people all around the theater looking to their seat mate and asking "What did he say?!"
A common complaint leading to some funny stuff:
http://blog.collegehumor.com/post/2640374274/true-grit-with-sub-titles -hes-a-man-with-true
"Madame meets many people, but she usually avoids the mad ones." -
CheeryToes — 15 years ago(January 27, 2011 06:26 AM)
I have not seen the new one, based of course on it feeling like sacrilege and that even in the commercials for the new one I kept saying to myself, "what did he say?" when JB spokeplus I don't know if he says it, but every time I see the commercials all I can hear is John Wayne yelling "fill your hands you sons of bitches!" can't bring myself to hearing anyone else saying anything even close.
"I jumped off a roof for you" -
Trismegistos4 — 15 years ago(February 11, 2011 10:13 PM)
"I couldn't understand a think Bridges said either. Both movies are good, but if I hadda pick, it's the old one"
Your grammar indicates that you should have been able to comprehend the ramblings of Rooster Cogburn. -
rileyrott — 15 years ago(March 16, 2011 02:52 AM)
John Wayne pulled all of his past roles together to play Rooster perfectly! I just watched the original again last night in Blu-Ray and was reminded what a great actor can do with the perfect part. To say "what a dud" shows no insight to Wayne's career or the roles he has played over the years. John Wayne NAILED Rooster Cogburn, hands down!
-
joegerardi-1 — 9 years ago(October 30, 2016 08:53 PM)
By this banal and trite statement it's obvious you've hardly ever seen any John Wayne movies.
It's not for nothing that directors like Stephen Spielberg think The Searchers a masterpiece; that many people believe Wayne's Oscar should have come for Red River; that his nuanced and subtle performance in She Wore a Yellow Ribbon is considered his best by many. And that's just the short list.
But you go on- continue to spout off the old "always the same character" line. Free speech and all
..Joe -
lakealice — 15 years ago(March 03, 2011 09:24 AM)
I agree that the "old" one is much, much better, particularly the beginning and end. The 1969 version ends on a cinematic note you never forgetCogburn jumping the fence on his horse and riding off, fullfilling the title. That makes it a MOVIE!
The new version's end seemed sour and half-hearted to me. I would never want to see it again. I thought the Coens were trying hard to teach us a lesson about the futility and awful price to pay for seeking revenge and that when people get killed it's not a pretty sight. That is true in real life, but it doen't make a great movie. We don't want to be taught lessonswe want to see stirring scenes, combined with music, clearly spoken great dialogue and unforgettable characters. All of that is in the 1969 version.
I thought Kim Darby was much better in the role than the actress in the new one, who I thought was stiff, wooden and forgettable. I thought the new version was pretty boring up until the snake pit scene, when all of a sudden there was some compelling action. In contrast, the old version has abundant action and characters with depth.
Of course, it has old-fashioned color, and a lot of people get killed and Mattie wounded, and the Coens want us to be sure to realize how bad that old Western code of revenge was, and they don't want us to sugar-coat it but see it for how it really wasand, phooey, it's still a great stirring classic MOVIE, which I doubt that this new mumblecore version will be. -
Rey_Kahuka — 15 years ago(January 30, 2011 07:02 AM)
I thought they were both great. The original is a little dated at this point, but the story, scenery, characters and dialog more than make up for it. People have the tendency to watch older films through a modern lens, and you can't always do that. I think the original Grit, though dated, still holds up pretty well. The remake is just as good for its time as the original was for its time.